FINAL REPORT Initial assessment of the Norway sandeel, pout and North Sea sprat fishery
Norges Fiskarlag
Report No.: 2017-008, Rev 3 Date: January 2nd 2018 Certificate code: 251453-2017-AQ-NOR-ASI
Report type: Final Report DNV GL – Business Assurance Report title: Initial assessment of the Norway sandeel, pout and North Sea sprat fishery DNV GL Business Assurance Customer: Norges Fiskarlag, Pirsenteret, Norway AS 7462 TRONDHEIM Veritasveien 1 Contact person: Tor Bjørklund Larsen 1322 HØVIK, Norway Date of issue: January 2nd 2018 Tel: +47 67 57 99 00 Project No.: PRJC -557210 -2016 -MSC -NOR http://www.dnvgl.com Organisation unit: ZNONO418 Report No.: 2017-008, Rev 3 Certificate No.: 251453-2017-AQ-NOR-ASI
Objective: Assessment of the Norway sandeel, pout and North Sea sprat fishery against MSC Fisheries Standards v2.0. Prepared by: Verified by:
Lucia Revenga Sigrun Bekkevold Team Leader and P2 Expert Principle Consultant
Hans Lassen P1 Expert
Geir Hønneland P3 Expert
Stefan Midteide Project Manager
Copyright © DNV GL 2014. All rights reserved. This publication or parts thereof may not be copied, reproduced or transmitted in any form, or by any means, whether digitally or otherwise without the prior written consent of DNV GL. DNV GL and the Horizon Graphic are trademarks of DNV GL AS. The content of this publication shall be kept confidential by the customer, unless otherwise agreed in writing. Reference to part of this publication which may lead to misinterpretation is prohibited. DNV GL Distribution: ☒ Unrestricted distribution (internal and external) ☐ Unrestricted distribution within DNV GL ☐ Limited distribution within DNV GL after 3 years ☐ No distribution (confidential) ☐ Secret
Rev. No. Date Reason for Issue Prepared by Verified by
0 2017-04-21 Preliminary Draft Report for Client review
1 2017-06-08 Peer Review Draft Report 2 2017-09-15 Public Comment Draft Report
3 2018-01-02 Final Report
[yyyy-mm-dd] Public Certification Report
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page i
Table of contents
ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS ...... 1
STOCK ASSESSMENT ACRONYMS AND REFERENCE POINTS ...... 2
MSC ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS...... 2
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 3 1.1 Main strengths and weaknesses of the client’s operation 3 1.2 Determination 4
2 AUTHORSHIP AND PEER REVIEWERS ...... 5 2.1 Peer reviewers 6
3 DESCRIPTION OF THE FISHERY ...... 7 3.1 Units of Assessment (UoA) and scope of certification sought 7 3.2 Overview of the fishery 12 3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background 17 3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background 36 3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background 14
4 EVALUATION PROCEDURE...... 18 4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment 18 4.2 Previous assessments 19 4.3 Assessment Methodologies 19 4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques 21
5 TRACEABILITY ...... 26 5.1 Eligibility Date 26 5.2 Traceability within the Fishery 26 5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody 29 5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody 30
6 EVALUATION RESULTS ...... 30 6.1 Principle Level Scores 30 6.2 Summary of PI Level Scores 31 6.3 Summary of Conditions 34 6.4 Recommendations 34 6.5 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement 35
REFERENCES ...... 35
APPENDIX 1 SCORING AND RATIONALES ...... 41 Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale 41 Principle 1 – Evaluation tables 41 Principle 2 UoC 1-3 - – Evaluation tables 63 Principle 2 UoC 4, 5 - – Evaluation tables 103 Principle 2 UoC 6-8 144 Principle 3 – Evaluation tables 187
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page ii
APPENDIX 2 RISK BASED FRAMEWORK (RBF) ...... 209
APPENDIX 3 CONDITIONS ...... 214
APPENDIX 4 PEER REVIEW REPORTS ...... 221
APPENDIX 5 STAKEHOLDER SUBMISSIONS ...... 222
APPENDIX 6 SURVEILLANCE FREQUENCY ...... 223
APPENDIX 7 OBJECTIONS PROCESS ...... 224
APPENDIX 8 VESSEL LIST ...... 225
APPENDIX 9 CLIENT AGREEMENT ...... 226
Figure 1 Distribution of Norwegian fishery for sandeel ...... 13 Figure 2 Distribution of Norwegian fishery for Norway pout ...... 14 Figure 3 Distribution of Norwegian fishery for sprat ...... 14 Figure 4: Assessment areas for North Sea sand eel ...... 15 Figure 5 Drawings of fishing gears ...... 16 Figure 6 Overview of the ICES advisory process for recurrent advice ...... 18 Figure 7: Species compositions of sandeels in commercial landings by sampling areas...... 20 Figure 8 Assessment areas for North Sea sand eel (A. marinus)...... 22 Figure 9 Stock indicators for Sandeel stocks in the North Sea...... 24 Figure 10 Norway pout in Subarea IV and Division IIIa...... 28 Figure 11 Norway pout in Subarea IV and Division IIIa...... 29 Figure 12 Sprat in Subarea 4. State of the stock and fishery relative to reference points...... 32 Figure 13 Sprat in Subarea 4. Estimated landings, recruitment, fishing mortality, and spawning-stock biomass from the stock assessment ...... 33 Figure 14: Spawning stock biomass for blue whiting ...... 40 Figure 15: Fishing pressure for blue whiting ...... 40 Figure 16: Status of the blue whiting stock against its reference points...... 40 Figure 17: Sandeel fishing grounds for the Norwegian fleet in 2016...... 1 Figure 18: Norway pout fishing grounds for the Norwegian fleet in 2016...... 1 Figure 19: Sprat fishing grounds for the Norwegian fleet in 2016...... 1 Figure 20: Major substrates on the shelf in the Greater North Sea...... 1 Figure 21: EU Natura 2000 Marine Protected Habitats (in blue) in EU jurisdiction...... 3 Figure 22: OSPAR map for threatened or declining habitats. Source: OSPAR Commission...... 4 Figure 23: Vulnerable habitats and protected areas as identified in the MAREANO Program maps...... 4 Figure 24: a. Bathymetry of the North Sea...... 5 Figure 25: Significant interactions in the North Sea ecosystem, modelled using statistical tGAMs...... 7 Figure 26: Species present in the North Sea and trophic level of each species in the North Sea trophic chain...... 8 Figure 27: Selectivity index for the targeted species...... 9 Figure 28: Quantity of fish (in tonnes) consumed by predators and fished...... 10 Figure 29: Mortality caused on fish groups by the main predator and the fisheries (shown in the x-axis)...... 10 Figure 30: Structure of mortality: ...... 11 Figure 31 Proportion of the diet consisting of sandeel for different predatory fish...... 13 Figure 32 The assessment tree structure...... 20 Figure 33: Official landing facilities in Norway...... 27
Table 1: Assessment team ...... 3 Table 2: Assessment timeline ...... 3 Table 3 Conditions for certification and suggested recommendation ...... 4 Table 4 Assessment team ...... 5 Table 5 Peer reviewers ...... 6 Table 6 Proposed Unit(s) of Certification at the start of the certificate ...... 9 Table 7: Units of certification under assessment and assessment result ...... 10
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page iii
Table 8 TAC and catch data for sandeel ...... 11 Table 9 TAC and catch data for Norway pout ...... 11 Table 10 TAC and catch data for sprat ...... 11 Table 11 Client contact data ...... 12 Table 12 Catches of Norway pout, Sprat and sand eel ...... 13 Table 13 Sand eel species in the North Sea ...... 19 Table 14 Norwegian Acoustic survey...... 21 Table 15 ICES stock areas for sand eel assessment...... 22 Table 16 Sandeel stocks in the North Sea...... 23 Table 17 Status of sandeel stock components in the North Sea based on biomass reference points...... 23 Table 18 Norway pout in Subarea IV and Division IIIa...... 28 Table 19 Sprat in Subarea 4. Reference points, values, and their technical basis...... 31 Table 20: Catch composition of the sandeel fishery (UoC 1-3) for 2016...... 36 Table 21: Catch composition of the Norway pout fishery (UoC 4 and UoC 5) for 2016...... 37 Table 22: Catch composition of the sprat fishery (UoC 6, UoC 7 and UoC 8) for 2016...... 37 Table 23: Main primary and secondary species for the different UoCs...... 38 Table 24: Minor primary and secondary species for each UoC...... 38 Table 25: ETP species for the Norwegian fleet in the North Sea...... 42 Table 26 Overlapping fisheries ...... 18 Table 27 Assessment methodologies ...... 19 Table 28: Site visits conducted and key issues discussed...... 21 Table 29: Consultations at different stages of the assessment...... 22 Table 30: Scoring elements for all UoC...... 24 Table 31: Traceability risk factors within the fishery ...... 27 Table 32: Eligibility to enter further chains of custody...... 29 Table 33: Final Principle scores for each UoC...... 30 Table 34: Principle level scores for the different UoC in the sandeel fishery ...... 31 Table 35: Principle level scores for the different UoC in the Norway pout fishery ...... 32 Table 36: Principle level scores for the different UoC in the sprat fishery...... 33 Table 37 Summary of Conditions ...... 34 Table 38 Principle 1 CA Scoring Template - Lesser Sand eel (A. marinus)...... 211 Table 39: CA Scoring - Great Sand eel (H. lanceolatus)...... 212 Table 40 Condition 1 (HCR) ...... 214 Table 41: Condition 2 ...... 215 Table 42 Surveillance level rationale...... 223 Table 43 Timing of surveillance audit ...... 223 Table 44 Fishery Surveillance Program ...... 223
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page iv
ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS
ACOM Advisory Committee on fisheries Management (ICES) BT Bottom trawl CAB Conformity Assessment Body CFP Common Fisheries Policy CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora DFPO Danish Fishermen’s Producers Organization DPPO Danish Pelagic Producer Organization DNV GL Det Norske Veritas Germanischer Lloyd EC European Commission EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EMODnet European Marine Observation and Data Network ERS Electronic Recording and Reporting System ETP Endangered, threatened and protected species EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization GT Gross Tonnage HCR Harvest Control Rule HERAS International acoustic survey in the North Sea, West of Scotland and Malin Shelf is collectively known as the HERAS survey program IBTS International Bottom Trawl Survey. Bottom trawl survey covering the North Sea and adjacent waters IBWSS International Blue Whiting Spawning Stock Survey ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea ICJ International Court of Justice IESNS International Ecosystem Survey in the Nordic Seas ISBF Introduced Species Based Fisheries ITQ Individual Transferable Quota ITLOS International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature IWC International Whale Commission LTMS Long-Term Management Strategy MCS Monitoring, Control and Surveillance IMR Marine Research Institute (of Norway) NAMMCO North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission NEAFC The North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission NEA North-East Atlantic NE North East NFA Norwegian Fishermen’s Association NGO Non-Governmental Organisation OSPAR Oslo-Paris Convention (Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic) PAC Pelagic Advisory Council PCA Permanent Court of Arbritation PS Purse seine PT Pelagic trawl RAC Regional Advisory Council RSW Refrigerated Sea Water SAM State-Space Assessment Model [ICES fish stock assessment model] SESAM Seasonal SMS stock assessment method [ICES fish stock assessment model] SFSAG Scottish Fisheries Sustainable Acreditation Group SIMWG Stock Identification Methods Working Group (ICES) STECF EU Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee on Fisheries TAC Total Allowable Catch TBC To be confirmed UK United Kingdom UN United Nations UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 1
UNFSA United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement VMS Vessel Monitoring System VPA Virtual Population Analysis WGIPS Working Group on International Pelagic Surveys (ICES) WGWIDE Working Group on Widely Distributed Stocks (ICES) WGNPBW Working Group on Northern Pelagic and Blue Whiting Fisheries (ICES) WKBWMSE Workshop on the blue whiting long-term management strategy evaluation (ICES) WWF World Wildlife Fund
STOCK ASSESSMENT ACRONYMS AND REFERENCE POINTS Blim Minimum biomass below which recruitment is expected to be impaired or the stock dynamics are unknown. BMSY Biomass corresponding to the maximum sustainable yield (biological reference point); the peak value on a domed yield-per-recruit curve. Bpa Precautionary biomass below which SSB should not be allowed to fall to safeguard it against falling to Blim. Btrigger Value of spawning stock biomass (SSB) that triggers a specific management action. CI Confidence Interval Cpue Catch per unit effort: The quantity of fish caught (in number or in weight) with one standard unit of fishing effort; e.g. number of fish taken per 1000 hooks per day or weight of fish taken per hour of trawling. Cpue is often considered an index of fish biomass (or abundance). Sometimes referred to as catch rate. F Instantaneous rate of fishing mortality Fcap Maximum fishing mortality accepted for calculation of advised TAC Flim Limit reference point for fishing mortality (mean over defined age range) Fpa Precautionary buffer to preclude true fishing mortality being at Flim when the perceived fishing mortality is at Fpa. Fmax F where total yield or yield per recruit is highest (biological reference point) FMSY F giving maximum sustainable yield (biological reference point) HCR Harvest Control Rules MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield MSY B escapement Minimum biomass required to produce MSY with high probability MSY B trigger Precautionary biomass level at which the management plan initiates specific harvest control rules to minimise the risk of further decline in biomass and concomitant risk to recruitment. SSB Spawning Stock Biomass TAC Total Allowable Catch yr Year MSC ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS CAB Conformity Assessment Body CR Certification Requirements ETP Endangered, Threatened and Protected species FCR Fisheries Certification Requirements LTL Low Trophic Level (species) MSC Marine Stewardship Council PI Performance Indicator P1 Principle 1 P2 Principle 2 P3 Principle 3 SG Scoring Guidepost SI Scoring Issue UoA Unit of Assessment UoC Unit of Certification VME Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 2
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report provides information on the initial assessment of the Norway sandeel, pout, and North Sea sprat fisheries against Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Fisheries Standard.
The client is ‘Norges Fiskarlag’ on behalf of Norwegian fishers. The report is prepared by DNV GL for Norges Fiskarlag. The assessment covers three different species (Norway sandeel, pout and North Sea sprat) taken by different gears (bottom, midwater or pelagic trawl) in eight different UoCs.
The assessment was carried out using MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements and Guidance v2.0. For the assessment, the default assessment tree was used.
The fishery attained a score of 80 or more against each of the MSC Principles and did not score less than 60 against any of the individual MSC Criteria. Scope of certification is up to the point of landing and chain of custody commences from point of sale.
The list of vessels covered by this assessment is shown in Annex 6.
Tables 1 and 2 show assessment team members and assessment timeline.
Table 1: Assessment team Role Name Team leader: Lucia Revenga Principle 1 expert: Hans Lassen Principle 2 expert: Lucia Revenga Principle 3 expert: Geir Hønneland DNV GL project manager and Chain of custody responsible: Stefan Midteide
Table 2: Assessment timeline Event Date Announcement of initial assessment: 13.12.2016 Site visit and stakeholder consultations: 31.01-1.02.2017 Publication of Public Certification Report <…> Eligibility date: The date of the Public Comment Draft Report, 2017-09-11.
1.1 Main strengths and weaknesses of the client’s operation
1.1.1 Main strengths Principle Performance Comment Indicator Principle 1 PI 1.1.1 The sandeel stock is managed through ICES advice and quotas for 7 areas in the North Sea and this should prevent local depletion of the sandeel stock. This assessment only considers sand eel stocks in 3 of these areas. Principle 2 Outcome PIs The sandeel and the sprat fisheries show very clean catch compositions, with more than 96% of the catch being the targeted species. As regards the Norway pout fishery, 72% of the catch is the targeted Norway pout. Landing obligation facilitates the follow up of possible impacts to other species. Principle 3 PI 3.2.3 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s management measures are enforced and complied with.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 3
1.1.2 Main weaknesses Principle Performance Comment Indicator Principle 1 PI 1.2.2 All stocks lack of a multiannual management plan. HCR are not well defined. Principle 2 PI 2.4.1 The Norway pout fishery VMS records overlap with an area were and2.4.2 seapens are abundant. As the Norway pout fishery includes two different UoC, with pelagic gear and also bottom trawl gear, it could be the case of intense trawling on top of those seapens. Principle 3 None relevant.
1.2 Determination PCR: formal statement from decision making entity]
The Norway sandeel, pout and North Sea sprat fishery achieved a score of 80 or more for each of the three MSC Principles, and did not score under 60 for any of the set MSC criteria.
Based on the evaluation of the fishery presented in this report the assessment team recommends the certification of the Norway sandeel, pout and North Sea sprat fishery for the client Norges Fiskarlag.
As the fisheries achieved a score of below 80 against three scoring indicators (PI 1.2.2 for the 3 stocks and PI 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 for the bottom trawl fisheries), the assessment team has set three conditions (see Table 3) for the continued certification that the client is required to address. The conditions are applicable to improve performance to at least the 80 level within the period set by the assessment team.
There is one recommendation for the fishery.
Table 3 Conditions for certification and suggested recommendation (full text in Appendix 1.3) Conditions and Time-scale for recomendation PI Condition compliance numbers Condition 1 The Client should work with relevant authorities and (applies yo all UoCs industry colleagues to develop appropriate HCRs and to except for sandeel 1.2.2 4 years have these HCRs evaluated (e.g. by ICES) and shown to in Norwegian be precautionary and robust to the main uncertainties. waters) Conservation and management measures for all Condition 2 vulnerable marine habitats in the UoC fishing grounds (applies to UoC 4 2.4.1 shall be in place and implemented, such that the UoC 4 years and UoC 6) does not cause serious or irreversible harm to structure and function of VME habitats. Conservation and management measures directed to the protection of VME shall be in place and implemented, such that the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance Condition 3 is achieved. (applies to UoC 1-4 2.4.2 Besides, the client shall present some quantitative 4 years and UoC 6) evidence of the compliance with both its management requirements and with protection measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non MSC fisheries, where relevant. The assessment team recommends that systems are put in place to ensure that all interactions with ETP Recommendation 1 2.3.3.b species are recorded on log books irrespective of Not applicable (applies to all UoC) whether they are landed or discarded and that the captures of all ETP species are mapped.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 4
2 AUTHORSHIP AND PEER REVIEWERS
Table 4 Assessment team Role Name Qualifications Team leader Lucia Revenga See below. Principle 1 Hans Lassen Hans Lassen is an independent consultant. He holds a cand. scient. expert (M.Sc.) from Copenhagen University (1969) and a HD (B.Sc.) from the Copenhagen Business School (1978). His background is in fish stock assessments, particularly in the application of computers and models.
He joined the Danish Institute of Fisheries and Marine Research (DIFRES) in 1971. 1988-1992 he worked in the Greenland Fisheries Research Institute as Deputy Director and Director and returned to DIFRES in 1992. Between 1998 and 2003 he was in charge of the Fisheries Group in the ICES Secretariat as Fisheries Adviser who serves as secretary to the ICES Advisory Committee on Fishery Management. After 2004 he was head of the ICES Advisory Programme within the ICES Secretariat. He retired from the ICES secretariat in 2010 and has since worked as a private consultant on projects within his expertise.
He has been a member and Chairman of numerous ICES committees and groups, has within the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization chaired STACFIS and the Scientific Council, been a member of STECF (EC, DG Fish), scientific adviser to Danish delegations to fisheries negotiations and chaired an internal EC expert group to provide input to the EC Multi-annual Guidance Program, within the Nordic Council of Ministers he chaired its Working Group on Fisheries and worked with the FAO/DANIDA project (1982-1998) on teaching fish stock assessment. In 2006 he was awarded the prestigious Swedish prize “Kungsfenan” for contributions to communication between science and the fishing industry. At his retirement from ICES he was awarded a Special Service Award. He is author and co-author of more than 30 peer reviewed papers in prime scientific journal and numerous papers for scientific symposia.
He has been a member of MSC certification assessment teams for Westgreenland shrimp and lumpfish, and for Barents Sea Demersal trawl fisheries (Greenland). He has acted as reviewer for several MSC assessment reports including cod, haddock, anchovy, sardine and vendace.
Principle 2 Lucia Revenga Lucia Revenga is a marine scientist, specialized in Fisheries Biology expert who holds degrees in Marine Sciences and in Environmental Sciences. For 5 years she worked with TRAGSA for the Spanish General Marine Secretariat, conducting researches on the biology and stock status of different species, such as bluefin tunas, skipjack tunas, albacores, mackerels, sardines, eels, prawns, Norway lobsters, halibuts. She has also taken part in oceanographic surveys focused in the search of vulnerable marine ecosystems. From 2011 to 2015 she worked for IFAPA (Institute for Research and Training in Fisheries) as a Fisheries biology teacher for fishermen. She also conducts research in fishery local activities with the aim of increasing community awareness of the conservation of coastal ecosystems and encouraging sustainable fishing practices. Since then she works as an independent consultant. As a P2 expert she has been involved in the DS Nephrops assessment, the Olympic krill assessment, the AKER BioMarine Krill Fishery reassessment, and the Medfish project . She has been involved as a team leader in the IDW blue shell mussel reassessment.
Lucia`s qualifications meet the competence criteria defined in the MSC Certification requirements v.2.0, annex PC, for the Team-leader. Lucia has no conflicts of interest in relation to the UoA under her responsibility.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 5
Principle 3 Geir Hønneland Geir Hønneland is Research Director of the Fridtjof Nansen Institute expert in Oslo, Norway, and adjunct professor at the University of Tromsø, Norway. He holds a Ph.D in political science from the University of Oslo and has primarily studied international fisheries management (with a main emphasis on compliance issues), international environmental politics and international Arctic politics more widely. Among his recent books are Arctic Politics, the Law of the Sea and Russian Identity (Palgrave, 2014), Making Fishery Agreements Work (Edward Elgar, 2012), International Environmental Agreements (Routledge, 2011), Arctic Politics and International Cooperation (Routledge, 2007) and Law and Politics in Ocean Governance: The UN Fish Stocks Agreement and Regional Fisheries Management Regimes (Martinus Nijhoff, 2006). He worked in the Norwegian Coast Guard from 1988 to 1994, where he was certified as fisheries inspector. Geir also has a wide range of evaluation and consultancy experience, e.g. for the FAO and OECD, relating to responsible fisheries management. He has been involved in MSC assessments since 2009 (covering cod, haddock and herring fisheries in the Northeast Atlantic and krill in the Southern Ocean). He has also wide experience as peer reviewer, including for shrimp fisheries in the North-East Atlantic and for other Swedish fisheries. His qualifications meet the competence criteria defined in the MSC Certification requirements v.2.0, annex PC. Hønneland has no conflicts of interest in relation to the UoA under his responsibility
DNV GL project Stefan Midteide Stefan Midteide is principle consultant and project manager within manager MSC Fishery at DNV GL. His core competencies are project management, sustainability assessments, risk assessment responsible supply chain management, responsible investment and implementation of sustainability policies. He has 9 years’ experience as sustainability consultant and project manager. He has participated and managed project across a wide range and industries, seafoods and aquaculture, power, telecom, food retail, finance, technology, defence, pharmaceutical retail, public sector. Stefan holds degrees from the Nottingham University Business School (MBA), London School of Economics (M.Sc. Development Studies) and the University of Oslo (Cand Polit, Economic Geography). His qualifications meet the competence criteria defined in the MSC Certification requirements v.2.0, annex PC. Midteide has no conflicts of interest in relation to the UoA under his responsibility Both Hans Lassen and Lucia Revenga have training in the use of the RBF. Before the site visit, the team considered the option of using the RBF due to the lack of information, at that moment, on catch composition. An RBF meeting was organised with the client representatives (including fishermen), the Marine Research Institute, and the Directorate of Fisheries. Information on catch composition and proportion of different sandeel species in sandeel landings was considered sufficient to use the default assessment tree and avoid the use of RBF.
2.1 Peer reviewers Based on experience with the relevant MSC Fishery programme and components of the Unit of Certification, the peer reviewers listed in Table 5 were selected in accordance with MSC Fishery Certification Requirements on qualifications and competencies.
Table 5 Peer reviewers Peer reviewer Name
Peer reviewer 1 Julian Addison
Peer reviewer 2 Dmitry Lajus
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 6
3 DESCRIPTION OF THE FISHERY
3.1 Units of Assessment (UoA) and scope of certification sought The fishery is, to the knowledge of the assessment team, within the scope of the MSC Fisheries standard according to the following determinations:
- The target species is a fish and the fishery does not use poisons or explosives.
- The fishery is not conducted under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement.
- The client or client group does not include an entity that has been successfully prosecuted for a forced labour violation in the last 2 years.
- The fishery has mechanisms for resolving disputes and disputes do not overwhelm the fishery. 3.1.1 UoA and Proposed Unit of Certification (UoC)
3.1.1.1 Unit of Assessment The Unit of Assessment defines the full scope of what is being assessed, and includes the Unit of Certification and any other eligible fishers.
The Unit of Assessment includes the target stock (s), the fishing method or gear type/s, vessel type/s and/or practices, and the fishing fleets or groups of vessels, or individual fishing operators pursuing that stock, including any other eligible fishers that are outside the Unit of Certification. The Unit of Assessment for this fishery assessment is specified in the table below. The rationale for the chosen Unit of Assessment is that the three Norwegian fisheries take place in different areas of the North Sea and Skagerrak, with three different types of fishing vessels. The MSC certified DFPO and DPPO reduction fishery (also targeting sandeel, Norway pout and sprat) also takes place in the same fishing grounds. Unit of Assessment. UoA Target Method of Description Location of Fishing fleet (see Management Species Catch of stock fishery below) Common Names and latin name Sandeel Bottom trawl North Sea North Sea The fishing fleets or The fishery is (Ammodytes (including groups of vessels or managed under 1 Sandeel (ICES area marinus) midwater 1r) individual fishing Norwegian and EU trawl) operators pursuing jurisdiction and Sandeel Bottom trawl North Sea North Sea that stock including systems for (Ammodytes (including those client group fisheries 2 Sandeel (ICES area marinus) midwater 3r) members initially management. The trawl) intended to be fisheries Sandeel Bottom trawl North Sea North Sea covered by the management is (Ammodytes (including certificate: Fishing now codified in the 3 Sandeel (ICES area 4) marinus) midwater operators are 2008 Marine trawl) Norwegian vessels Resources Act. Norway pout Bottom trawl North Sea North Sea fishing under (Trisopterus Norway Subarea IV quotas issued by 4 esmarkii) pout and Skagerrak Subarea IIIa
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 7
UoA Target Method of Description Location of Fishing fleet (see Management Species Catch of stock fishery below) Common Names and latin name Norway pout Midwater trawl North Sea North Sea Norwegian fisheries (Trisopterus (including Norway Subarea IV management. 5 esmarkii) purse seine) pout and Skagerrak There are no other Subarea IIIa eligible fishers. Sprat Bottom trawl North Sea North Sea 6 (Sprattus Sprat (IV)
sprattus) Sprat Midwater trawl North Sea North Sea 7 (Sprattus Sprat (IV) sprattus) Sprat Purse seine North Sea North Sea 8 (Sprattus Sprat (IV) sprattus)
3.1.1.2 Proposed Unit of Certification The Unit of certification is the unit entitled to receive an MSC certificate.
The proposed Units of Certification include the target stock (s), the fishing method or gear type/s, vessel type/s and/or practices, the fishing fleets or groups of vessels or individual fishing operators pursuing that stock including those client group members initially intended to be covered by the certificate.
The MSC FCR v2.0 specifies that the Unit of Certification is defined as “The target stock or stocks (= biologically distinct unit/s) combined with the fishing method/gear and practice (including vessel type/s) pursuing that stock and any fleets, groups of vessels, or individual vessels of other fishing operators.”
Comment regarding species: The sandeel species within the UoC and UoA is Sandeel - Lesser sand eel or Raitt’s sand eel (Ammodytes marinus). Other sandeel species are not included due to rare occurance in the relevant geographical areas. These species are dealt with under PI 2.2 (minor bycatch species for which there is no reference points). Information on species and occurrence is given below
Species Scientific name English name Occurrence (Fishbase) Lesser sand eel > 95 % of catches (information by DTU Aqua Ammodytes marinus Raitt’s sand eel and IMR) Ammodytes tobianus Small sand eel Not in the Northern part of the North Sea Gymnammodytes Not found in Norwegian waters (Naevdal and Smooth sandeel Sandeel species semisquamatus (Jourdain) Thorkilsen (2002) Hyperoplus lanceolatus (Le Great sand eel Very coastal Sauvage) Hyperoplus. immaculatus Greater sand eel Not found in Norwegian waters (Naevdal And (Corbin) Corbin’s sand eel Thorkildsen (2002)
Comment regarding gear: Sandeels: Bottom trawl: The vast majority of the catch is taken with bottom trawls, but in 2016, statistics showed a marginal catch (31 tonnes) recorded as midwater trawl catches. According to interviews by fishermen during site-visit, the recordings of sandeel in midwater trawls are incorrect as sandeels are hard to catch without using bottom trawls.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 8
Considering that midwater trawls have a lesser impact on P2 performance indicators than bottom trawl, to take a precautionary approach and to avoid later challenges related to chain of custody, the team has concluded to include midwater trawl but that the two trawl types will be treated as one gear, hereafter called “Bottom trawl”.
The proposed Unit of Certification is provided in the table below
Table 6 Proposed Unit(s) of Certification at the start of the certificate (prior to any certificate sharing) UoC Target Method of Description Location of Fishing fleet (see Management Species Catch of stock fishery below) Common Names and latin name North Sea North Sea The fishing fleets or The fishery is Sandeel Bottom trawl Sandeel (management groups of vessels or managed under (Ammodytes (including area 1r) individual fishing Norwegian and EU 1 marinus) midwater trawl) operators pursuing jurisdiction and North Sea North Sea that stock including systems for fisheries those client group management. The Sandeel Bottom trawl Sandeel (management members initially fisheries management (Ammodytes (including area 3r) 2 marinus) midwater trawl) intended to be is now codified in the covered by the 2008 Marine North Sea North Sea certificate: Fishing Resources Act. Sandeel Bottom trawl (management Sandeel operators are (Ammodytes (including area 4) 3 marinus) midwater trawl) Norwegian vessels fishing under quotas Norway pout North Sea and issued by Norwegian (Trisopterus North Sea Skagerrak fisheries 4 esmarkii) Bottom trawl Norway pout management. Norway pout Midwater trawl North Sea and (Trisopterus (including purse North Sea Skagerrak 5 esmarkii) seine) Norway pout There are no other Sprat (Sprattus North Sea North Sea (IV) eligible fishers. 6 sprattus) Bottom trawl Sprat Sprat (Sprattus North Sea North Sea (IV) 7 sprattus) Midwater trawl Sprat Sprat (Sprattus North Sea North Sea (IV) 8 sprattus) Purse seine Sprat
Other eligible fishers at the start of the certificate (prior to any certificate sharing).
Other eligible fishers mean operators that have been evaluated as part of the Unit of Assessment, but who are not eligible to use the MSC Fishery certificate without a certificate sharing agreement with the client group.
There are no other eligible fishers. The certificate includes all Norwegian vessels targeting sand eel, Norway pout and sprat for reduction purposes in IIa2, IVa+IVb and IIIa. Other fisheries that target the same stock operate under different management schemes and are hence not eligible.
3.1.2 Final UoC(s)
Rationale for any changes to the proposed UoC(s)
During the site visit the team was aware of an imminent change on ICES management areas for sandeel in the North Sea. When ICES advice for sandeel was released for the different new management areas the team decided that each area should be assess separately, as stock status and fishing advice for each area was different.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 9
Table 7 below describes the 8 different Units of Certification which are covered by the MSC Fishery certificate at the time of certification. The client specifically declined to include the sandeel stock in ICES management areas 5r and 7r due both to the poor status of the stock in those areas and to the fact that the fishery does not take place in those areas and is not expected to expand there in the foreseeable future. Sandeel in ICES management areas 1r, 2r and 4 (EU waters) were evaluated in different UoC regardless the fishery not taking place in there at present, due to the possibility of future Norway-EU swaps for sandeel quotas taking place in the future. The bad results of the evaluation in area 2r determined the exclusion of this area of the final certification. Table 8 shows the different UoC covered by this assessment.
Table 7: Units of certification under assessment and assessment result The fishing fleets or groups of vessels or individual fishing Fishing method or gear Assessment operators pursuing that UoC Target stock type(s), vessel type(s) result stock including those and/or practices client group members initially intended to be covered by the certificate Bottom trawl Sandeel (Ammodytes marinus) in 1 Pass (including midwater Norwegian bottom trawl fleet North Sea (management area 1r) trawl) Bottom trawl Sandeel (Ammodytes marinus) in 2 Pass (including midwater Norwegian bottom trawl fleet North Sea (management area 3r) trawl) Bottom trawl Sandeel (Ammodytes marinus) in 3 Pass (including midwater Norwegian bottom trawl fleet North Sea (management area 4) trawl) Norway pout (Trisopterus esmarkii) 4 Pass North Sea Subarea IV and Bottom trawl Norwegian bottom trawl fleet Skagerrak Subarea IIIa Norway pout (Trisopterus esmarkii) Midwater trawl Norwegian midwater trawl 5 Pass in the North Sea Subarea IV and (including purse seine) fleet Skagerrak Subarea IIIa Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) in the 6 Pass Bottom trawl Norwegian bottom trawl fleet North Sea (IV) Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) in the Norwegian midwater trawl 7 Pass Midwater trawl North Sea (IV) fleet Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) in the 8 Pass Purse seine Norwegian purse seine fleet North Sea (IV)
3.1.2.1 Final other eligible fishers at the time of certification Other eligible fishers mean operators that have been evaluated as part of the Unit of Assessment, but who are not eligible to use the MSC Fishery certificate without a certificate sharing agreement with the client group.
There are no other eligible fishers.
The certificate includes all Norwegian vessels targeting sand eel, Norway pout and sprat for reduction purposes in IIa2, IVa+IVb and IIIa. Other fisheries that target the same stock operates under different management schemes and are hence no directly eligible.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 10
3.1.3 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data
Table 8 TAC and catch data for sandeel Total TAC for the North Sea (area 3r) 2016 103,000,000 kg Norwegian TAC (only for fishing area 3r) 2016 40,000,000 kg UoA share of TAC 2016 40,000,000 kg UoC share of TAC 2016 40,000,000 kg Total green weight catch by UoC 2016 (most recent) 40,867,357 kg Total green weight catch by UoC 2015 (second most recent) 100,858,962 kg
Table 9 TAC and catch data for Norway pout Total TAC for the North Sea 2016 345,000,000 kg UoA share of TAC 2016 150,000,000 kg UoC share of TAC 2016 150,000,000 kg Total green weight catch by UoC 2016 (most recent) 36,289,438 kg Total green weight catch by UoC 2015 (second most recent) 44,318,169 kg
Table 10 TAC and catch data for sprat Global TAC in the North Sea* 2016 355,500,000 kg Norwegian TAC 2016 20,000,000 kg UoA share of TAC 2016 20,000,000 kg UoC share of TAC 2016 20,000,000 kg Total green weight catch by UoC 2016 (most recent) 20,152,053 kg Total green weight catch by UoC 2015 (second most recent) 9,154,855 kg
(* EU (330,000 tonnes), Norway (20,000 tones), Faroe Islands (5,500 tonnes))
3.1.4 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries
The MSC Certification Requirements and Guidance v2.0 defines enhanced fisheries as: “Any activity aimed at supplementing or sustaining the recruitment, or improving the survival and growth of one or more aquatic organisms, or at raising the total production or the production of selected elements of the fishery beyond a level that is sustainable by natural processes. It may involve stocking, habitat modification, elimination of unwanted species, fertilisation or combinations of any of these practices”.
The fishery in the UoA is a wild capture fishery and does not meet the definition above. It is therefore not considered to be enhanced.
3.1.5 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF)
The MSC Certification Requirements v2 defines ISBF fisheries as: Any fishery which prosecutes a target fin or shellfish species that was intentionally or accidentally transported and released by human activity into an aquatic environment beyond its natural distribution range. This does not include species that are “introduced” into a location due to an expansion in their natural geographic range. The fishery under assessment does not meet the definition above. Therefore, it is not considered as ISBF.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 11
3.2 Overview of the fishery
3.2.1 Client name and contact information
Table 11 Client contact data Client name: Norges Fiskarlag Contact person: Tor Bjørklund Larsen (Project manager) Address: Havnegata 9. Pirsenteret 7462 Trondheim Telephone: +00 47 980 33 041 Email: [email protected] 3.2.2 Client information
Norges Fiskarlag (Norwegian Fishermen’s Association / NFA) was established in 1926 as an interest group for the hitherto unorganized Norwegian fishermen. The main focus was better control of the fish brought to shore and improved working conditions in the high-risk profession. As a direct result of the organization’s efforts, the Raw Fish Act was introduced in 1938, ensuring the fishermen a minimum price for fish delivered.
The NFA’s most important objective is to organize all professional Norwegian fishermen, and the activities embrace the political, economic, social and cultural fields of interest to its members, as well as other matters more or less directly connected to their fishing activities. The organisation is a politically independent, national organisation based on voluntary membership of fishermen via their county associations and group organizations. The highest governing body of the NFA is its Congress, which consists of 69 delegates, elected by the seven county associations and two group organizations which together constitute NFA. The Congress meets biannually. Intermediate authority is exercised by the National Committee that comprises of 14 members chosen from the member organisations and elected by the Congress. The main office in Trondheim is staffed by approximately 20 people, including the General Secretary, Assistant General Secretary and sections for areas of specific interest including resource management. The NFA organizes both owners of fishing vessels and fishermen working on a share or percentage basis. The organization today represents about 25% of the registered Norwegian fishermen.
NFA coordinates MSC Fisheries certification processes for the following fisheries on behalf of the entire Norwegian fleet:
• North East Arctic Cod • North East Arctic Haddock • North East Atlantic mackerel • North Sea and Skagerrak Herring • Norwegian Spring Spawning Herring • Norwegian Spring Spawning Herring scope extension for Blue whiting. • North East Arctic Saithe • North Sea Saithe • North East Arctic Cold Water Prawn
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 12
3.2.3 General overview of the fishery This report covers the assessment of three different fisheries that take place in the North Sea. These are the sandeel, Norway pout, and sprat fisheries. The fisheries are reduction purposes, i.e. raw material for fish meal and oil. This means that there is no sorting of the catches at sea and there is very little discarding. It is the same vessels that fish sandeel, Norway pout and sprat. There is a seasonal pattern where the sandeel fishery is in the spring- early summer and the Norway pout is a winter fishery. The availability of the individual species has varied drastically over the years with periods when Norway pout were almost non-existent.
Table 12 below presents data for the Norwegian fishery of these species for 2016 and 2015. The fisheries are conducted for reduction purposes (fish meal and fish oil). Table 12 Catches of Norway pout, Sprat and sand eel by Norwegian vessels for 2015 and 2016 (kg) (for the sprat fishery, catches in the fjords are not included). Source: Fiskeridirektoratet Bottom trawl (incl. Midwater Midwater pair Purse seine North Sea trawl trawl trawl Total Norway pout 2016 23,680 30,827,506 5,438,252 0 36,289,438 2015 38,470 32,562,448 11,716,951 300 44,318,169 North Sea sprat 2016 1,379,460 11,995,236 6,777,357 0 20,152,053 2015 7,480,317 1,124,538 550,000 0 9,154,855 Sandeel 2016 0 40,836,357 31,000 0 40,867,357 2015 338 78,925,805 21,932,819 0 100,858,962
The fisheries are distinct by season and by fishing grounds, see Figure 1 to Figure 3. Figures below show the geographical distribution of the fisheries in 2015 and 2016 (blue lines are steaming while fishing is marked in yellow). Based on VMS data.
Figure 1 Distribution of Norwegian fishery for sandeel 2015 and 2016 based on VMS information (NØS: Norwegian Economic Zone). Source Fiskeridirektoratet
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 13
Figure 2 Distribution of Norwegian fishery for Norway pout 2015 and 2016 based on VMS information (NØS: Norwegian Economic Zone). Source Fiskeridirektoratet.
Figure 3 Distribution of Norwegian fishery for sprat 2015 and 2016 based on VMS information (NØS: Norwegian Economic Zone). Source Fiskeridirektoratet.
3.2.3.1 North Sea Sand eel Most of the sandeel catch consists of the lesser sandeel Ammodytes marinus , although small quantities of other Ammodytoidei spp . are caught as well. There is little bycatch of protected species (ICES WGNSSK 2004).
Denmark, Norway, Sweden, UK, and Germany participate in the sandeel fishery, where Denmark is the main contributor to the sandeel landings, being responsible for 62% of the total landings, Norway is responsible for 26% of global landings, and Sweden for 8% of the global landings. Landings in the past 6 years by UK, Germany, Lithuania and the Netherlands account for the pending 4%.
The sandeel fishery is managed in different fishing areas. According to ICES (2017) HAWG, for the years between 2010 and 2016, 61% of global landings where taken in management area 1; 13% in area 2, 23% in area 3, and the pending 3% was taken in areas 4 and 6. There have been no landings from areas 5 and 7 at least since 2010.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 14
The fishery is highly seasonal, April – July or even shorter. The Norwegian season is in 2017 23 April – 23 June. The length of the season is regulated, and the fishery is closed in the autumn to protect the incoming 0-group sand eel.
The fishery for sandeel has mostly single- species catches, although some mixed sandeel catches may occur in the more coastal fishery. The by-catches of other fish species are minor (less than 2% on an annual basis of sprat, herring, horse mackerel, haddock and other species), and bycatch of sea mammals and birds is also very low, i.e. undetectable using observer programmes.
The sandeel fishery developed during the 1970s, and landings peaked in 1999 with 1.2 million tonnes. There was a significant shift in landings in 2003. The average landings of the period 1994 to 2002 was 880 000 tonnes whereas the average landings of the period 2003 to 2016 was 300 000 tonnes. Figure 4: Assessment areas for North Sea sand eel (A. marinus ) before been modified in 2017 (for the new designation of areas see Figure 8 below). The black areas are the actual sand eel fishing grounds. Source: WKSAND 2016, Figure 1.1.1.1.
3.2.3.2 Norway pout in the Northern North Sea (4.a) and in Skagerrak Norway pout is a short-lived species. Recruitment is highly variable and strongly influences the spawning stock and total biomass. Most of the landings is taken by the Norwegian and Danish fishingfleets, with only occasional landings by Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany or the UK.
The distribution for this stock is in the northern North Sea and in Skagerrak at depths between 50 and 250 m. The bulk of the catches take place between June and November. The bottom trawl Norway pout fishery presents a selectivity ratio of 70%, and bycatch is composed mainly by blue whiting and horse mackerel. The midwater trawl fishery has a 90% selectivity ratio. Fishing effort peaked in the 70’s with 735,000 tonnes landed in 1974 and has been decreasing since 1984. Landings for 2015 were 65,000 tonnes.
3.2.3.3 North Sea Sprat
Sprat are pelagic and coastal and broadly distributed throughout the North Sea with the largest concentrations found in the southern and central parts. Most of the catches by the Norwegian fleet take place in January but this depends on other seasonal fisheries in the area.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 15
Commercial catches of sprat are mainly located in the Southern North Sea. The sprat fishery peaked in the 1970’s with landings of up to 700,000 t. Since early 1990’s, landings have been in the range of 100 – 200,000 t. Although sprat occurs as by-catch in other fisheries, primarily herring, more than 95% of the Norwegian catches are taken in fisheries targeting sprat.
3.2.4 Description of the gears The present assessment covers 3 different types of fishing gears: Bottom trawl, midwater trawl and purse seines.
Bottom trawlers are vessels carrying towed gears working on the seafloor. The net consists of a funnel shaped bag that is dragged in the ocean at the bottom depth. The meshes get larger as they are closer to the opening, and the net remains open thanks to the pressure supported by the doors. The net carries sensors to measure how much fish is entering on it. Figure 5 Drawings of fishing gears When the catch is (Source: http://www.fisheries.is/) completed, the catch is hauled or pumped on board depending on the vessel design. All bottom trawlers in the evaluated UoCs pump their catch on board instead of hauling it. Because the nets are in direct touch with the seafloor, this may result damaged by the gear. The damage that bottom trawlers may cause on benthic habitats depends on seafloor substrate and specifications of the gear. Catch composition in bottom trawl is normally more varied than catch of pelagic gears.
Midwater trawls do not touch the seafloor. The depth at which the net is deployed is monitored from the bridge of the vessel. The design of the net is very similar to that on bottom trawls, but the size of it and the opening of the mouth of the net is normally bigger.
The use of selectivity devices such as the sorting grid is mandatory in the Norway pout fishery to avoid the catch of gadoids.
Purse seiners consists of a circular netting fence that is placed surrounding a school of pelagic fish. The lower edge of the net has a wire. By pulling this wire the net is closed around the fish school. The catch is then pumped on board. The nets operate at surface level and shouldn’t touch the seafloor. However, fishermen report that, in sandy bottoms, they don’t mind touching the seafloor with the net as sand does not damage the net and there isn’t any regulation prohibiting to do so.
Fishing regulations directed to the different fishing gears can be found at http://www.fiskeridir.no/English/Fisheries/Regulations .
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 16
3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background This MSC assessment includes in total 6 stocks, 4 sandeel stocks, 1 Norway pout stock and 1 sprat stock. These are managed by EU under the EU Common Fisheries Policy and the Norwegian Fisheries Law (Havressurce loven) as follows:
EU stocks: The sprat stock and sandeel stocks NS 1r, NS-2r, and NS 4r and NS 7r are managed under the EU Common fisheries policy. The Total TACs are set by the EU Council of Ministers. The EU stocks are managed under the EU Common Fisheries policy. There is no multiannual management plan for either of these stocks. The TAC is set based on scientific advice from ICES and STECF. This advice include provision for reduction of the exploitation rate if the stock falls below precautionary reference points. The advice is based on the ICES advisory scheme for short-lived species ICES advice (2016) Book 1. The assessment excludes the Shetland stock NS-7r as there is no fishery on this stock, and area NS-2r due to the bad situation of the stock. Joint EU-Norway stock: Norway pout is a joint stock between EU and Norway but not currently jointly managed EU. The strategy is for both Parties to achieve MSY fisheries and to do so they base their regulations on advice from ICES and for EU also from STECF. The TACs are set autonomously after annual consultations under the EU-Norway fisheries agreement. The Parties agree in wishing for joint management of the Norway pout stock, see Agreed record of the fisheries consultations between EU and Norway December 2016. The advice is based on the ICES advisory scheme for short-lived species ICES advice (2016) Book 1. Norwegian stocks : Sandeel stocks NS-3r and NS-5r are managed by Norway. There is no explicit harvest strategy adopted for the EU stocks and for the joint stock (Norway pout). The Norwegian sand eel stocks are subject to a management plan, see section 3.3.3.5. This plan however, dictates a system for open and closing fishing grounds but not a cap on the total fishery. The advice is based on the ICES advisory scheme for short-lived species ICES advice (2016) Book 1. The assessment excludes the Northeastern Northern North Sea stock NS-5r as there is no fishery on this stock. 3.3.1 Key LTL Stocks Lower trophic level fish species (such as sandeel, sprat and Norway pout) rely on copepods for food, while they themselves provide food for higher trophic level species such as adult predatory fish, marine mammals, and birds. In this context, the three species, together with juvenile herring, form a complex where the function of each species is partly substitutable by the other species, Figure 25. According to Mackinson and Daskalov (2007) and Engelhard et al (2014), in the North Sea there are several different species identified in the same trophic level. Even though many species eat the forage fish, no single predator rely fully on one forage fish species, Rice et al (2017). Therefore, none of the forage fish (sand eel, Norway pout, sprat, and outside this assessment herring etc.) can be considered keystone species.
MSC FCR v2.0, SA 2.2.8, prescribes that a stock is a key low trophic species if it is one of the species types listed in Box SA1 (as sandeels, Norway pout and sprat are), and in its adult life cycle phase the stock holds a key role in the ecosystem, such that it meets at least two of the following sub- criteria i, ii and iii.:
i. A large proportion of the trophic connections in the ecosystem involve this stock, leading to significant predator dependency; ii. A large volume of energy passing between lower and higher trophic levels passes through this stock; iii. There are few other species at this trophic level through which energy can be transmitted from lower to higher trophic levels, such that a high proportion of the total energy passing between lower and higher trophic levels passes through this stock (i.e., the ecosystem is ‘wasp-waisted’).
Mackinson, S. and Daskalov, G., 2007 see Figure 26, as confirmed by Engelhard et al 2014 find that in the North Sea there are several different species identified in the same trophic level (therefore
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 17
sub-criteria iii is not met). Also, none of the three species represent a large proportion of the trophic connections (therefore sub-criteria i is not met), i.e. the proportion of food each species represent is low with the exception of some sea birds where special area closures and hence no fishing takes place have been implemented to provide the necessary food basis.
Hence, in general even though many species eat the forage fish, no single predator rely fully on one forage fish species. Notwithstanding this, the importance of the prey role of these species in the North Sea is recognised and ICES includes these considerations in the setting of reference points for sustainable exploitation.
Rice et al (2017) consider the forage fish community as a whole as a key trophic level and therefore evaluated each of these species as key LTL species under Principle 1 of this assessment. This assessment team did not find to consider a group of species together it is a proper interpretation of the MSC standard. The assessment might have been divided into three (Norway pout, sand eel, sprat) separate reports and each species would then have been considered without the aggregation considered. If the agreegation argument is accepted, then all species would be part of a conglomerate that would qualify the species as key LTL species; all fish must eat something. These considerations are referred to PI 2.5 (Ecosystem effect) in the present assessment. For a more detailed discussion ICES Advisory system and advice basis (based on ICES Advice 2016, Book 1)
In scoring PI 1.2.4 there has been some misunderstandings of the ICES advisory system and therefore the description is provided below. The majority of the advice is provided in response to standing requests (recurring advice) from ICES clients (the European Commission, the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO), and the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), individual governments among ICES members states (Iceland, Norway, Russia)). In addition to the recurring advice ICES also provides advice in response to special requests from the Commissions mentioned above and from the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM), the OSPAR Commission (OSPAR) and ICES Member Countries. The advisory process is illustrated in Figure 6. The scientific basis for the advice is developed by expert groups. The expert groups are defined fairly broad and provide an internal review of the assessments. The assessments are typically developed by a small subgroup and then reviewed at the WG plenum. The advice drafting group which include a number of members also preform some review of the assessment results. Here the WG chair is presenting the results. The Benchmark groups include external reviewers. ACOM approved the advice. An advice drafting group prepares the advice based on the findings of the expert groups. The advice prepared by the advice drafting group is finalized and adopted by ICES Advisory Committee (ACOM). In accordance with ICES quality policy, ICES operates a peer-review system. The scientific basis for responses to nonrecurring requests for advice is subject to a peer-review process, before or in conjunction with the advice drafting group. For recurring advice ICES has implemented a benchmark process in which the methods, including the data series to be used by the expert groups in addressing the requests, are developed. The results from the benchmarks are subjected to a peer-review process similar to the process for non- recurring requests.
Figure 6 Overview of the ICES advisory process for recurrent advice Source ICES (2016) Book 1. Figure 1.2.1
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 18
The benchmarking groups, advice drafting groups, and the final ACOM approval of the advice are open to stakeholders who have observer status to ICES. ICES clients can attend the entire advisory process as an observer.
3.3.2 Sand eel The following sections 3.3.3.1 and 3.3.3.2 are based on the Stock annex ICES (2014) HAWG for Sand eel. 3.3.2.1 Sand eel Biology
Sandeel are small, short-lived, lipid-rich, shoaling fish. Sandeel are largely sedentary after settlement and form a complex of local (sub-) stocks in the North Sea.
Sandeel overwinter buried in sandy bottom habitats. Commercial catches show a steep decrease in catches between August and April indicating that the overwintering period for adult sandeel on average lasts for 8 months interrupted only by spawning in December/January. During the period when sandeel are buried in the sand, they are inaccessible to many predators such as surface-feeding seabirds, though they continue to be eaten by some predatory fish, seals, and diving seabirds which apparently can dig them out of the sand (Hammond et al., 1994).
There is strong evidence that sandeel stocks are affected by bottom-up processes involving climate and changing plankton stocks.
3.3.2.2 Species Composition There are five sand eel species in the North Sea. Nævdal and Thorkildsen (2002) identified these species genetically. The worked on a sample of more than 900 speciment collected across the North Sea and they identified all five species. They find that in Norwegian waters A. marinus was found together with minor numbers of Hyperoplus lanceolatus (Le Sauvage). As expected from the distribution maps provided by Fishbase ( http://www.fishbase.de ), Gymnammodytes semisquamatus (Jourdain) and H. immaculatus (Corbin) were not found as these are southern North Sea species. Naevdal and Thorkildsen (2002) did not find A. tobianus in Norwegian waters. This species is coastal and the fishery generally takes place in open waters. Fishbase (http://www.Fishbase.de) also includes A. dubius as a sixth species but this is not generally accepted and the species was not found by Naevdal and Thorkildsen (2002). The species are listed in Table 13.
Table 13 Sand eel species in the North Sea Scientific name English name (Fishbase) Occurrence Ammodytes marinus Lesser sand eel > 90% of catches according Raitt’s sand eel to Scottish information Ammodytes tobianus Small sand eel Not in the North part of the North Sea Gymnammodytes semisquamatus Smooth sandeel Not found in Norwegian (Jourdain) waters (Naevdal and Thorkilsen, 2002) Hyperoplus lanceolatus (Le Sauvage) Great sand eel Very coastal Hyperoplus. immaculatus (Corbin) Greater sand eel Not found in Norwegian Corbin’s sand eel waters (Naevdal And Thorkildsen, 2002) Ammodytes dubius Northern sand lance Largely only found in the Northwest Atlantic. Not found by Naevdal and Thorkildsen.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 19
Figure 7: Species compositions of sandeels in commercial landings by sampling areas. Average percentage of sandeels by species in samples on ICES square/trip level over the period 1999 to 2007. The majority of Sandeel ssp consist of A. marinus. Source: Slightly modified from AGSAN 2008.
The sandeel populations are complete dominated by lesser sand eel (Ammodytes marinus).
ICES AGSAN 2008 report include (author Henrik Jensen) a working document concerning the distribution of different sand eel species in commercial catches. In his study, also small sand eel (A. tobianus) was identified. Small sand eel was found in catches in the Skagerrak, Kattegat and in the Wadden Sea. Only in the Kattegat the proportion of small sand eel can be as high as approximately 10%. In the Norwegian zone, other sand eels than lesser sand eel were negligible (Figure 7).
The information provided in Figure 7 is supplemented by information from the Danish dredge survey. Great sand eel (Hyperoplus lanceolatus) and smooth sand eel (G. semisquamatus) are identified directly. Small sand eel (A. tobianus) cannot be separated from the lesser sand eel (A. marinus) with the naked eye.
The Danish dredge survey (all data) from the Norwegian zone, show <0.1% of the sand eels are registered as something other than lesser sandeel. For the entire survey area about 0.3% are registered as anything other than lesser sandeel (in most cases great sand eel (Hyperoplus lanceolatus)). The highest proportions of other sand eel species (2-4%) are found in areas close to the west coast of Jutland (van Deurs, pers. Comm.)
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 20
The Norwegian acoustic survey results are summarised in Table 14. The data show that lesser sand eel is far dominating. Greater sand eel is not found in the catches of the Norwegian reference fleet (E. Johnsen pers. Comm.).
Table 14 Norwegian Acoustic survey. This covers only the Norwegian areas (Area 3 and 5). Total catch (kg) of lesser (A. marinus) and greater sandeel (Hyperoplus. immaculatus ) by survey year. Only trawl stations are included. Source: E. Johnsen (pers. comm). Lesser sandeel Greater sandeel % Greater Year (kg) (kg) sandeel 11850.243 2014 3.794 0.03 3803.869 2015 5.632 0.15 9686.753 2016 4.11 0.04
In connection with the possible wind mill park on the Dogger bank (area 1a-2A,
Figure 7, a dredge sand eel survey was conducted in March - April 2012 by Brown and May Marine Ltd. Three species of sandeel were caught during the survey: Raitt’s sandeel (or lesser sand eel) (Ammodytes marinus), smooth sandeel (Gymnammodytes semisquamatus) and greater sandeel (Hyperoplus lanceolatus). A. marinus was the most abundant species caught, accounting for 98.2% of the total sandeel catch.
In conclusion, lesser sand eel is the far dominating species among the North Sea sand eels and accounts for more than 99% of the total catches based on the major surveys and data from the fisheries. In the Norwegian waters, the lesser sand eel account for more than 99.8 % of the catch.
3.3.2.3 Stock assessment
At the sandeel benchmark in 2010, the North Sea sandeel stock was delineated into seven stocks based on predicted larval mixing among fishing grounds using a biophysical model of larval exchange. Larval mixing was used for delineation because this planktonic phase of the life history appears to account for most exchange among areas of habitat. Further studies of otolith chemistry, and independent dynamics since WKSAN 2010, e.g. geographical variation in size and age composition with size at age being higher on the warmer, deeper central and north-eastern fishing grounds and lowest in SA4.
WKSAND 2016, ICES (2017) redefined the stock assessment areas for Sandeel areas 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7. WKSAND 2016 left the boundaries for area 4 (off Scotland) and area 6 (Kattegat) unchanged. Area 3
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 21
was redefined, with the EU part of area 3 merged with area 2, and make small adjustments to the boundary of area 1, making the areas better fit the underpinning science while also being appropriate for practical concerns of the fishing industry
Table 15 summarises the stock area descriptions while Figure 8 depict the areas. Table 15 ICES stock areas for sand eel assessment. The system that was formerly used (ICES Stock code_2016) are included for comparison with earlier reports Source: ICES (2017) WKSAND 2016. ICES STOCK ICES STOCK ICES STOCK ICES STOCK CODE_2017 DESCRIPTION_2017 CODE_2016 DESCRIPTION_2016 san-sa.1r Sandeel ( Ammodytes spp.) in san-ns1 Sandeel ( Ammodytes divisions 4.b and 4.c, Sandeel spp.) in Divisions 4.b Area 1r (central and southern and 4.c, SA 1 (Central North Sea, Dogger Bank) and South North Sea, Dogger Bank) san-sa.2r Sandeel ( Ammodytes spp.) in san-ns2 Sandeel ( Ammodytes divisions 4.b and 4.c, Sandeel spp.) in Divisions 4.b Area 2r (central and southern and 4.c, SA 2 (Central North Sea) and South North Sea) san-sa.3r Sandeel ( Ammodytes spp.) in san-ns3 Sandeel ( Ammodytes divisions 3.a, 4.a, and 4.b, spp.) in Divisions 3.a, Sandeel Area 3r (Skagerrak 4.a and 4.b, SA 3 and Kattegat, northern and (Skagerrak and central North Sea) Kattegat, North and Central North Sea) san.sa.4 Sandeel (Ammodytes spp.) in san-ns4 Sandeel ( Ammodytes divisions 4.a and 4.b, Sandeel spp.) in Divisions 4.a Area 4 (northern and central and 4.b, SA 4 (North North Sea) and Central North Sea) san.sa.5r Sandeel ( Ammodytes spp.) in san-ns5 Sandeel ( Ammodytes Division 4.a, Sandeel Area 5r spp.) in Division 4.a, (northern North Sea, Viking SA 5 (Northern North and Bergen banks) Sea, Viking and Bergen Banks) san.sa.6 Sandeel ( Ammodytes spp.) in san-ns6 Sandeel ( Ammodytes Subdivision 21, Sandeel Area spp.) in Division 3.a 6 (Kattegat) East, SA 6 (Kattegat) san.sa.7r Sandeel ( Ammodytes spp.) in san-ns7 Sandeel ( Ammodytes Division 4.a, Sandeel Area 7r spp.) in Division 4.a, (northern North Sea, SA 7 (Northern North Shetland) Sea, Shetland)
Figure 8 Assessment areas for North Sea sand eel (A. marinus). Source: WKSAND 2016, Figure 1.1.1.1
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 22
3.3.2.4 Stock Status and Reference points The stock status is based on ICES (2017b).
Table 16 Sandeel stocks in the North Sea. Reference points for those stocks that are included in the assessment. Source ICES (2017) Advice on Sandeel February 2017 Stock Status relative to Reference Points Current stock status Type of reference Value of reference relative to reference point point point Sand eel NS -1r
PRI concerns Blim 110 kt 222 kt (for 2017)
MSY Approach MSY B escapement/ (Bpa ) 145kt 222 kt
Fcap 0.49 0.02 (2016) Sand eel NS -3r
PRI concerns Blim 80 kt 132 kt (2017)
MSY Approach MSY B escapement/Bpa 129 kt 132 kt (2017)
Fcap 0.29 0.13 (2016) Sand eel NS -4
PRI concerns Blim 48 kt 188 kt (2017)
MSY Approach MSY B escapement/Bpa 102 kt 188 kt (2017)
Fcap 0.15 0.02
Table 17 Status of sandeel stock components in the North Sea based on biomass reference points. Reference points based on fishing mortality not available. Source: ICES (2017b). Stock Reference points (N/A not Comment available) NS 1r The spawning-stock biomass (SSB) was in- Central and between the lower biomass limit (Blim) and the South North precautionary reference points (Bpa = MSY Sea, Dogger Bescapement) in 2015. In 2016 and 2017 SSB Bank was estimated to be above Bpa. Recruitment (R) in 2015 was the second lowest in the time- series, followed by above-average recruitment in 2016. Fishing mortality (F) has decreased substantially from 2009 onwards. NS-2r Not included in the assessment . Eastern SSB has been below Blim in the last two years central and and below the precautionary reference points southern (Bpa = MSYBescapement) for most of the years North Sea since 2000. Recruitment has been low since 2000; however, the 2016 year class is one of the largest in the time-series. Fishing mortality (F) has declined substantially from 2006 and is low at present. NS-3r SSB was below Blim in 2013 and has increased Norwegian to above Bpa = MSY Bescapement in 2015, EEZ 2016, and 2017. Recruitment (R) was above average in 2014 and low in 2015; Recruitment in 2016 is highly uncertain
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 23
Stock Reference points (N/A not Comment available) NS-4 Minimal catch after 2003. Off Scotland Fishing mortality (F) has been very low since Northern 2006 and sandeels were only fished in a and central monitoring fishery. SSB has increased to levels North Sea well above precautionary reference points (Bpa = MSY Bescapement) and has remained at this level since 2011, with one exception (2015). Two large year classes (2009 and 2014) drove the increase in SSB, and the 2016 year class is estimated to be well above the long-term average. Uncertainty in SSB and recruitment estimates is large in the most recent years. Concern of sandeel stock level as food for sea birds NS-5r N/A Not included in the assessment . Northern No catch after 2001 (4 t in 2007). Acoustic North Sea, surveys since 2005 on Vikingbanken (the main Viking and sandeel ground in SA5). The survey show a low Bergen biomass of sandeel. banks NS-6 N/A Not included in the assessment . Kattegat Minimal catch Kattegat, no real interest to Norway NS-7r N/A Not included in the assessment . Shetland Always minimal catch no catch after 2003.Stock status unknown. Concern of sandeel stock level as food for sea birds
Figure 9 Stock indicators for Sandeel stocks in the North Sea. Downloaded from http://www.ICES.dk 28/3/2017
NS 1r
Central and South North Sea, Dogger Bank
NS-3r
Norwegian EEZ
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 24
NS -4
Off Scotland Northern and central North Sea
3.3.2.5 Harvest Strategy and Harvest Control Rule
The harvest strategy varies between the Norwegian fishery and the EU fisheries.
Currently Norwegian sandeel fishing vessels do not have access to the EU zone and therefore the EU management strategy does not directly affect the Norwegian fleet. Norwegian Spatial Management Plan For details see ICES (2017a) Section 1.5.6
The Norwegian fishery is based on a system of opening and closing areas based on the sedentary nature of the settled sand eel. This system has been in place since 2010.
Norwegian Spatial Management Plan • The areas with known sandeel fishing grounds are divided into 5 areas based on the differences in population developments, differences in recruitment and size at age. • An area is closed for fishery unless the abundance of sandeel is relatively high in the area (biomass estimated from the acoustic survey). There is no strict definition of “high abundance”, but no area has been open with biomass estimate has been less than 20000 tonnes. • All areas are divided in 2 subareas (area 3 is divided in 3 subareas). • If an area is open for fishery, one of the subareas is closed to prevent too high effort and a total depletion of sandeel in an area • A preliminary advice is available end of January, which describes the preliminary TAC and what sub-areas that should open. This advice is based on stock developments estimated from the acoustic surveys and data from the fishing fleet, and an assumption of very low recruitment. • An acoustic survey is carried out around 25 April – 15 May, which is used to estimate the abundance of age 1 and older sandeel. The survey results are used to give a final advice. The TAC can be adjusted upwards and new subareas can be open. • One TAC advice combined is given for all open subareas. • There is no analytic stock assessment in place, and to calculate the TAC the survey abundance estimates are used as absolute numbers. A natural mortality of 0.6 is used to estimate the survival of individuals age > 1 at the start of next fishing year. • To prevent fishing of lean individuals the fishing season starts 23 April (in 2015 and 2016 the fishery started 15 April) • To avoid too high percentage of juveniles (0-age fish) the fishery ends 23 June • If the number of sandeel < 10 cm comprise of more than 10% in a catch, the fishing ground is closed for seven days to prevent a fishery on 0-age fish. The fishing ground is re-open automatically after one week.
EU Harvest Strategy: The harvest strategy is based on a TAC which is set based on the ICES assessment as available in the autumn. However, this TAC is revised based an experimental fishery in April.
The TAC is thus set to reflect stock status.
The final TAC is established based on an experimental fishery in April.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 25
To prevent fishing of lean individuals and to avoid major catches of juveniles (0-age fish) the fishing season is limited to April – July, varying slightly between years. There is an elaborate system of closed areas along the Scottish coast and around the Shetland to protect sea bird colonies and to avoid competition between the fishery and sea birds (e.g. kittiwakes) for access to the sand eel resource.
3.3.2.6 Stock Assessment and information
The fisheries are well documented in all areas by logbooks, VMS surveillance, landing statistics and sampling of landings.
The seasonal SMS stock assessment method (SESAM) are analytical (Areas NS-1r, NS-3r, NS-4) based on Analytical seasonal age-based (SMS-effort) (ICES, 2017b). The samples are length measured and aged and provide age and length frequencies from catch sampling and are input to the SESAM model. The assessment uses a fixed maturity data set. The benchmark ICES (2017) found that the data quality was good. There are total international catch and fishing effort data available.
The SMS model estimates exploitation patterns and the relationship between F and effort with predefined period clusters of years (the separability assumption of the model). The break points sometimes caused distinct jumps in the exploitation patterns between period clusters.
The specifics for each area are mentioned below.
Area NS-1r
One survey index in December (dredge survey since 2004). commercial catch rates in April. Annual natural mortality estimated from multispecies assessment. Constant maturity-at-age from surveys.
Area NS-3r
Acoustic survey index (2009–2016) and dredge survey index (dredge survey 2005–2016). Constant maturity-at-age estimated from the dredge survey. Natural mortality estimated from multispecies assessment. From 2012 and onwards the mortality has been constant.
Area NS-4
One survey index available in January (dredge survey since 2010). Natural mortality estimated from multispecies assessment (assumed constant over time).
3.3.3 Norway pout in the Northern North Sea (4.a) and in the Skagerrak (3.a) 3.3.3.1 Biology and stock structure
Norway pout ( Trisopterus esmarki (Nilsson, 1855)) is a small, short-lived gadoid species, which occurs off the European coasts from Bay of Biscay, Skagerrak and Kattegat to Iceland, southwestern Barents Sea and Spitzbergen (rare). It occurs in the open sea, at depths of 80-200 m, over muddy bottoms,
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 26
often in large shoals, and it does not make long-distance migrations. It rarely grows older than four years, with a maximum size of 26 cm and usually 15-20 cm. Spawning is from January to July, mainly from March to May, in deep water in March to May over the shelf edge. Most the fish spawn for the first time during their second year of life, males reach maturity at an earlier age than females. A female produces 420 - 980 eggs per gram body weight, equivalent to 21 000 eggs for a 30 g, two years-old fish.
Its food is predominately small crustaceans (copepods, euphausiids), also amphipods, shrimps and small fishes. Pelagic 0-group feeds mainly on copepods and appendicularians. The diet of larger specimens (10-20 cm) in a Norwegian fjord consisted of crustaceans such as mysids, natantids, copepods, euphausiids, and amphipods, and of small fish, mainly gobies [2,3]. Cod, whiting and saithe are major predators of Norway pout of age 1 and older. Mackerel is the main predator of 0-group Norway pout. Total mortality has been shown to have decreased over the recent two decades, consistent with a significant decrease in the stock sizes of these three main gadoid predators. Norway pout is also an important prey for other demersal fishes and marine mammals.
It is distributed from the west of Ireland to Kattegat, at the Faroe Islands, and from the North Sea to the Barents Sea. The distribution for this stock is in the northern North Sea (>57◦N) and in Skagerrak at depths between 50 and 250 m. The stock distribution and density patterns as well as maturity, spawning, spawning distribution and migration relevant to the stock distribution and delineation are described in detail in ICES (2016a. see Nielsen WD1, Annex 3). In general, highest densities of Norway pout of all age groups are found in the northern North Sea. Densities by year vary according to strong cohorts in the stock. The strong cohorts observed in the period are the 1986, 1989, 1991, 1994, 1996, 1999, 2008, 2009, 2012, and 2014 year classes.
There is no evidence for separating the North Sea component into smaller stock units. This conclusion is supported recent research on the maturity and spawning. Spawning in the North Sea takes place mainly in the northern part in the area between Shetland and Norway in coastal waters along the 120- m isocline in one main spawning area and accordingly only occurrence of one stock component in the whole northern area on the shelf area. There is no indication of discrete nursery grounds [7], because pelagic 0-group fish are found in the same area as the adults.
The Skagerrak is colonized by 0-group fish that originate from spawning grounds along the Norwegian Deeps. Catches in the Skagerrak are dominated by younger fish, indicating that they leave the area when they start maturing. Norway pout in the eastern Skagerrak is only to a very small degree a self- contained stock and adults migrate out of the Skagerrak and the Kattegat to spawn, because there is no evidence of spawning there.
The main bulk drifts as larvae is south-eastwards from more western areas to which they return mainly during the latter part of their second year of life before becoming mature. Furthermore, the conclusion on one stock component is supported by the depth distribution limits of the species, i.e. there is no indication that the species migrate outside the shelf areas into deeper waters than 200 m depth. In the Norwegian Trench Norway pout is found deeper than 200 m, but very few deeper than 300 m. Very few Norway pout are caught at depths greater than 200 m in the North Sea and Skagerrak on shrimp trawl survey. Details on stock delineation according to stock distribution and density
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 27
patterns as well as maturity, spawning, spawning distribution and migration can be found in ICES (2016a, see Nielsen (2016; Sections 2–4 in WD1, Annex 3).
3.3.3.2 Stock status and Reference points
There are reference points available for this stock (see
Table 18 ). These include Fcap that is an upper limit on the fishing mortality to protect against excessive fishing mortalities that, at least theoretically, is a possibility with an escapement strategy. The reference points for the stock were reviewed but not revised. ICES (2016a) notes that higher escapement targets could be considered in future based on the importance of Norway pout as a forage species in the ecosystem. The reference points are developed in ICES (2012) and in subsequent work. For details see references in ICES (2016b).
Table 18 Norway pout in Subarea IV and Division IIIa. Reference points, values, and their technical basis. Source ICES (2016b) Table 6.3.29.5 Framework Reference point Value Technical basis MSY approach MSY Bescapment 150 000 t = Bpa, used in conjunction with Fcap. FMSY Not defined Fcap 0.6 MSY criteria based on Bescapement strategy with an additional constraint on fishing mortality; Fcap = 0.6. Precautionary Blim 90 000 t Blim = Bloss, the approach lowest observed biomass in the 1980s. Bpa 150 000 t = Blim e0.3 × 1.65
Figure 10 Norway pout in Subarea IV and Division IIIa. State of the stock and fishery relative to reference points. Source ICES (2016b) Table 6.3.29.1
3.3.3.3 Stock assessment
Norway pout underwent an ICES inter-benchmark in 2012, ICES (2012), which evaluated alternative biological inputs in the stock assessment for natural mortality, sexual maturity and growth (mean weight-at-age in the stock). This led to a revised assessment, and a summary of the results is given in ICES (2016a). The stock was again benchmarked in August 2016 ICES (2016a). The focus of this benchmark was the assessment methodology in particular the estimation model. The 2016
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 28
assessment remained based on the model that was approved in 2012 ICES (2012) a Seasonal XSA method.
The data used in the assessment model include: Commercial catches (quarterly catches; ages and mean weight-at-age from catch sampling of mainly Danish and Norwegian fishery), four survey indices (IBTS Q1&3, EngGFS-IBTS-Q3, ScoGFS-IBTS-Q3), three commercial indices (CFQ1,Q3,Q4, until 2006). Annual maturity data from commercial catch sampling, natural mortality from survey indices (IBTS Q1&3).
The assessment results are summarised in Figure 11.
The stock relative to the reference points are summarised in Figure 10. The stock size is highly variable from year to year (see Figure 11) due to recruitment variability and a short life span. Stock size has increased and is above MSY Bescapement in 2015. Fishing mortality has been lower than the natural mortality for this stock and has decreased in recent years to below the long-term average F (0.6). Recruitment in 2014 is the highest estimate on record, while recruitment in 2015 is around average.
Figure 11 Norway pout in Subarea IV and Division IIIa. Summary of stock assessment (weights in thousand tonnes). Source: ICES (2016b) Figure 6.3.29.1
3.3.3.4 Harvest Strategy and Control Rules
Explicit management objectives for Norway pout have not been defined, but to ensure sustainable fisheries, the EU and Norway have implemented a precautionary approach. Technical measures such as the closed Norway pout box (Box I), minimum mesh size regulations for the fishery, and by-catch regulations to protect other fish species have been used in the management of this fishery. It is also recognized that it is important to ensure that the stock remains at a sufficiently high level to provide food for a variety of predator species
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 29
The harvest strategy that is the basis for the ICES advice is an escapement strategy, i.e. that the TAC is the surplus above a lower limit of biomass. Setting this lower limit includes considerations of the reproduction potential and ecosystem needs. The lower limit is the MSY Bescapment reference point. This is used in connection with the Fcap reference point i.e that the fishing mortality implied by the advice should be below this value as an extra condition on the TAC advice.
There is further a set of technical measures including by-catch rules. The target species should be at least 60%, or, if there are two target species (which is not likely for these stocks) the sum of these two should be at least 90 % (Council Regulation (EC) N 850/98, Annex I). The minimal amount of target species in the EU industrial fisheries in 3.a has been modified to 50% (for sprat, blue whiting and Norway pout).
In 2014, EU and Norway agreed on an interannually quota flexibility of 10% of the TAC. Each party could transfer non-utilised quota of up to 10% of its quota into the next year, where it is added to the quota allocated to the party concerned in the following year (or borrow 10% of the TAC, to be subtracted the following year). This inter-annual flexibility has changed in 2015 so that 25 % of the TAC can be transferred into the next year, while up to 10 % can be borrowed.
There is no multiannual management plan implemented for this stock.
Research on Norway pout is conducted in particular at the Norwegian Marine Research institute (IMR) and at the Danish Research in statute (DTU Aqua). Both institutes have developed strategic plans and research programmes, see http://www.aqua.dtu.dk/Om_DTU_Aqua/Mission_vision_opgaver (DTU Aqua) and http://www.imr.no/om_havforskningsinstituttet/en (IMR).
3.3.4 Sprat
Sprat (Sprattus sprattus (Linnaeus, 1758)) are small silvery fishes up to 16 cm, usually 8-12 cm. They are shoaling pelagic and are mostly coastal, often in shallow water close to shore, sometimes tolerating very low salinities (to 4°/00). They are wide spread occurring along the Atlantic coasts from northern Morocco northwards to North Sea and Baltic; also, Mediterranean, Adriatic and Black Sea. They have strong migrations between winter feeding and spring and summer spawning grounds. As adults, they feed on planktonic crustaceans (especially Calanus , Pseudocalanus and Temora ) juveniles on diatoms and eggs and larvae of these copepods. There is some spawning almost throughout year, either near to coast or up to 100 km out to sea, mainly in July to May (Black Sea), December to April (Mediterranean), April to August (Atlantic and Baltic) or as early as January in English Channel.
To the west and south the range extends along the coast of Europe, and to the east the IIIA stock component abuts with a separate stock in the Baltic sea. Commercial catches are concentrated in the southern half of the North Sea. 3.3.5 Biology and stock structure
The North Sea sprat is although not fully panmictic1 throughout the North Sea, there is insufficient evidence to justify differentiating the sprat into specific sub stocks, ICES (2009). It is differentiated from sprat in the English Channel, Baltic Sea, Celtic Sea and more southerly stocks. Management advice for the sprat in the Skagerrak and Kattegat (IIIa) is provided separately from advice on the
1 Random mating of individuals within a population
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 30
North Sea sprat because of differences in catch composition of the fishery ICES (2016d), and sprat in those fisheries is not considered in this certification assessment.
Sprat are broadly distributed throughout the North Sea with the largest concentrations found in the southern and central North Sea. The catch distribution varies between years, but with greater harvests in the eastern than western portion of this area in most years over the past two decades.
Sprat show large variations in year-class strength, with the strongest year-classes since 1990 approximately 12-fold larger than the weakest (see Figure 13). Even weaker year-classes are reported from before 1990, but commercial data from the earlier periods are considered unreliable and assessment estimates for those years may not be directly comparable to more recent estimates. With sprat having a relatively short life span, the variation in year-class strengths is carried over into total and spawning biomass, again with more than 12-fold difference between the largest and smaller biomasses over the past 25 year. ICES (2014) considers that variation in year-class strength in future will continue to be large, but on average some strengthening of recruitment may be expected (ICES 2014a-sp). The environment conditions influence year-class strength weakens the ability to estimate – and their relevance – of biologically based reference points for the stock (ICES 2016e). 3.3.6 Stock Status and Reference points The sprat stock is currently abundant and have been well above Bpa since 2008. Currently, the stock exhibited two years of extremely high recruitment and SSB is more than twice the Bpa, the highest since 1976. Fishing mortality has been below the long-term average (0.4–0.9) in the past three years but has increased in 2015 to 1.3.
The status of the stock is judged against a set of biomass reference points. Blim of 90 000 t and Bpa of 142 000 t were estimated and adopted at the most recent benchmark, ICES (2013). Bpa is defined as the upper 90% confidence interval of Blim and calculated based on a terminal SSB CV of 0.28. Furthermore, there is an upper limit to the fishing mortality Fcap(=0.7) to avoid the, at least theoretical, large fishing mortality that can be generated form a management based on an escapement strategy.
Table 19 Sprat in Subarea 4. Reference points, values, and their technical basis. Source ICES (2016d) Table 6.3.51.5 Framework Reference point Value Technical basis MSY Approach MSY Bescapement 142 000 t Equal to Bpa, used in conjunction with Fcap. Fcap 0.7 MSY criteria based on B escapement strategy with an additional constraint on fishing mortality; Fcap = 0.7. Precautionary Blim 90 000 t Blim was set to ensure that years approach of very good recruitment mainly occurred when the stock was above Blim and years of very low recruitment only occurred when the stock was below Blim (ICES = 2013). Bpa 142 000 t Bpa = Blim × exp (σ × 1.645), with σ = 0.28 estimated from assessment uncertainty in the terminal year.
A herring by-catch of up to 10% in biomass is allowed in Norwegian sprat catches. Most sprat catches are taken in an industrial fishery where catches are limited by herring by-catch quantities. By- catches of herring are practically unavoidable except in years with high sprat abundance or low herring recruitment. By-catch is especially considered to be a problem in area 4.c. This led to the introduction of a closed area (sprat box) to ensure that sprat catches were not taken close to the Danish west coast where large bycatches were expected.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 31
Only data on by-catch from the Danish fishery were available to the Working Group. The Danish sprat fishery was conducted with an extremely low by-catch of herring in 2015. The total amount of herring caught as by-catch in the sprat fishery has mostly been less than 10% except in 2012 (11%) and 2008 (11%). In 2013–2014, it was 8%. However, in 2015 it was the lowest ever observed (> 2%).
Figure 12 Sprat in Subarea 4. State of the stock and fishery relative to reference points. Source ICES (2016d) Table 6.3.51.1
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 32
3.3.7 Stock Assessment
The information on the sprat assessment methods and stock status is taken from ICES 2016a-sp. The sprat benchmark assessment ICES (2013) investigated many aspects of the assessment data and methods in depth, and established standard treatments of data and analytical methods.
The adopted approach is an age -based analytical assessment (SMS); ICES, 2016d) that uses landings in the model and in the forecast. The assessment is based on the following data: Commercial catches (international landings, ages and length frequencies from catch sampling), three survey indices (IBTS Q1&3, HERAS), annual maturity data from IBTS Q1 survey, natural mortalities from multispecies model (ICES, 2016d).
The IBTS surveys are bottom trawl surveys. They are carried out in the 1 st quarter (1q) and in the 3rd quarter (3q). They provide abundance indices for about 10 species including Norway pout and sprat.
International acoustic surveys in the North Sea, West of Scotland and Malin Shelf are collectively known as the HERAS in the North Sea survey program. Surveys are carried out annually in June/July to determine the distribution and abundance of herring and sprat in the North Sea region (HERAS) and to the west of Ireland and Scotland (Malin Shelf Herring Acoustic Survey- MSHAS; Figure 2.1.1.). Acoustic estimates are used as a tuning index by ICES to estimate the size of the populations of herring and sprat and the results are submitted annually to HAWG.
Figure 13 Sprat in Subarea 4. Estimated landings, recruitment, fishing mortality, and spawning-stock biomass from the stock assessment (weights in thousand tonnes). Source ICES (2016d) Figure 6.3.51.1 From 2017 ICES Sprat advice
The stock assessment was benchmarked in February 2013 (ICES, 2013). In-year advice is the only
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 33
possible type of advice for this short-lived species with a fishery dominated by 1- and 2-year-old fish. This, however, requires information about incoming 1-year-old fish. To meet this requirement and to come up with a model that logically matches the natural life cycle of sprat, the annual time step in the model was shifted, relative to the calendar year, to a time-step going from July to June (see text table below). SSB and recruitment was estimated at 1 July. In figures and tables with assessment output and input, the years refer to the shifted model year (July to June) and in each figure and table it is noted whether model year or calendar year apply (when the model year is given the year refers to the year at the beginning of the model year; for example: 2000 refers to the model year 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001).
Natural mortality was revised in 2015 (ICES, 2014a), which rescaled the estimates of F, SSB, and R in subsequent assessments. Natural mortalities are derived from the 2015 key run of the multispecies model described in the WGSAM reports (ICES, 2014b; ICES, 2016). Variable mortality is applied up till 2013, and after this the average mortality for 2011–2013 is used. Natural mortality is high, with predation playing a large role at all ages. Estimates of natural mortality at age by quarter and year are available from multispecies assessment models (ICES 2014b). They are never lower than 0.1 even on the oldest ages, and exceed 0.8 for some years on 0-group sprat.
3.3.8 Harvest Strategy and Control Rule
Sprat are harvested primarily with pelagic trawls, typically with a mixture of juvenile herring bycatch. In years of strong year-classes of North Sea herring, the herring bycatch caps may limit the harvest of sprat before the sprat TAC is taken (ICES 2016). The Norwegian fishery also using purse seines harvests sprat in the North Sea, and is regulated by the Norwegian government. The Norwegian fleet have access to the EU zone for sprat fishing as part of the bilateral EU-Norway fisheries agreement.
ICES provides catch advice at the request of EU and Norway, for the period July to June in the following year. The TAC at present corresponds to the calendar year (January to December). ICES advises that when the MSY approach is applied, catches from July 2016 to June 2017 should be no more than 125 541 tonnes. An in-year revision of the 2016 TAC is required to ensure that exploitation is consistent with the ICES MSY approach.
The is no long-term or multiannual management plan for sprat. The harvest strategy is based on the general principles laid down in the Norwegian fishing law and in the EU Common Fishery Policy.
Explicit management objectives for sprat have not been defined, but to ensure sustainable fisheries, the EU and Norway have implemented a precautionary approach. Technical measures such as the
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 34
closed Sprat Box minimum mesh size regulations for the fishery (16 mm), and by-catch regulations to protect other fish species have been used in the management of this fishery. The target species should be at least 80 %.
It is also recognized that it is important to ensure that the stock remains at a sufficiently high level to provide food for a variety of predator species. As for Norway pout the sprat stock however varies in response to the environmental conditions.
The harvest strategy that is the basis for the ICES advice is an escapement strategy, i.e. that the TAC is the surplus above a lower limit of biomass. Setting this lower limit includes considerations of the reproduction potential and ecosystem needs. The lower limit is the MSY Bescapment reference point. This is used in connection with the F cap reference point i.e that the fishing mortality implied by the advice should be below this value as an extra condition on the TAC advice. The sprat TAC is adjusted mid-year based on survey results. The within year TAC setting rule (B escapement with an F cap ) has been evaluated by ICES to be precautionary (ICES, 2014).
In 2014, EU and Norway agreed on an interannual quota flexibility of 10% of the TAC. Each party could transfer non ‐utilised quota of up to 10% of its quota into the next year, where it is added to the quota allocated to the party concerned in the following year (or borrow 10% of the TAC, to be subtracted the following year). This inter ‐annual flexibility has changed in 2015 so that 25 % of the TAC can be transferred into the next year, while up to 10 % can be borrowed.
There is no multiannual management plan implemented for this stock.
Research on sprat is conducted in particular at the Norwegian Marine Research institute (IMR) and at the Danish Research institute (DTU Aqua). Both institutes have developed strategic plans and research programmes, see http://www.aqua.dtu.dk/Om_DTU_Aqua/Mission_vision_opgaver (DTU Aqua) and http://www.imr.no/om_havforskningsinstituttet/en (IMR).
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 35
3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background
3.4.1 Primary and secondary species According to MSC CR v2.0, SA 3.1.3, primary species are those where management tools and measures are in place, intended to achieve stock management objectives reflected in either limit or target reference points. These measures can vary from an allocated TAC to specific management plans. For more information on management measures and allocated quota for each of the primary species please check the http://www.fiskeridir.no/ (with management measures), https://www.sildelaget.no/ (with allocated quotas), http://www.fisheries.no/ (with fishing regulations), http://www.imr.no/ (with information on MRI recommended quotas) and http://ices.dk/ (with ICES fishing advice).
Secondary species are those species of the catch that are neither considered as primary species (covered under PI 2.1) nor as endangered, threatened or protected species (covered under PI 2.3). MSC CR v2.0, SA 3.4.1, establishes when the species shall be considered as main (when the catch of a species comprises 5% or more by weight of the total catch of all species, or when the catch of a species comprises 2% or more of the total catch as long as the species is considered ‘less resilient’). Species with lower catch proportion are considered as minor primary or secondary species.
Table 20, Table 21 and Table 22 below show catch composition (in kg and percentage) for UoCs 1- 9, with proportion of each species in the total catch per gear, and whether each species is classified as primary or secondary. Table 23 lists main primary and secondary species for the different UoCs.
Table 20: Catch composition of the sandeel fishery (UoC 1-3) for 2016. Some sporadic catches of sandeel with midwater trawls have been included in UoC 1-3 (Bottom trawl), as impacts of midwater trawlers are expected to be smaller than those caused by bottom trawlers . Sandeel fishery
UoC 1-3 MSC spp Bottom Midwater Sandeel fishery % % classification trawl trawl Sandeel Target 11.995.236 96,56 31.000 100 Sprat Primary 2.940 <1% 0 0 Whiting Primary 35.726 <1% 0 0 Haddock Primary 5.279 <1% 0 0 Gurnard Secondary 27.464 <1% 0 0 Blue Whiting Primary 141.371 1,14 0 0 Hake Primary 1.960 <1% 0 0 Mackerel Primary 35.560 <1% 0 0 North Sea Herring Primary 117.080 <1% 0 0 Saithe Primary 1.372 <1% 0 0 Witch Primary 14.642 <1% 0 0 Argentine Secondary 46.942 <1% 0 0 Cod Primary 49 <1% 0 0 Norway Pout Primary 1.372 <1% 0 0 TOTAL KG 12.426.993 100% 31.000 100
Source: DNV-GL
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 36
Table 21: Catch composition of the Norway pout fishery (UoC 4 and UoC 5) for 2016. Some sporadic catches of Norway pout with purse seiners have been included in UoC 5 (midwater trawl), as impacts of purse seiners are expected to be smaller than those caused by midwater trawlers.
Norway pout fishery UoC 4 UoC 5 Norway pout MSC spp Bottom Midwater Purse fishery clasification trawl % trawl % seine % Norway Pout Target 30.827.506 78,12 5.438.252 90,40 23.680 100 Squid Secondary 447 <1% 341 <1% 0 0 Jellyfish Secondary 9.037 <1% 266 <1% 0 0 Long rough dab Secondary 44.965 <1% 0 <1% 0 0 Horse mackerel Primary 1.594.741 4,04 102.271 1,70 0 0 Whiting Primary 469.547 1,19 2.355 <1% 0 0 Haddock Primary 28.313 <1% 80 <1% 0 0 Gurnard Secondary 9.977 <1% 3.818 <1% 0 0 Blue Whiting Primary 4.337.034 10,99 311.159 5,17 0 0 Hake Primary 163.367 <1% 29.818 <1% 0 0 Mackerel Primary 16.861 <1% 328 <1% 0 0 North Sea Herring Primary 291.164 <1% 14.168 <1% 0 0 Eel pout Secondary 2.194 <1% 0 <1% 0 0 Northern shrimp Primary 10.214 <1% 0 <1% 0 0 Plaice Primary 886 <1% 0 <1% 0 0 Saithe Primary 127.285 <1% 549 <1% 0 0 Norway lobster Primary 186 <1% 0 <1% 0 0 Witch Primary 124.924 <1% 774 <1% 0 0 Argentine Secondary 1.156.102 2,93 61.330 1,02 0 0 Velvet Belly Secondary Lanternshark 6.723 <1% 294 <1% 0 0 Silver Pout Secondary 237.141 <1% 49.970 <1% 0 0 Cod Primary 3.787 <1% 0 <1% 0 0 Eel ETP 780 <1% 0 <1% 0 0 TOTAL (KG) 39.463.181 100% 6.015.773 100% 23.689 100
Source: DNV-GL
Table 22: Catch composition of the sprat fishery (UoC 6, UoC 7 and UoC 8) for 2016.
Sprat fishery
UoC 6 UoC 7 UoC 8 MSC spp Midwat er Sprat fishery Bottom trawl % % Purseiner % trawl Sprat Target 11.995.236,00 99,24 6.777.357,00 99,10 1.379.460,00 99,90 Squid Secondary 70,00 <1% 0,00 <1% 0,00 <1% Horse Primary mackerel 5.165,00 <1% 8.810,00 <1% 0,00 <1% Whiting Primary 14.324,00 <1% 13.706,00 <1% 0,00 <1%
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 37
Sprat fishery UoC 6 UoC 7 UoC 8 MSC spp Midwat er Sprat fishery Bottom trawl % % Purseiner % trawl Haddock Primary 50,00 <1% 0,00 <1% 0,00 <1% Gurnard Secondary 21.004,00 <1% 4.384,00 <1% 0,00 <1% Blue Whiting Primary 50,00 <1% 0,00 <1% 0,00 <1% Mackerel Primary 10.875,00 <1% 9.312,00 <1% 456,00 <1% North Sea Primary Herring 39.044,00 <1% 21.235,00 <1% 913,00 <1% Spurdog ETP 49,00 <1% 0,00 <1% 0,00 <1% Plaice Primary 100,00 <1% 0,00 <1% 0,00 <1% Witch Primary 1.495,00 <1% 3.048,00 <1% 0,00 <1% Cod Primary 49,00 <1% 0,00 <1% 0,00 <1% Norway Pout Primary 0,00 <1% 882,00 <1% 0,00 <1% TOTAL KG 12.087.511,00 100,00 6.838.734,00 100,00 1.380.829,00 100,00
Table 23 and Table 24 below show main and minor primary and secondary species, as well as direct ETP interactions, by UoC.
Table 23: Main primary and secondary species for the different UoCs.
Sandeel Norway pout fishery Sprat fishery fishery
UoC 1-3 UoC 4 UoC 5 UoC 6 UoC 7 UoC 8
Main None Blue Blue None None None primary whiting whiting species
Main None None None None None None secondary species
Source: DNV-GL
Table 24: Minor primary and secondary species for each UoC. Fatal interactions of each UoC with ETP species.
UoC 1-3 UoC 4 UoC 5 UoC 6 UoC 7 UoC 8
Minor Cod Cod Haddock Cod Horse Mackerel primary mackerel Haddock Haddock Hake Haddock North Sea species Mackerel herring Hake Hake Horse Horse mackerel mackerel Mackerel
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 38
North Sea Horse Mackerel Mackerel North Sea herring mackerel herring North Sea North Sea Norway Mackerel herring herring Norway Pout pout North Sea Saithe Norway Saithe herring pout Whiting Whiting Sprat Northern Plaice Witch Witch prawn Whiting Whiting Norway Witch Witch lobster
Plaice
Saithe
Whiting
Witch
Minor Argentine Argentine Argentine Gunard Gunard None secondary Gunard Eel pout Gunard Squid species Greater Gunard Jellyfish sandeel Jellyfish Molluscs Small Long rough Silver pout sandeel dab Squids Smooth Molluscs sandeel Velvet belly Silver pout lanternshark Northern sand lance Squids
Velvet belly lanternshark
ETP fatal None 780 kg of None Spurdog None None interactions eel (49 kg)
Source: DNV- GL
As shown in Table 23 above, the only main primary or secondary species for all UoCs is blue whiting. According to ICES 2016 advice for blue whiting , Fishing mortality (F) has increased from a historical low in 2011 to above FMSY since 2014. Spawning-stock biomass (SSB) increased since 2010 and is above MSY Btrigger. Recent recruitments are estimated above average, but with a high uncertainty. The catch advice for 2017 is a considerable increase compared to the advice given
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 39
for 2016, due to the good 2013 and 2014 year classes. The stock was benchmarked in 2012 (WKPELA; ICES, 2012). An inter-benchmark protocol was conducted in the spring of 2016 (ICES, 2016d). The main fishery takes place off the west coast of Ireland. Figure 14: Spawning stock biomass for blue whiting Source: ICES 2016 advice
Figure 15: Fishing pressure for blue whiting Source: ICES 2016 advice
Figure 16: Status of the blue whiting stock against its reference points. Source: ICES 2016 advice
ICES also gives advice for all minor primary species, which is summarised below: Cod: Fishing mortality (F) has been declining since 2000 and is estimated to be above FMSY. Spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has increased from the historical low in 2006 and is close to MSY Btrigger. Haddock: Fishing mortality (F) is above FMSY and spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has fallen below MSY Btrigger. Hake: The spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has increased significantly since 2006 and is well above MSY Btrigger. Fishing mortality (F) has decreased significantly over the last decade and has been below FMSY since 2011. Horse mackerel: In recent years, SSB has been declining and is currently below MSY Btrigger. Fishing mortality has increased since 2007 and is currently just below FMSY. Mackerel: The spawning-stock biomass (SSB) is estimated to have increased since the early 2000s and has been above MSY Btrigger since 2009. The fishing mortality (F) has been declining from high levels in the mid-2000s but remains above FMSY. North Sea herring: The spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has been above MSY Btrigger since 2009. Fishing mortality (F) has been below FMSY since 1996. Norway pout: The stock size is highly variable from year to year. In 2016, stock size has increased and is above Bpa. Fishing mortality has been below the long-term average F since 1995. Norway pout is the targeted species for UoC 7 and UoC 8, and acts as a primary species for UoC 1-3 and UoC 1-60. Northern prawn in the Norwegian Deep: The stock size has been above MSY Btrigger for most of the time-series, except for the period 2011–2014, and fishing mortality has been above
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 40
FMSY in the last three years, 2012–2014.The state of the stock in the Fladen ground is unknown. Norway lobster in the Norwegian Deep: Functional Unit 32. The state of this stock is unknown. Catches have been decreasing since 2006. Norway lobster in the Fladen ground: Functional Unit 7: The stock size has declined from the highest observed value in 2008 and is just below the MSY Btrigger. The 2015 abundance estimate is the lowest of the time-series. The harvest rate has declined in recent years and remains well below FMSY. Norway pout: The stock size is highly variable from year to year, due to recruitment variability and a short life span. Stock size has increased and is above Bpa in 2016. Fishing mortality has been below the long-term average F since 1995. Plaice: The combined North Sea and Skagerrak stock is well above MSY Btrigger, and has increased in the past ten years. In recent years, fishing mortality (F) has been estimated at around FMSY. Saithe: Fishing mortality (F) has been below FMSY since 2013. Spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has fluctuated without trend, remaining above MSY Btrigger since 1997. Sprat: The spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has been at or above MSY Bescapement since 2013. Fishing mortality (F) has shown an increase in the last two years. Sprat acts as the targeted species for UoC 6-8, and as a primary specie for UoC 1-3. Whiting: Spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has fluctuated around MSY Btrigger and is now just above MSY Btrigger. Fishing mortality (F) has been above FMSY throughout the time-series, but below Fpa since 2002. Witch: According to ICES 2017 advice, the abundance index shows a declining trend after 2000, but the index is much higher in 2014– 2015. Reference points are not defined for witch, however, estimated proxies have been estimated using the SPiCT model. These proxies show that F is below estimated FMSY and B is above B MSY. The stock is managed in the North Sea through a joint TAC with the lemon sole stock.
Of all secondary species, ICES only provides advice for grey gunard. According to ICES 2016 advice, reference points are not defined for this stock. The time-series of mature biomass index of grey gurnard from the International Bottom Trawl Survey quarter 1 (IBTS-Q1) shows a strong increase from the beginning of 1990s and has since fluctuated on a high level. Species misidentification and reporting of gurnard groups continues to be a problem in estimating the landings and discards of grey gurnard. In addition, discarding is estimated to be high. ICES advices that when the precautionary approach is applied, catches should be no more than 8813 tonnes for each of the years 2017 and 2018. If discard rates do not change from average of the last three years (2013– 2015), this implies landings of no more than 1763 tonnes. 3.4.2 Endangered, threatened or protected species Expected ETP species would include birds and marine mammals present in the area. According to ICES 2016 Ecosystem overview of the Greater North Sea area, there are at least 19 species of seabird breeding in the area, in particular large numbers of northern gannet ( Morus bassanus) , herring gull ( Larus argentatus) , lesser black-backed gull ( Larus fuscus) , common guillemot ( Uria aalge ) and black-legged kittiwake ( Rissa tridactyla, this one protected by the Norwegian red list of endangered species). The North Sea is used for feeding, both by breeding species on its coasts and by birds from further afield during the non-breeding season. Broadly, the numbers of breeding seabirds increased until about 2000, after which there was a decline. As regards marine mammals, two species of seal occur commonly in the North Sea: grey seal ( Halichoerus grypus) and harbour seal ( Phoca vitulina). Four cetacean species occur commonly or are resident: minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), white-beaked dolphin (Lagenorhynchus albirostris), and bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncates) . A further five species are
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 41
considered regular but less common, short-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus delphis), Atlantic white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus), long-finned pilot whale (Globicephala melas), killer whale (Orcinus orca), and Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus). All marine mammals are protected by the EU Habitats Directive.
According to MSC CR v2.0, ETP Species to consider for assessment are those that are recognised by national ETP legislation or by an international binding agreement, such as CITES, to which Norway is a signatory country. It also includes species classified by MSC as “out of scope” (amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) that are listed in the IUCN Redlist as vulnerable (VU), endangered (EN) or critically endangered (CE). Since 1985 Norway is a signatory party of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn Convention). As regards the ASCOBANS Agreement (Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans in the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas) Norway is a non-party range state. However, as the fishing grounds include European waters, the team has decided to take these species into consideration, as well as those covered by the EU Council Directive 92/43/EEC, on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Habitats Directive). The Norwegian red list of endangered species and the OSPAR list of threatened species have also been consulted for creating this list. Boxes in bold highlight the reason for the species to be classified as ETP. From all species listed in Table 25 below, direct interactions with the different UoC have only been reported for spurdogs and eels.
Table 25: ETP species for the Norwegian fleet in the North Sea.
CITES Norwegian EU Common Scientific IUCN Appendix ASCOBANS red list OSPAR habitats name name redlist I (2015) directive Annex II Yes No N/A No N/A Sturgeon Acipenser sturio and IV Near No No Endangered No No Razorbill Alca torda Threatened
Allis shad Alosa alosa No No N/A Yes N/A Annex II
Anguilla Critically European eel No No Vulnerable Yes No anguilla Endangered Balaenoptera Least Least Minke whales Yes No No Annex IV acutorostrata Concern concern Balaenoptera Sei whale Yes No N/A No Endangered Annex IV borealis Loggerhead No No No Vulnerable Annex II seaturtle Caretta caretta N/A Basking Cetorhinus No No Endangered Yes Endangered No shark maximus Coregonus Houting No No N/A Yes N/A Annex II oxyrinchus Short-beaked Delphinus Least common No Yes N/A No Annex IV delphis concern dolphins Common Critically Dipturus batis No No Yes N/A No Skate Endangered Fratercula Puffin No No Vulnerable No Vulnerable No arctica Fulmarus Least Fulmar No No Endangered No No glacialis concern Long-finned Globicephala Least Data No Yes No Annex IV pilot whales melas Concern deficient Risso’s Grampus Least No Yes N/A No Annex IV dolphin griseus concern Halichoerus Least Least No No No Annex II Grey seal grypus Concern concern
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 42
CITES Norwegian EU Common Scientific IUCN Appendix ASCOBANS red list OSPAR habitats name name redlist I (2015) directive Bottlenose Hyperoodon Least Data Yes Yes No Annex IV whale ampullatus Concern deficient Pygmy sperm Data Kogia breviceps No Yes N/A No Annex IV whale deficient Atlantic Lagenorhynchus Least Least white-sided No Yes No Annex IV acutus Concern concern dolphin White beaked Lagenorhynchus Least Least No Yes No Annex IV dolphins albirostris Concern concern
Critically Porbeagle Lamna nasus No No Vulnerable Yes No Endangered
Humpback Megaptera Least Least Yes No No Annex IV whales novaeangliae Concern concern Sowerby's Mesoplodon Data Data beaked No Yes No Annex IV bidens Deficient deficient whales Least Data Killer whale Orcinus orca No Yes No Annex IV concern deficient Petromyzon Near Sea lamprey No No Yes N/A Annex II marinus threatened Least Least No No No Annex II Harbour seal Phoca vitulina Concern concern Harbour Phocoena Least Least No Yes Yes Annex II porpoises phocoena Concern concern Physeter Sperm whale Yes No N/A No Vulnerable Annex IV macrocephalus Balearic Puffinus Critically No No N/A Yes No shearwater mauretanicus endangered Black-legged Least Rissa tridactyla No No Endangered Yes No kittiwake concern Squalus Critically Spurdog No No Endangered Yes No acanthias Endangered Striped Stenella Least No Yes N/A No Annex IV dolphins coeruleoalba concern Least Common tern Sterna hirundo No No Endangered No No Concern Least Roseate tern Sterna dougallii No No N/A Yes No Concern Bottle nosed Tursiops Least No Yes N/A No Annex II dolphins truncatus concern
Source: DNV-GL
Direct interactions would be those caused by the gear getting in touch with the animal. This may result in casualties or injuries for the individual and damage for the nets. Indirect effects would be those related to biomass removal by the fishery, affecting prey availability for ETP species.
ETP populations such as marine mammals are monitored by different programs through population estimates. Monitoring of seabirds is carried out through monitoring of the breeding success of birds. There have been cases in which indirect effects for birth populations have been estimated to be high. The sandeel fishery near the coast of Scotland was closed to protect the nesting birds in the area (black-legged kittiwakes in the Firth of Forth, Scotland).
As reported on Table 24 , fatal interactions with ETP species have been very limited, with 780 kg of eel taken by UoC 4 and 49 kg of spurdog taken by UoC 6 during 2016. According to the DFPO and DPPO MSC Certification report for the sandeel, Norway pout and sprat fishery in European waters of the North Sea, the combined fishery did not report any fatal interactions with any of the above mentioned species for 2014 (those were the landing data used in that report).
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 43
ICES provides advice both for eels and spurdog in the North Sea:
• European eel ( Anguilla anguilla ): European eels are migratory snake-like fish that spawn in the ocean but spend the youth in fresh waters of European rivers. In captivity, they can live for up to 80 years and reach lengths of more than 1 m. Grown adults are commonly known as silver eels while alevins are known as glass eels. Eels are affected by fishing but also by changes of environmental factors, including pollution, habitat changes and temperature changes. According to ICES 2016 advice, the population of eels is thought to have declined more than 90% since the 70’s. The status of the stock is considered critical and ICES advices that all commercial and recreational catches of all eel stages (at continental or sea waters) should be kept as close to zero as possible. Illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing is believed to occur in some areas of Europe.
There are no defined reference points for the stock. In 2007 the EU established a management framework for eel through an EU regulation ( EC Regulation No. 1100/2007 ; EC, 2007), but there is no internationally coordinated management plan for the entire stock area, which extends beyond the EU. The objective of the EU regulation is the protection, recovery, and sustainable use of the stock. To achieve the objective, different EU Member States have developed eel management plans (EMPs) for their respective river basin districts. Latest report on the progress of this management plans dates from 2015.
• Spurdog ( Squalus acanthias ): Spurdog is a long-lived, slow-growing, and late-maturing shark which is particularly vulnerable to fishing mortality. According to ICES 2016 advice, the stock was subject to high harvest rates for more than four decades, and fisheries were not managed during that time. Management measures have only been restrictive for the entire stock area since 2009, and the TAC was reduced to zero in 2011. It remains as bycatch in the mixed demersal and gillnet fisheries, and an unquantified amount of discarding now takes place in these fisheries. Any possible provision for the landing of bycatch should be part of a management plan, including close monitoring of the stock and fisheries. Fishing mortality is now below F MSY but the stock biomass remains below MSY B trigger. Recovery of the stock will be slow (e.g. over 30 years to reach current MSY Btrigger) and not biologically feasible under short-term management time frames.
3.4.3 Habitats According to landing data provided the sandeel, Norway pout and sprat fisheries took place in 2016 in the following fishing grounds. Green areas represent areas with higher catches.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 44
Figure 17: Sandeel fishing grounds for Figure 18: Norway pout fishing grounds the Norwegian fleet in 2016. for the Norwegian fleet in 2016. Source: DNV-GL Source: DNV-GL
Figure 19: Sprat fishing grounds for the Norwegian fleet in 2016. Source: DNV-GL
The European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) has mapped the North Sea waters to find out that the seabed habitat types in the areas where these fisheries take place ranges broadly within short distances. The seafloor consists of mostly mixed sediments comprised of mud, sand, gravel and rock. In the north, the areas close to the Scottish and Norwegian coasts are rocky, with mud predominant in the other northerly areas. Coarser sands are dominant in the shallow tidally active south. The patchwork distribution of the sediments is due to glacial deposition during the last ice age. Glaciers from Scotland and Scandinavia deposited large amounts of sand and gravel to the North Sea floor, creating features like the Dogger Bank (Mackinson, S. and Daskalov, G., 2007).
Figure 20 shows the main sediments in the areas where the fishery takes place.
Figure 20: Major substrates on the shelf in the Greater North Sea. Source : www.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu
The sandeel fishery is very localized and takes place with bottom trawlers in patches of sandy bottoms near the Norwegian trench. The Norway pout fishery takes place with bottom trawlers and pelagic trawlers in the sandy bottoms of the Fladden Ground but also in the muddy areas closer (or inside) the Norwegian EEZ. The sprat fishery takes place with bottom trawlers, pelagic trawlers
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 1
and purse seiners in the muddy grounds of the Dogger bank, the Oyster ground and the German bight. Therefore, habitats affected by the different UoCs are mainly sandy or muddy areas.
According to ICES 2016 overview of the North Sea, the benthic substrate in the area is predominantly characterized by soft sediments (from muds to gravel beds). Sediments from mobile muds to coarse sands are present throughout the region. Gravel beds are mainly distributed in the English Channel and the southern North Sea. The North Sea contains limited biogenic and geogenic reefs, except for patches of Sabellaria spinulosa reefs and scattered boulder fields. Oysters and Sea grass were common long ago in the central part of the North Sea, but they both have mostly disappeared. The benthic communities present now in the North Sea show a division between communities in the mainly shallow inshore waters in the south (English Channel to German Bight) from those in deeper waters (>50 m) north of the Dogger Bank. In between, the offshore communities of the sandy and muddy areas are also well distinguished (including the Oyster Ground and the sandy Dogger Bank). Coarser substrata, especially in the southwestern North Sea and the eastern English Channel generally supports species-rich communities, contrasting the latitudinal (south-to-north) trend towards higher diversity in finer sediments (ICES, 2016).
EU Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Habitats Directive), sets different species and areas that fall under protection in EU jurisdiction.
Figure 21 below shows areas which are protected by this regulation (blue areas), while red areas show areas protected by the EU Birds Directive.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 2
Figure 21: EU Natura 2000 Marine Protected Habitats (in blue) in EU jurisdiction. Source: EU Natura 2000 display map.
The OSPAR Commission also works identifying threatened or declining habitats in the North East Atlantic region. For the North Sea, the OSPAR Commission specifies the following habitats as declining in the Greater North Sea area: • Coral gardens • Intertidal Mytilus edulis beds on mixed and sandy sediments • Intertidal muds • Littoral chalk communities • Lophelia pertusa reefs • Maerl beds • Modiolus modiolus beds • Ostrea edulis beds • Saballaria spinulosa reefs • Sea-pen and burrowing megafauna communities • Zoostera beds.
Figure 22 shows big sea-pen and burrowing megafauna aggregations (in blue) overlapping the Norway pout and sprat fishing grounds.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 3
Figure 22: OSPAR map for threatened or declining habitats. Source: OSPAR Commission.
The Norwegian MAREANO program also maps the location of vulnerable habitats in Norwegian waters.
Figure 23 below shows the location of coral reefs (orange), soft sponge aggregations (pink), seapens (yellow) and other vulnerable habitats within the Norwegian EEZ. Red boxes show protected areas, intended for the protection of corals. The Directorate of Fisheries also offers maps of protected areas, but most of these areas are located in coastal areas within the fjords (https://kart.fiskeridir.no/fiskeri). In 2016 Regulation J-48-2016 was ratified in order to protect coral reefs from degradation as a result of fishing activity, and designates different areas for the protection of benthic habitats.
Figure 23: Vulnerable habitats and protected areas as identified in the MAREANO Program maps. Source: www.mareano.no
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 4
3.4.4 Ecosystems The North Sea (ICES Area IV, divisions a, b, and c) is a mid-latitude, relatively shallow continental shelf covering approximately 570,000 km2 (Jones, 1982) with an average depth of approximately 90 m, the deepest part in the Norwegian trench being approximately 400 m deep. It is bounded by the coasts of Norway, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, France and Great Britain and recognised as a Large Marine Ecosystem (McGlade, 2002). The continental coastal zone, with a mean depth of 15 m, represents an area of about 60,000 km2, and is strongly influenced by rivers and industrial inputs.
The North Sea region is subject to different pressures, al linked to human activity: fishing, coastal construction, maritime transport, oil and gas exploration and production, tourism and recreation, navigation dredging, aggregate extraction, military, and wind farm construction. Over the last few decades, climate warming has been made evident, especially in the southern area, leading to changes in the species abundance. Besides, the heavy marine traffic, has led to the apparition of non-indigenous species. According to Mackinson, S. and Daskalov, G. (2007), there are at least 274 non-indigenous species in the area. This brings different ecological impacts associated, the main one being the reduction in the abundance of native species.
a. Source: Mackinson, S. and Daskalov, G., b. Source: Brown et al ., (1999) 2007
Figure 24: a. Bathymetry of the North Sea. ICES Area IV, divisions a, b and c, set the boundaries of the North Sea. b. Surface water circulation in the North Sea. The width of arrows is indicative of the magnitude of volume transport. Red arrows indicate relatively pure Atlantic water.
The North Sea ecoregion consists of four key areas:
• Northern North Sea (depths 0–500 m) is strongly influenced by the salty Atlantic inflow (salinity 35‰), which causes seasonal stratification. In these stratified waters the
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 5
density boundary between the mixed and stable water (thermocline, halocline, pycnocline) divides the inorganic nutrient rich bottom water layer from the wind mixed upper layer where nutrients may be limiting. When the rich bottom waters reach the surface then algal blooms appear. The deepest area of the Northern North Sea in the Norwegian Trench, is located at the Eastern part. • Southern North Sea (depths 0–50 m) is influenced by large river inputs (salinity 29‰), both of freshwater and of nitrates and phosphates. The area is shallower and the water column remains mixed for most of the year. This leads to highest Primary production in the coastal regions of the Southern North Sea. The area is also influenced by inflowing waters from the English Channel, which generate strong tidal currents and an increased sediment load. • The English Channel joins the southern North Sea to the Atlantic. It is usually mixed and heavily influenced by tides and wind events. • The Skagerrak and Kattegat Seas link the North Sea with the Baltic Sea. Water here is less saline due to the influence of the Baltic Sea input and also less tidal.
The North Sea is characterized by episodic changes in the productivity of key components of the ecosystem, described as regime shifts. There have been reports of a shift from pelagic to benthic production. Phytoplankton, zooplankton, and demersal and pelagic fish have all exhibited such cycles in variability, which are also expected for the future ( Mackinson, S. and Daskalov, G., 2007).
There are different institutions carrying out research in the North Sea (IMR, DTU-Aqua, the UK Joint Nature Conservation Committee , the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences , …) and various ecosystem models for the North Sea area, such as the North Sea Stochastic Multispecies Model (SMS Model; Lewy and Vinther, 2004), the Ecopath and Ecosim model (Mackinson, S. and Daskalov, G., 2007), a model for trophic interactions in the North Sea for 1981 (Christensen, V., 1995), larval transport models for the North Sea ( https://odnature.naturalsciences.be/remsem/ecosystem- modelling), … Different countries in the area (Norway, UK, the Netherland, Denmark and Germany, among others) also participate in the CoralFish project, which is focused on the research on interactions between cold water corals, fish and fisheries, in order to develop monitoring and predictive modelling tools for ecosystem based management.
The North Sea Stochastic Multispecies Model (SMS Model; Lewy and Vinther, 2004) is a statistical model based on maximum likelihood optimization. It is a development of the earlier “MSVPA” models (Gislason and Helgason, 1985) and it can be viewed as a simplified version of the “Gadget” model system (Begley and Howell, 2004), and serves to support ecosystem based management of the North Sea fish stocks. The model includes the 3 targetted species as well as other fish predators and preys in the region, and also birds, grey seals and harbour porpoise. Inputs for the model are taken of observations of catch-at-age, survey indices, and stomach contents. The SMS model provides outputs such as estimations of biomasses, fishing mortalities, and predation mortalities. Predation mortalities are updated on a tri-annual schedule, and are used in many single species stock assessments in the North Sea, assuring that dependant predators are left sufficient available resources for their preying needs.
According to Mackinson, S. and Daskalov, G. (2007), t he main fisheries in the area can be split into demersal, pelagic and industrial, and supply approximately two million tonnes of fish each year. The overall fishing effort has fallen to half since the 2000, and there has been a swift into less fuel consuming fishing gears. mobile bottom trawling techniques used by commercial fisheries in the 12 m+ vessel category have been deployed over approximately 290 000 km2 of the Greater North Sea in 2013, corresponding to ca. 42.5% of the ecoregion’s spatial extent. The proportion of swept seafloor decreased gradually by ca. 7.5% between 2009 and 2013.
Main fisheries in the North Sea are:
• The demersal fisheries target species such as cod (Gadus morhua ), haddock ( Gadus aeglefinus ) and whiting ( Gadus merlangus ), plaice (Pleuronectes platessa ), sole ( Solea solea ) and saithe ( Pollachius virens ). These fisheries are in decline since early 1980s. • The pelagic fisheries target herring ( Clupea harenguss ) and mackerel ( Scomber scomber ). • Industrial fisheries account for most of the catches in the area, providing roughly one million tonnes of species such as sandeels (Ammodytes Spp), Norway pout ( Trisopterus esmarkii ) and sprat ( Sprattus sprattus ). The catch of these species is processed into fishmeal and fish oil, not for human consumption.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 6
• There are also important crustacean fisheries for Nephrops (Nephrops norvegicus ), pink shrimp ( Pandalus borealis ), brown shrimp ( Crangon crangon ) and brown crab ( Cancer pagurus ).
Fishing can affect both community structure and foodwebs. Characteristics of the North Sea foodweb are a high production by autotrophic organisms which in turn are consumed by zooplankton and benthos, followed by fish, seabirds, and mammals. The North Sea foodweb is one of the most studied ones in the ICES area. In the past big fish, including elasmobranchs, were major predators in the ecosystem, but now the foodweb is perturbed as many of these big fish are either absent or present only in reduced numbers. The recovering of these big fish populations will likely have consequences for the large forage fish populations in the North Sea (herring, sprat, sandeel, and Norway pout). This forage species feed on plankton and are, along with juvenile gadoids, an important food source in the foodweb, as they are all preyed by species such as whiting, haddock, grey gurnard, mackerel and horse mackerel. Figure 25 below shows foobwed interactions as described by Lynam, C. (2007).
Figure 25: Significant interactions in the North Sea ecosystem, modelled using statistical tGAMs.
Source: http://www.ices.dk/community/Documents/Expert%20Groups/Lynam_tGAMmodel_key_mov.pdf
Trophic levels describe the hierarchical architecture of the food web. According to Mackinson, S. and Daskalov, G. (2007), Trophic Levels in the North Sea can be generally described as follows: • The lowest Trophic Level is 1, and by definition is assigned to primary producers (phytoplankton), • herbivores throphic level is normally bigger than 2, • planktivorous fish and carnivorous zooplankton trophic level ranges between 2 and 4, • most of the benthivores have a trophic level ranging between 3 and 4, • piscivores trophic level range between 3 and 5 depending on the diet, • dominant top-predators are seals (Trophic level of 5.01), large sharks (Trophic level of 4.93), and other species such as spurdog, cod, monk, hake and halibut with Trophic Levels between 4.8 and 4.9.
According to MSC FCR v2.0, SA 2.2.8, teams shall treat a stock under assessment against Principle 1 as a key low trophic species if it is one of the species types listed in Box SA1 (as sandeels, Norway pout and sprat are), and in its adult life cycle phase the stock holds a key role in the ecosystem, such that it meets at least two of the following sub-criteria i, ii and iii.:
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 7
iv. A large proportion of the trophic connections in the ecosystem involve this stock, leading to significant predator dependency; v. A large volume of energy passing between lower and higher trophic levels passes through this stock; vi. There are few other species at this trophic level through which energy can be transmitted from lower to higher trophic levels, such that a high proportion of the total energy passing between lower and higher trophic levels passes through this stock (i.e., the ecosystem is ‘wasp-waisted’).
The team has decided not to consider the sandeel, Norway pout and sprat species under assessment as they do not meet at least two of those three sub-criteria. Sandeel trophic level is 3.35, Norway pout trophic level is 3.59, and sprat trophic level is 2.97.
According to Mackinson, S. and Daskalov, G., 2007, as confirmed by Engelhard et al 2014 as shown in Figure 26 below, in the North Sea there are several different species identified in the same trophic level (therefore sub-criteria iii is not met). Also, none of the three species represent a large proportion of the trophic connections (therefore sub-criteria i is not met), i.e. the proportion of food each species represent is low with the exception of some sea birds where special area closures and hence no fishing takes place have been implemented to provide the necessary food basis.
Hence, in general e ven though many species eat the forage fish, no single predator rely fully on one forage fish species. Notwithstanding this, the importance of the prey role of these species in the North Sea is recognised and ICES includes these considerations in the setting of reference points for sustainable exploitation.
Figure 26: Species present in the North Sea and trophic level of each species in the North Sea trophic chain. Source: Mackinson, S. and Daskalov, G., 2007.
The Selectivity Index describes a predator’s preference for prey. It scales from -1 to 1; where -1 indicates total avoidance of a prey; 0 indicates that a prey is taken in proportion to its abundance in the ecosystem; and 1 indicates total preference for a prey. The index is independent of prey availability. According to Mackinson, S. and Daskalov, G., 2007, the selectivity index showed the following results:
• Sandeel is positively preyed by mackerel, whiting, minke whales, seabirds, rays, haddock, gunard and small demersal fish. On the other hand, sandeel is avoided by sharks, saithe, small gadoids (eg pouting, poor cod), megrim, and large demersal fish.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 8
• Norway pout is strongly preferred by commercial gadoids, spurdog, starry ray, and horse mackerel, and avoided by baleen whales, large sharks, thornback and spotted rays, and small gadoids. • Sprat is preferred by seabirds, whiting, mackerel, and megrim, and avoided by seals, monkfish and small demersals.
Figure 27: Selectivity index for the targeted species. Source: Mackinson, S. and Daskalov, G., 2007.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 9
Figure 28: Quantity of fish (in tonnes) consumed by predators and fished. Source: Mackinson, S. and Daskalov, G., 2007.
Figure 29: Mortality caused on fish groups by the main predator and the fisheries (shown in the x-axis). Columns are the main prey groups. Source: Mackinson, S. and Daskalov, G., 2007.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 10
Figure 30: Structure of mortality: a: mortality; b: percentage of the total mortality. Source: Mackinson, S. and Daskalov, G., 2007.
In order to increase the knowledge on the impacts that forage fisheries may have, the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force has elaborated a scientific guidance for implementing an ecosystem-based approach to forage fisheries management. The sandeel and sprat forage fisheries have been described, among others, in the Little fish, big impact report by this organization. According to this report forage fish are vulnerable, and also valuable as prey, and conventional management is too risky for forage stocks, which would benefit from precautionary management to protect both predators and preys.
For fisheries with a high level of knowledge of the biology of the stock, the environmental drivers affecting them, and a high level of monitoring and enforcement, where the population and status of predators are known in sufficient detail, the functional responses of dependant predators are well defined, and localized forage fish requirements of dependant predators can be estimated with high precision, so that effects of localized depletion on dependant predators can be well described (such as the North Sea is), the above mentioned Task Force recommends the following management actions:
a) The harvest strategy must include an upper limit to F and a lower limit below which targeted fishing ceases (BLIM), and F should be reduced as BLIM approached. b) The harvest strategy must include precautionary buffers that account for limits on the ability to predict fisheries and food web dynamics. c) The harvest strategy must—by independent, realistic, quantitative testing— be shown to achieve the Dependent Predator Performance Criterion, protect the forage fish stock from impaired reproduction, and allow it to recover through periods of natural fluctuation in productivity.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 11
d) In any case, lower biomass limits should not be less than 30% B0, and the maximum fishing rate should not exceed 75% FMSY or 75% of natural mortality. e) Apply spatial management to account for localized depletion effects on spatially constrained predators.
The assessment team considers that these recommendations are generally followed on the management of sandeel, Norway pout and sprat fisheries in the North Sea, as described below: a) ICES advice generally includes an estimated MSY F limit in order to maintain stock biomass at safe levels, however, no MSY F has been defined for these stocks. Fishing pressure is regulated by the quotas set to the different fishing countries in the area (mainly Denmark and Norway, for these fisheries). ICES revision on Spawning stock biomass and Fishing mortality leads, when necessary, to the advice of decreasing the allocated quotas, in order to protect the stock. b) Spawning stock biomass and Fishing mortality benefit from precautionary buffers in form of MSY F target and F limit, as well as MSY SSB trigger and SSB limit. TACs are generally allocated seeking for the maintenance of the stocks at MSY levels. c) The Dependant Predator Performance Criterion requires the fishery to assure that sufficient prey is available as to avoid any dependant predator population to become depleted to levels that would meet the IUCN level of Vulnerable. The “Little fish, big impact” report specifically mentions the effects that the sandeel fishery had on the kittiwake bird population in the coasts of Scotland. Since then, the Firth of Forth has remained closed to fishing activities in order to protect this bird population. Impacts of the fishery on birds and marine mammals populations have been evaluated under PI 2.2 (secondary species), PI 2.3 (ETP species) and PI 2.5 (Ecosystem). d) ICES only provides the estimated biomass level, and the reference biomasses Blim and Bpa, which are estimated independently. Figure 29 and Figure 30 above show that the biomass fished for these stocks is generally equal or less to the biomass removed by predators. It is therefore considered that Fishing mortality does not exceed 75% of natural mortality values. e) The sandeel fishery has adopted a spatial management plan which accounts for local depletion of the stock. The limits of the different 7 fishing sandeel management areas was revised in February 2017 by ICES. The Norway pout and sprat fisheries are not subject to these separated spatial management areas, as spatial constrained predation is not an issue for these stocks.
3.4.4.1 Sand eels role in the food web and Key LTL species
Predation rates of seabirds and marine mammals on sandeels are trivial by comparison with predation rates by large fish, as shown by the MSVPA analysis. There is no evidence for depletion of sandeels by seabirds or marine mammals, even locally at major breeding colonies. However, some predatory fish consume very large amounts of sandeels. There is evidence that sandeel stocks increased in abundance in the North Sea following major reductions in the stocks of cod, haddock, whiting, herring, and mackerel, apparently a top-down effect resulting from reduced predation by these fish.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 12
Figure 31 Proportion of the diet consisting of sandeel for different predatory fish. Source: ICES 2014 Annex 12, Figure 3.3b
There is evidence that sea bird colonies in the Shetland area (Area NS-7r) and off Scotland (Area NS-4) (see
Figure 8 for area definition) feed on these species. These energy transfers are however small compared to the transfers in the fish compartments. The impact is demonstrated on local abundance and therefore there are large areas where the fishery for sand eel are banned to protect bird breeding both around Shetland and on the Scottish coastal waters.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 13
3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background 3.5.1 Jurisdiction The fishery takes place in waters under Norwegian and EU jurisdiction. 3.5.2 Legal basis and management set-up Norway has a well-established system for fisheries management, which has evolved over more than a century and is now codified in the 2008 Marine Resources Act and secondary legislation. The Act applies to all catch and use of marine resources and their genetic material and covers issues such as bioprospecting, catch levels and quotas, catch and use of marine resources, arrangements on the fishing fields, liability for damage and local regulations and monitoring, enforcement, sanctions and criminal liability. The Marine Resources Act is a framework law, which in the main authorizes the Government to issue specific regulations within designated fields. The most important rules are found in the Regulation on the Execution of Marine Fisheries, which is updated annually. The Regulation contains rules for mesh size, selection and limitations on the use of specific catch gear, seasonal restrictions, bycatch, minimal fish size, discard ban, restrictions on the use of trawl in specific areas, protection of coral reefs, documentation on hold volumes, marking of vessels and gear, loss of gear and fish welfare. Other important legal instruments are the 1999 Act on the Right to Participate in Fisheries, the 2015 Act on First-Hand Sales of Wild Catch of Marine Resources, the 2016 Regulation on Participation in Fisheries, the 2016 Regulation on Licencing and the 2016 Regulation on Landing and Sales Notes. All Regulations are subject to running modifications and additions through so-called J-orders, which are distributed to the fishing fleet electronically. This includes dedicated and regularly updated annual regulations for the fishery of each specific species, including separate regulations for sandeel, Norway pout and sprat. The executive body at governmental level is the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries, while the practical regulation of fisheries is delegated to the Directorate of Fisheries. Enforcement at sea is taken care of by the Coast Guard, which is part of the Royal Norwegian Navy, but performs tasks on behalf of several ministries, including the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries. Scientific research is performed by the Institute of Marine Research. Fisheries management authorities coordinate their regulatory work with that of other bodies of governance, for instance the Ministry of Climate and Environment and the Norwegian Environmental Agency, which are responsible for the implementation of the integrated management plans for different marine areas. Management of shared stocks in the North Sea is regulated through a framework agreement on fisheries cooperation between Norway and the EU from 1980 (in force 1981). The agreement is not specific as to how shared stocks should be managed, but according to practice six stocks have been identified as ‘joint stocks’ which are jointly managed (among them cod and haddock), while four stocks are considered ‘shared stocks but not jointly managed – in the latter category we find sandeel and Norway pout. Hence, the EU–Norway forms part of the institutional context of the fishery under assessment, but not part of its management structure per se. Sprat is an exclusive EU stock, and Norway receives a share of the sprat quota in exchange for EU quota shares in Norwegian fisheries such as for Northeast Arctic cod. The fishery is managed within the context of EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), whose most important management mechanism are the multi-annual management plans for individual fisheries. The national legal documents refer to and are in compliance with relevant international agreements, such as the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention and the 1995 Fish Stocks Agreement. 3.5.3 Objectives The 2008 Marine Resources Act requires that Norwegian fisheries management be guided by the precautionary approach, in line with international treaties and guidelines, and by an ecosystem approach that takes into account habitats and biodiversity. The same objectives are found in the most relevant policy documents, such as the integrated management plans for the Barents and Norwegian Seas, and for the North Sea and Skagerrak.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 14
The current CFP regulation requires that member states, in accordance with international treaties such as the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, the 1993 FAO Compliance Agreement and the 1995 Fish Stocks Agreement, apply the precautionary approach to fisheries management, and aim to ensure that exploitation of living marine biological resources restores and maintains populations of harvested species above levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield. It is specifically mentioned that when targets relating to the maximum sustainable yield cannot be determined, multiannual (management) plans shall provide for measures based on the precautionary approach, ensuring at least a comparable level of protection for the relevant fish stocks. The maximum sustainable yield exploitation rate shall be achieved by 2015 where possible and, on a progressive, incremental basis at the latest by 2020 for all stocks.
3.5.4 Stakeholders and consultation processes Norway has a long tradition of including non-governmental organizations in fisheries management, with continuous consultation and close cooperation between governmental agencies and user-group organizations, in particular the Norwegian Fishermen’s Association, but also the more specialized organizations such as the fishermen’s sales organizations. As these organizations have regional branches, whose representatives are actively involved in policy-making, ensuring that local knowledge is also taken into consideration in the management process. So-called Regulatory Meetings are organized twice a year are open to all; user-group organizations and NGOs attend on a regular basis. In addition, there is day-to-day contact by telephone and email between authorities, user groups and other interested parties. Distribution of the national quota between different gear and fishing fleets has in practice been delegated to the Norwegian Association of Fishermen, which includes all fishermen from the smallest coastal vessels to ocean-going trawlers. Hence, the inherent conflict of interest between different vessel types is handled at the level of the Fishermen’s Association, and the outcome is formalized by the Ministry or Directorate after agreement has been reached within the Association. Technical regulation measures are to a large extent decided upon in direct consultations ‘over the table’ between authorities and user groups at the Regulatory Meetings. The Sami Parliament is formally consulted in the management of fisheries that are of historical importance to the indigenous Sami population. In addition to formal and informal consultation on the running regulation of the fisheries, user-group organizations and authorities work together – e.g. in designated working groups – to tackle new and emerging challenges to the fishery, such as conflicts with the petroleum sector, marine litter, ghost fishing and other threats to the marine environment. User groups such as the Norwegian Fishermen’s Association also participate in the annual negotiations conducted between Norway and other countries. Norwegian management authorities actively seek advice from user groups in preparation for all international consultations and negotiations, and user groups are included in the Norwegian delegation. The situation is similar at EU level, where user groups participate in the bilateral negotiations with Norway and meetings in NEAFC and the North Sea Advisory Council (NSAC); in the two latter, NGOs are also allowed to participate as observers. The Advisory Councils are the main consultation mechanism through which industry engages with management authorities at EU level. They include European industry and NGO representatives ensuring local knowledge is considered within the management system. They actively develop policy advice to the European Commission and are considered as part of the EU’s management system.
3.5.5 Enforcement and compliance The Marine Resources Act places the overall responsibility for monitoring, control and surveillance in Norwegian fisheries with the Directorate of Fisheries. The 1997 Coast Guard Act provides the Coast Guard with the authority to conduct inspections in waters under Norwegian jurisdiction, within the fields covered by the Marine Resources Act and secondary legislation given with statutory authority in that Act. Hence, MCS in Norwegian fisheries is taken care of through shared responsibility and close collaboration between the Directorate of Fisheries, the Coast Guard and the
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 15
regional sales organizations. The Directorate of Fisheries keeps track of how much fish is taken of the quotas of individual vessels, different vessel groups and other states at any given time, based on reports from the fishing fleet. Norwegian vessels are required to have electronic logbooks, or more specifically Electronic Reporting Systems (ERS). This implies that real-time data are forwarded to the Directorate of Fisheries, with the possibility to make corrections of data submitted each day within 12 hours into the next day. Norway has agreements in place with a number of other countries about exchange of ERS data, including the EU. The self-reported catch data can be checked at sales operations through the sales organizations, which have monopoly on first-hand sale of fish in Norway, and through physical checks performed by the sales organizations, the Directorate of Fisheries and the Coast Guard. The sales organizations are required to record all landings of fish in Norway and keep track of how much remains of a vessel’s quota at any given time, on the basis of the landings data. This information is compared to the figures provided by the vessels to the Directorate of Fisheries through the electronic logbook. The value of any catch delivered above a vessel’s quota is retained by the sales organization and used for control purposes. The sales organizations have their own inspectors who carry out physical controls of landings. They check, among other things, weighing equipment, quantity and size distribution of the catch, the quality of the fish and documentation. The Directorate has seven regional offices along the coast, staffed with inspectors that carry out independent physical control of the fish at the point of landing, including total volume, species and fish size. All landings have to be reported six hours in advance in order to give the inspectors the possibility to check the landed catch. The landed volumes are compared to the volumes reported to the Directorate through the logbooks. Both landing and at-sea control is conducted using a risk-based framework aimed at utilizing resources to optimize compliance at any given moment. As mentioned above, the Coast performs tasks on behalf of several ministries, but its most important field of work in practice is fishery inspections. Coast Guard inspectors board fishing vessels and control the catch (e.g. catch composition and fish size) and fishing gear (e.g. mesh size) on deck and the volume of fish in the holds. Using the established conversion factors for the relevant fish product, the inspectors calculate the volume of the fish in round weight and compare this with the catches reported to the Directorate through the logbooks. Hence, there are a number of possibilities for enforcement authorities to physically check whether the data provided by fishers through self- reporting are indeed correct. In addition, VMS data enables control of whether area restrictions are observed, among other things. Intentional or negligent violations are punished with fines or prison up to one year, while infringements committed with gross intent or negligence may be punished with prison up to six years. In the judgment of the seriousness of the infringement, the economic gain of the violation, among other things, is to be taken into consideration. Alternatively, catch, gear, vessels or other properties can be confiscated. The Norwegian enforcement agencies use a graduated sanctioning system, with sanctions ranging from oral warnings, written warnings and administrative fines to formal prosecution. If the fishers do not accept the fines issued by the enforcement or prosecution authority, the case goes to court. The decision of a lower-level court can then be appealed to higher- level courts. The EU system for fisheries control is laid out in the Control Regulation, which entered into force on 1 January 2010. The Regulation applies to all activities covered by the CFP carried out on the territory of member states or in EU waters, and by EU fishing vessels or nationals of a member state. It requires all member states to adopt appropriate measures, allocate adequate financial, human and technical resources and set up all administrative and technical structures necessary for ensuring control, inspection and enforcement of activities under the CFP. The Regulation contains Titles (‘sections’ above chapter level) on, among other things, access to waters and resources, control of fisheries, control of marketing, surveillance, inspections and proceedings, enforcement and common control programmes. Among the substantial requirements are that member states operate a vessel monitoring system (VMS) and an automatic identification system (AIS), to be generally applied by vessels above 12 and 15 meters, respectively, and that they make the use of fishing logbooks mandatory for all vessels above 10 meters and electronic logbook for all vessels above 12 meters. The Regulation also introduces an obligation of member states to employ real-time closure of
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 16
fisheries. Further, member states are obliged to carry out monitoring of fishing activities by inspection vessels or surveillance aircraft and physical inspections of fishing vessels; in addition to national inspectors, a pool of Community inspectors shall also be set up. Procedures are established for situations where infringements are detected, including enhanced follow-up when infringements are serious, such as misrecording of catches of more than 500 kg or 10 % of what is reported in the logbook. Further, provisions are given for proceedings and sanctions. There is an extensive exchange of information (e.g. inspection data) among the North East Atlantic states, bilaterally and multilaterally through the NEAFC control and enforcement scheme. Norwegian enforcement authorities report the level of compliance in the fishery to be high. In 2016, the Coast Guard carried out 1569 inspections at sea. 302 inspections (19.2 %) resulted in a warning and 74 inspections (4.7 %) in a fine or prosecution. 58 inspections were carried out in the fishery under assessment – 4 warnings (6.9 %) were issued, but no fines. The Directorate of Fisheries performed 2919 inspections in 2016. Infringements leading up to a fine or prosecution were found in 391 inspections (13.4 %). 61 inspections of the fisheries under assessment revealed 7 infringements (11.5 %), mostly related to inaccuracies in the catch log – of these, only one vessel was fined (1.6 %). Under the data exchange arrangements with other states, bilaterally and under the NEAFC control and enforcement scheme, Norwegian enforcement authorities have not been informed of any violations committed by the UoA fishers in waters outside Norwegian jurisdiction. As follows from the above, the fishery has in place a comprehensive system for monitoring, control and surveillance, including physical checks of fishing operations, catch and gear, as well as a fine- meshed sanctioning system. In addition to these coercive compliance mechanisms, various forms of norm-, legitimacy- and communication-related mechanisms have also proved effective to deliver compliance in Norwegian fisheries. First, there is a degree of social control in the small coastal communities from which the fishery takes place, and the high level of user-group involvement may provide regulations with a degree of legitimacy that increases fishermen’s inclination to comply with them. The same applies to the relationship between fishermen and enforcement officers, which is reported to be good. Inspectors are trained to approach the fishermen in as forthcoming a manner as possible and perceive themselves as having a guidance-providing and not only a policing role towards the fishing fleet.
3.5.6 Review of the management system There are mechanisms in place to evaluate key parts of the management system. At the Regulatory Meetings that take place twice a year, management authorities receive feedback on management practices from the industry and other interested stakeholders, including NGOs. The scientific research component of the fisheries management system is reviewed in ICES reports and advice. The enforcement component is subject to continuous evaluation at meetings between the various bodies involved in enforcement activities, where priorities are hammered out on the basis of risk- based monitoring of past experience. The international side to Norwegian fisheries management system is reviewed by the Parliament upon submission by the Government (through the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries) of annual reports on the agreements concluded with other states within the fisheries sector. The Office of the Auditor General conducts annual reviews of the financial performance of the fishery management system. The Office of the Auditor General regularly carries out holistic reviews of different sectors of the Norwegian bureaucracy (so-called ‘management audits’, as opposed to the more traditional financial audits). Such a review of the fisheries management system was undertaken in 2003–2004. At the initiative of the Russian Auditor General, a parallel audit of the Norwegian and Russian management systems for the Barents Sea fisheries was carried out in 2006–2007 and updated in 2011.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 17
4 EVALUATION PROCEDURE
4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment 4.1.1 Overlapping fisheries At the time of the assessment there is one fishery that overlaps with the Norges Fiskarlag Norway pout, sandeel and North Sea sprat fishery, which is the DFPO and DPPO North Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat Sandeel, Norwary Pout, and Sprat fisheries, MSC certified on March 2017 under MSC FCR v1.3 standard but suspended in August 2017 due to the poor status of the sandeel stock in area 2r. This Norwegian assessment does not include the sandeel stock in area 2r.
The present assessment covers three different species targeted with three different types of gears. The assessment team has decided not to harmonise with the DFPO and DPPO North Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat Sandeel, Norwary Pout, and Sprat fisheries assessment report due to various reasons, such as:
- For all Principles: The DFPO and DPPO North Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat Sandeel, Norwary Pout, and Sprat fisheries is assessed under v1.3 of the MSC FCR, while the Norway pout, sandeel and North Sea sprat is certified against the v2.0 of the MSC FCR.
- For Principle 1: New ICES advise has been released since the DFPO and DPPO North Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat Sandeel, Norwary Pout, and Sprat fisheries assessment. Moreover, the definition of the areas covered by these advices (specifically for the different sandeel stocks) has been revised by ICES on February 2017.
- For Principle 3: Even though the fisheries take place mainly in the same fishing grounds (North Sea), they fall under different management regimes which cooperate among each other.
- For Principle 2: As the DFPO and DPPO North Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat Sandeel, Norway Pout, and Sprat fisheries certification report falls under MSC v1.3, PI related to primary and secondary species were not possible to harmonize. The scoring and rationales for PI 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 was taken into account during the assessment process.
Table 26 Overlapping fisheries Fishery Gear Geographical area Assessment status DFPO and DPPO North North Sea, Skagerrak Certified but suspended in Sea, Skagerrak and Trawl and purse seine and Kattegat August 2017. Kattegat Sandeel, Norwary Pout, and Sprat fisheries
4.1.1.1 Harmonisation activities 4.1.1.2 Principle 1
DPPO (FCR v1.3) Norsk Fiskerlag (FCR v2.0) Sand eel Sprat Norway Sand eel Spra t Norway pout pout 1r 4r 1r 4r 1.1.1 Stock 100 98 90 80 90 90 90 90 status
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 18
1.1.2 Ref Points 80 80 80 80 - - - - 1.1.3 Rebuilding N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R 1.2.1 Harvest 85 85 100 85 90 90 90 90 strategy 1.2.2 HCR & 75 75 70 75 65 65 65 65 tools 1.2.3 Inf and 80 80 80 80 100 100 100 100 monitoring 1.2.4 Assessment 85 85 85 90 100 100 100 100 of stock status
4.1.2 Harmonisation outcomes 4.1.2.1 Principle 1 1. PI 1.1.1 Scoring stock status is in agreement considering the differences between V1.3 and V2.0
2. PI 1.2.1 Scoring is in agreement
3. PI 1.2.2. Both Parties agrees that a condition is required and that the condition relates to the status of the Harvest Control Rule. The difference is whether the robustness of the HCR needs to be demonstrated (PI 1.2.2b) Ciompare Condition 3-5 (DPPO) and Condition 1 (NFA)
4. PI 1.2.3. Scoring is in broad agreement. This is the usual discussion whether the requirement for ‘all’ information is met or not. The interpretation taken by the NFA assessment is that the ‘all’ is related to the management and assessment. Clearly, there is no full understanding of the stock dynamics for any of the stocks while ICES is able to provide annual advice and therefore must have the relevant information at hand.
5. PI 1.2.4 The difference relate to the appropriateness of the ICES advice which is taken as the de facto HCR. The difference is related to the assessment year that is taken as the basis for the evaluation.
6. The conditions DPPO 3-5 and condition 1 are in agreement and present similar time tables.
4.2 Previous assessments There are no previous MSC assessments as regards the Norwegian fleet targeting sandeel, Norway pout or sprat in the North Sea.
4.3 Assessment Methodologies
Table 27 Assessment methodologies Standard MSC Fishery Certification Requirements and Guidance version 2.0. Report template MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 Assessment tree Default assessment tree
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 19
4.3.1 The MSC fisheries standard The MSC fisheries standard sets out requirements that a fishery must meet to enable it to claim that its fish come from a well-managed and sustainable source. The MSC standard applies to wild-capture fisheries that meet the scope requirements as confirmed in section 3.1.
The MSC fisheries standard comprises three core principles:
Principle 1: Sustainable target fish stocks 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 2: Environmental impact of fishing 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.
Principle 3: Effective management 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.
4.3.2 The assessment tree structure The default tree structure is divided into four main levels for the purposes of scoring, as summarised below and illustrated in Figure 32:
- Principle: The Principles represent the overarching basis for the assessment tree - Component: A high level sub-division of the Principle - Performance Indicator (PI): A further sub-division of the Principle - Scoring Issue (SI): A sub-division of the PI into related but different topics. Each PI has one or more scoring issues against which the fishery is assessed at the SG 60, 80, and 100 levels.
The detailed assessment tree used in this assessment is included in Appendix 1.
Figure 32 The assessment tree structure. Source: MSC
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 20
4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques
Site visits to the fishery were performed by the certification body (here DNV GL) and the assessment team and consultations were done with interested stakeholders. The performance indicators and the pertaining scoring systems were evaluated, and it was judged if the fishery meets the requirements for MSC certification.
In order to fulfil the requirements for certification the following minimum scores are required: - The fishery must obtain a score of 80 or more for each of the three MSC Principles, based on the weighted aggregate scores for all Performance Indicators under each Criterion in each Principle. - The fishery must obtain a score of 60 or more for each Performance Indicator under each Criterion in each Principle.
Even though a fishery fulfils the criteria for certification, there may still be some important potential risks to future sustainability that are revealed during assessment. These are performance indicators that score less than 80, but more than 60. In order to be granted a MSC fishery certificate the client must agree to further improvements to raise the score to 80. The certification body (here DNV GL) sets a timescale for the fishery to improve the relevant areas, so that the certification process can continue. Default performance indicators and the scorings allocated in the evaluation are enclosed in the section 6.2.
4.4.1 Site Visits
Relevant stakeholders were visited in January and February 2017 as outlined in Table 28 . The site visit was used to gather information about different fisheries by the same client. These were the present sandeel, Norway pout and sprat reduction fishery and the North East Atlantic blue whiting fishery (which is a scope extension for the Norges Fiskarlag herring certificate). Information gathered is presented in this report and in the enclosed scoring tables.
Table 28: Site visits conducted and key issues discussed. Date Affiliation and Key issues names of representatives 31 st Norges Fiskarlag Basic info about the company: Ownership, history, January (Client): organizational structure, roles and responsibilities in MSC 2017 Tor Bjørklund Fisheries certification process. Larsen Review of fishing operations: Fishing season, fishing areas, Lars Ove gear used (specifications), catches and quotas. Stenevik Review of impact on ecosystem: list of bycatch species, loss Helge O and recoveries of fishing gears. Vikshåland Compliance with rules and regulations: control, surveillance and monitoring routines/regulations Norges applied to the fishery/ geographical area. Sildesalgslag Chain of Custody start: Review of traceability system on board Knut Torgnes and at landing, first point of landing, point of first sale, main Svanhild products. Kambestad 31 st Institute of Institute of Marine Research: Sampling programmes and level January Marine Research of sampling, research surveys. Integration of national data 2017 and Directorate collection programmes and stock assessments with ICES of Fisheries (Joint assessments. Stock status, stock structure and recruitment of meeting): the fisheries under assessment. Review of Limit and Target reference points established for the stocks. Harvest strategy Directorate of and harvest control rules. Data from the reference fleet. Fisheries: Monitoring programmes for non-target species. Level of by-
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 21
Date Affiliation and Key issues names of representatives Robert Misved catch (composition of species, quantities). Monitoring Modulf programmes for ETP species. Location of marine protected Overvik areas. Location of sensitive habitats. Ecological role of the Snorrie Palmason fisheries under assessment on the stocks. Institute of Marine Research: Directorate of Fisheries: Function, role and responsibility of Espen Johnsen the organization. Review of regulations for the fisheries Åge Høines under assessment in the relevant geographical area. Control, Cecilie Kvamme surveillance and monitoring routines applied to fisheries under assessment. Fishermen’s compliance with regulations. Norges fiskarlag VMS data for the fleet of the fisheries under assessment in (client): the last fishing year. Tor B. Larsen 1st Norwegian Function, role and responsibility of the organization. Strategy February Ministry of of the institution. Harvest strategy for the blue whiting fishery. 2017 Fisheries and Short-term and long-term management objectives for the Coastal affairs: blue whiting fishery. Precautionary approach in management of marine resources. Consultation and decision-making Geir Ervik process for the stocks of the fisheries under assessment. Mari Didriksen Stakeholder involvement in decision-making. Review of Rune Dragset regulations for the fisheries under assessment in the relevant geographical area. Control, surveillance and monitoring routines/regulations applied to the fisheries under assessment Tor B Larsen in the relevant geographical area. Logbooks: recording of non- (Client) commercial species. Fishermen’s compliance with laws and regulations. Quota and level of catches. Observed fishing patterns (gear used, fishing area, fleet composition, fishing season). Level of discards in the fisheries under assessment. VMS data for the fisheries under assessment.
Apart from the site visit meetings held, no field activities were taken (such as visits to vessels or factories).
4.4.2 Consultations Several stakeholders have been identified and contacted in connection with the assessment of the Norges Fiskarlag sandeel, Norway pout and sprat reduction fishery in the North Sea. Relevant stakeholders were interviewed in January and February 2017 as outlined in Table 28. Information gathered is presented in this report and in the enclosed scoring tables. Information was also made publicly available at different stages of the assessment as outlined in Table 29.
Table 29: Consultations at different stages of the assessment. Date Information Media 13.12.2016 Announcement of full assessment for the Norges https://www.msc.org Fiskarlag sandeel, Norway pout and sprat fishery, entering MSC certification process. 13.12.2016 Confirmation of Assessment team https://www.msc.org 13.12.2016 Notification of Assessment timeline. https://www.msc.org 13.12.2016 Announcement of default assessment tree. https://www.msc.org 16.01.2017 Advertisement of certification and invitation to E-mail distribution contribute to assessment process 14.12.2016 Stakeholder notification: Site visit scheduled E-mail distribution 31.01- Site visit Msc.org and e-mails 01.02.2017 11.09.2017 Public comment draft report Msc.org and e-mails 08.12.2017 Final report Msc.org and e-mails 09.01.2018 Public certification report Msc.org and e-mails
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 22
4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques 4.4.3.1 Announcements
The assessment was announced at MSC.org to reach international stakeholders and e-mails were used to reach local stakeholders. At the beginning of the full-assessment, the CAB compiled a stakeholder list based on a guidance from the client and existing stakeholder list from the full- assessment and subsequent surveillances.
The list covers 62 stakeholders and has been used at every stage of the consultation process undertaken for this fishery.
4.4.3.2 Methodology used
The assessment team, after gathering from different stakeholders as much information as possible, finally decided to use the default assessment tree as defined in the MSC Certification Requirements v2.0 without any modifications. The MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 is used for this report. As at the beginning of the assessment the team wasn’t certain on the different species in the sandeel catch composition, and, bearing in mind that the recently certified DFPO and DPPO North Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat Sandeel, Norway Pout, and Sprat fisheries had undergone through the RBF methodology, the team decided to set an RBF meeting during the site visit to meet as many stakeholders as possible and gather information about the different species present in the catch of sandeel, in order to know if there were IPI stocks of sandeel species in the catch. During the meeting, it was made clear to the team that even though there are different sandeel species in the catch with are not distinguishable to the bare eye neither for fishermen nor scientist, there were scientific publications which related the different sandeel species to different areas in the North Sea. Moreover, one of these publications stated that more than 98% sandeel species in the catch composition of sandeel in Norwegian fishing grounds was Ammodytes marinus . Furthermore, at the site visit scientists provided data demonstrating that 98 % or more of the catches are A. marinus. This was after the site visit supported by information from the Danish Research Institute (DTU Aqua).
As ICES provides annual scientific fishing advice for Ammodytes marinus in the different North Sea areas, it was decided that there was no need to use the RBF methodology, and hence the standard default assessment tree is used for all UoC.
4.4.3.3 Scoring process
After all relevant information was compiled and analysed, the assessment team scored the Unit of Assessment against the Performance Indicator Scoring Guideposts (PISGs) in the final tree. During the 6 th , 7 th and 8 th of February the team discussed evidence together and DNV-GL offices in Sandvika, Oslo, and weighed up the balance of evidence and used their judgement to agree on a final score following MSC FCR processes and based on consensus. The scoring of all sandeel UoC (UoC 1-3) was postponed until new ICES advice on sandeel was released, at the end of February. Once the new ICES advice was released and studied, the assessment team held a skype scoring meeting in order evaluate and reach consensus of the Principle 1 Performance Indicators for the different sandeel stocks (as mentioned in Table 17, Ammodytes marinus stocks differ from one area to another all within the North Sea area).
Individual Performance indicators are scored. Scores for individual PIs are assigned in increments of five points. Any divisions of less than five points are justified. Scores for each of the three Principles are reported to the nearest one decimal.
- If one or more of the scoring issues fails to meet the scoring guidepost at the 60 level, the UoA fails and no further scoring is provided for the Performance indicator. - Where all of the SG60 scoring issues are met, the PI achieves at least a 60 score, and the team assesses each of the scoring issues at the SG80 level. - Where one or more of the SG80 scoring issues is not met, the PI is given an intermediate score reflecting the overall performance against the different SG80 scoring issues, and one or more condition(s) are assigned to the PI.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 23
- Where all of the 60 scoring issues and all of the 80 issues are met, the PI achieves at least an 80 score, and the team assesses each of the scoring issues at the SG100 level. - Where one or more of the SG100 scoring issues is not met, the PI is given an intermediates score reflecting the overall performance against the different SG100 scoring issues. - Where all of the SG60, SG80 and SG100 scoring issues are met, the PI achieves a 100 score.
In Principle 1 and 2 the scoring may include PI with multiple scoring elements. Scoring is then applied to the individual scoring elements and the overall score for the PI is determined based on the score of the different scoring elements. Scoring elements considered in this assessment are listed in Table 30.
In order to fulfil the requirements for certification the following minimum scores are required:
- The fishery must obtain a score of 80 or more for each of the three MSC Principles, based on the weighted aggregate scores for all Performance Indicators under each Principle. - The fishery must obtain a score of 60 or more for each individual scoring issue under each Performance Indicator in each Principle.
The final scores are based on group consensus within the assessment team. The assessment team will recommend certification where the weighted average score is 80 or more for all the three Principles, and were all individual scoring issues are met at the SG60 level.
Conditions are set where the fishery fails to achieve a score of 80 to any Performance Indicators. Conditions with milestones are set to result in improved performance to at least the 80 level within a period set by the assessment team. The client is required to provide a client action plan to be accepted by the assessment team. The client action plan shall detail:
- how conditions and milestones will be addressed - who will address the conditions the specified period within which the conditions and milestones will be addressed - how the action(s) is expected to improve the performance of the UoA - how the CAB will assess outcomes and milestones in each subsequent surveillance or assessment - how progress to meeting conditions will be shown to CABs.
Table 30: Scoring elements for all UoC. A species is considered as main or not depending on its proportion in the catch composition. Main / MSC Data English name Scientific name Minor clasification deficient? Minor Argentine Argentina spyraena Secondary No Main Blue Whiting Micromesistius poutassou Primary No Minor Cod Gadus morhua Primary No N/A Eel Anguilla anguilla ETP No Minor Eel pout Lycodes spp Secondary No Minor Gurnard Eutrigla gunardus Secondary No Minor Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus Primary No Minor Hake Merluccius merluccius Primary No Minor Horse mackerel Trachurus trachurus Primary No Minor Long rough dab Secondary Hippoglossoides platessoides No Minor Mackerel Scomber scombrus Primary No Minor Jellyfish Unknown Secondary No Minor North Sea Herring Cuplea harengus Primary No Minor Northern shrimp Pandalus borealis Primary No Minor Norway lobster Nephrops norvegicus Primary No N/R Norway Pout Trisopterus esmarkii Target No
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 24
Main / MSC Data English name Scientific name Minor clasification deficient? Minor Plaice Pleuronectes platessa Primary No Minor Saithe Pollachius virens Primary No N/R Lesser Sandeel Ammodytes marinus Target No Gymnammodytes Minor Smooth Sandeel Secondary semisquamatus Yes Minor Greater Sandeel Hyperoplus lanceolatus Secondary Yes Minor Silver Pout Gadiculus argenteus Secondary No N/R Sprat Sprattus sprattus Target No N/R Spurdog Squalus acanthias ETP No Minor Squid Todarodes sagitattus Secondary No Velvet Belly Minor Secondary Lanternshark Etmopterus spinax No Minor Whiting Merlangius merlangus Primary No Minor Witch Glyptocephalus cynoglossus Primary No
4.4.3.4 Risk Based Framework
As explained in 4.4.3.2, the RBF methodology has not been used in this assessment, even though an RBF meeting was held in order to gather as much information as possible on the sandeel stock. As a result of the information obtained it was decided that the RBF methodology was not needed.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 25
5 TRACEABILITY
5.1 Eligibility Date Products from the certified fishery eligible to be sold as MSC certified or bear the MSC ecolabel from the estimated eligibility date. The eligibility date is September 11 th , 2017 which is also the publication date of the first Public Comment Draft Report.
The traceability and segregation systems in the fishery are already implemented, as they are the same as for other certified fisheries of the client group.
5.2 Traceability within the Fishery As described in section 3.5, monitoring, control and surveillance is taken care of thorough shared responsibility and close collaboration between the Directorate of Fisheries, the Coast Guard and the regional sales organizations, and the EU counterparts. Norwegian Coast Guard and EU inspectors board fishing vessels and control the catch (e.g. catch composition and fish size) and fishing gear (e.g. mesh size) on deck and the volume of fish in the holds. Norwegian vessels are required to have electronic logbooks, where real-time catch data are forwarded to the Directorate of Fisheries.
All vessels are monitored by the Directorate of Fisheries through VMS data. The client has access to tracking data, and organizational and peer pressure in addition to official control contributes to minimizing the possibility of fishing outside the unit of certification.
The Directorate of Fisheries keeps track of how much fish is taken of the quotas of different vessels, vessel groups or other states at any given time, based on reports from the fishing fleet. The self- reported catch data can be checked at sales operations through the sales organizations (https://www.sildelaget.no/en ), which have monopoly on first-hand sale of fish in Norway, the Danish auction places, and through physical checks performed by the sales organizations, the Directorate of Fisheries and the Coast Guard .
Sandeel, Norway pout and sprat are all reduction fisheries to make fish meal and fish oil. Catches are landed in Norway and Denmark.
The sales organizations are required to record all landings of fish in Norway. This information is compared to the figures provided by the vessels to the Directorate of Fisheries through the electronic logbook. Physical controls of landings are carried out both by inspectors from the sales organizations and the Directorate of Fiheries .
Catch certificate is mandatory for export to EU. Norges Sildesalgslag has the responsibility for the catch certificate for all Norwegian fisheries through a separate company (Catch Certificate SA, https://www.catchcertificate.no/ ). The catch certificate accompanies the delivery note from the vessel. Buyers can access and extract catch certificates electronically. Fish is mainly sold through auctions. There are exceptions for catches less than 50 tonnes, where agreements can be made directly with buyer, but the same requirements for reporting apply. All transactions are done through the client, logged and publicly available. All relevant information on catch is provided to the client on a pre-delivery note. Vessel will complete the pre-filled delivery note and set correct quantity and size distribution in accordance with requirements from DoF. After landing, the delivery note is signed electronically and sent to the client for invoicing and settlement to fishermen. Purchaser name is included in the delivery note. The current list of approved buyers in Norway can be accessed at http://www.fiskeridir.no/register/kjoperreg/ , but eligible buyers outside of Norway are also permitted to buy the certified product. This register is updated dayly and includes all approved buyers in Norway. Fishery certificate number is provided on invoices, and invoices are issued through Norges Sildesalgslag. The fish changes ownership from vessel to processing plant.
At sea processing and trans-shipping Most sandeel, Norway pout and sprat are landed as round fish after being chilled on refrigerated seawater tanks or frozen.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 26
Points of landing Landing sites are in Norway, with inspections by DoF and sales organization as described above. Product may also be landed outside of Norway, in Denmark. In these cases, landing information is transmitted to Norwegian Authorities who cooperate with national control bodies at points of landing to ensure correct information.
Figure 33: Official landing facilities in Norway. Source: https://www.sildelaget.no/en/catches-and- quotas/catch/catch-areas/
5.2.1 Traceability risk factors Table 31: Traceability risk factors within the fishery
Traceability Factor Description of risk factor if present. Where applicable, a description of relevant mitigation measures or traceability systems (this can include the role of existing regulatory or fishery management controls) Potential for non-certified gear/s to be Low risk. Norges Fiskarlag is including all industrial used within the fishery vessels that catch sandeel, Norway pout and sprat to facilitate traceability of the product. The certificate covers all pelagic trawlers, purse seines and bottom trawlers of the Norwegian fleet. Potential for vessels from the UoC to fish The UoC covers all the fishing grounds where the fishery outside the UoC or in different takes place, this is, the North Sea fishing grounds. The geographical areas (on the same trips or present fishing grounds of the certificate are Norwegian different trips) and European waters. All Norwegian vessels are obliged to carry VMS on board and to log in the electronic logbook when the fishing operation begins. These data are monitored by the Directorate of Fisheries, who can distinguish not only where the vessels are but also if the vessels are fishing or not. Potential for vessels outside of the UoC or The UoA covers all North Sea waters. The sandeel, client group fishing the same stock Norway pout and sprat stocks which are targeted by different fleets, mostly by the Danish DFPO fleet (MSC certified), and by other European fleets in a minor
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 27
proportion. Therefore, the risk for vessels outside the client group fishing the same stock is high. Risks of mixing between certified and All fishing vessels are required to keep logbooks for the non-certified catch during storage, recording of fishing by species, gear and area. This is transport, or handling activities (including done through sampling of the catch while being pumped transport at sea and on land, points of on board into the fish tanks. landing, and sales at auction) Sampling is done again at the landing ports once the fish is landed, either at the auction places if the fish goes through auction or at the port refrigeration chambers. The master signs the landing declaration following landing activities, to show concordance between the catch and the land. Besides, once the catch is sold the sales notes accompanies the catch to facilitate traceability of the product and avoid mixture with other products. Transport of the fish between the port and the final destiny (fish meal factory) must always be accompanied of a valid transport document for fresh fish, which specifies species and quantities. Landing ports of the fishery are in Norway and in Denmark. There are good cooperation systems between Norway and European countries and information on compliance and enforcement is shared among the different enforcement administrations. Robustness of these enforcement systems is expected to be high. The risk of mixing between certified and non-certified catch during storage, transport and handling activities is low. Risks of mixing between certified and All Norwegian industrial vessels targeting sandeel, non-certified catch during processing Norway pout and sprat pump the catch on board into activities (at-sea and/or before reception tanks. The risk of mixing with non-certified subsequent Chain of Custody) catch is negligible at that moment as the certificate covers all Norwegian vessels fishing in the North Sea. Mixture with non-certified catch would only occur if the vessel decided to travel outside the North Sea waters without emptying its tanks first. The catch taken by the sprat and sandeel fisheries is very clean (with 99% and 96% being the targeted species, respectively). However, the Norway pout fishery is less selective with 72% of the catch being the targeted Norway pout. As described in Table 22, other species in the Norway pout catch composition are blue whiting (10%), horse mackerel (4%), greater silver smelt (3%) and other species which comprise less that 1% of the total catch each. The fish is as such distinguishable (therefore is not an IPI catch), but separation of the fish is not done on board, with the excemption of fish directed for human consumption, which is separated at the fish factory just after hauling. The present certificate does not cover fish meal, which shall be covered by a Chain of custody certificate. Fish meal is not produced on board. Risks of mixing between certified and Transhipment does not take place in the fishery. This is non-certified catch during transhipment. monitored by the Directorate of Fisheries through the VSM in place. Any other risks of substitution between Fish sold for human consumption is separated onboard fish from the UoC (certified catch) and just after hauling the catch on board. fish from outside this unit (non-certified Fish meal is not produced on board. catch) before subsequent Chain of For the fish meal production at the fish meal factories, the Custody is required. catch is sampled again at the fish factory in order to determine catch composition. The species will not be separated, except for what has been sampled. Sampling is taken from the fish stream, just before the fish gets
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 28
weighed. The samples are transported to a suitable place / room and sorted. For fish meal production, the fish is not phisically separated before entering production, but the volumes of the different species entering production is determined. The traceability of the fish meal production is ensured by a Chain of Custody certificate at the processing plant. The Chain of Custody certificate at the processing plant shall ensure that the proportion of the different species in the fish meal is in concordance with what is allowed by the Chain of Custody standard. There is, therefore, certain risk of bycatch species being used for the fish meal although this risk takes place at the processing plant. The catch is the factory's responsibility as from passing to the quayside. A Chain of Custody certificate shall ensure the traceability of the fish product at the fish meal factory.
5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody
Product landed by Norwegian vessels from the sandeel, Norway pout and sprat North Sea fisheries are being accurately recorded and identified through the Directorate of Fisheries and sales organisation (or by the Danish counterpart) as described above. Product from the certified fishery is therefore eligible to enter further Chain of Custody. Products may be sold through auction arranged by the sales organisation or directly. To be eligible to carry the MSC logo, fish must enter into separate MSC Chain of custody certification commencing sale.
Table 32: Eligibility to enter further chains of custody . Conclusion and Fresh, chilled or frozen whole round sandeels, Norway pouts and determination sprats, caught by Norwegian vessels in the North Sea (this is bottom trawlers, midwater trawlers and purse seines) are eligible to enter further certified chains of custody and be sold as MSC certified or carry the MSC ecolabel. List of parties, or category Norwegian vessels (bottom trawlers, midwater trawlers and purse of parties, eligible to use seines), with valid licenses to fish sandeel, Norway pout or sprat in the fishery certificate and waters of the North Sea (ref table 7, final UoC). Annex 6 shows the sell product as MSC list of vessels in April 2017. An update of the list of vessels is certified available at the Directorate of Fisheries upon request. Point of intended change of Fishi ng ports or fishing auctions where registration of landings is ownership of product carried out and weights registered. List of eligible landing Fishing ports and auction places in Denmark and Norway. points (if relevant) Point from which Chain of custody shall begin following the first sale of fresh, chilled subsequent Chain of or frozen whole round fish at the point of landing (auction houses). Custody is required Auctions that merely serve as facilitators of trade do not need chain of custody certification.
If the fi sh goes into a processing plant or factory without going through auction, then the processing plant or factory will require a separate Chain of Custody certification. Fish meal is no t covered by this certification.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 29
5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody
As reported on the Principle 1 section (sandeel stock), there are five sandeel species in the North Sea (see Table 13). Nævdal and Thorkildsen (2002) identified these species genetically. They worked on a sample of more than 900 speciment collected across the North Sea and they identified all five species. They find that in Norwegian waters A. marinus was found together with minor numbers of Hyperoplus lanceolatus (Le Sauvage). As expected from the distribution maps provided by Fishbase ( http://www.fishbase.de ), Gymnammodytes semisquamatus (Jourdain) and H. immaculatus (Corbin) were not found as these are southern North Sea species. Naevdal and Thorkildsen (2002) did not find A. tobianus in Norwegian waters. This species is coastal and the fishery generally takes place in open waters. Fishbase ( http://www.Fishbase.de ) also includes A. dubius as a sixth species but this is not generally accepted and the species was not found by Naevdal and Thorkildsen (2002).
The assessment team was aware of the possibility of identifying IPI stocks on sandeel during the site visit, and asked IMR for information of the specific sandeel species and proportions in the catch of sandeel landings by the Norwegian fleet (which at present only fish in Norwegian waters).
Information was provided on a dredge sandeel survey carried out by Brown and May Marine Ltd in March-April 2012 in the Dogger bank area. Three species of sandeel were caught during the survey: Raitt’s sandeel (or lesser sand eel) ( Ammodytes marinus ), smooth sandeel ( Gymnammodytes semisquamatus ) and greater sandeel ( Hyperoplus lanceolatus ). A. marinus was the most abundant species caught, accounting for 98.2% of the total sandeel catch.
In conclusion, lesser sand eel ( Ammodytes marinus ) is the far dominating species among the North Sea sand eels and accounts for more than 99% of the total catches based on the major surveys and data from the fisheries.
In the light of these results, the team decided not to consider sandeels as IPI stocks. Smooth sandeel (Gymnammodytes semisquamatus ) and greater sandeel ( Hyperoplus lanceolatus ) were taken into account under PI 2.2.1, as minor secondary species.
6 EVALUATION RESULTS
6.1 Principle Level Scores Table 33: Final Principle scores for each UoC.
Stock UoC Description of the Principle 1 Principle 2 Principle 3 UoC Target species Ecosystem Management system
Sandeel UoC 1 BT. Sandeel area 1r 89.2 85.7 95.4
(Bottom UoC 2 BT. Sandeel area 3r 92.5 85.7 95.4 trawl) UoC 3 BT. Sandeel area 4 89.2 85.7 95.4
Norway pout UoC 4 Bottom trawl 89.2 83.7 95.4
(all gears) UoC 5 Midwater trawl 89.2 87.0 95.4
Sprat UoC 6 Bottom trawl 89.2 86.7 95.4
(all gears) UoC 7 Midwater trawl 89.2 90.0 95.4
UoC 8 Purse seine 89.2 90.0 95.4
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 30
6.2 Summary of PI Level Scores Table 34: Principle level scores for the different UoC in the sandeel fishery Sandeel fishery: Bottom trawl PI Performance Indicator Component No. (PI) UoC 1 UoC 2 UoC 3
Stock status 90 90 90
1.1.1 Outcome Stock rebuilding N/R N/R N/R
1.1.2 Harvest strategy 90 95 90
1.2.1 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & 65 80 65 tools
Management 1.2.3 Information & 100 100 100 monitoring
1.2.4 Assessment of stock 100 100 100 status
2.1.1 Outcome 100 Primary 2.1.2 Management 95 species 2.1.3 Information 100
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 31
2.2.1 Outcome 90 Secondary 2.2.2 Management 80 species 2.2.3 Information 85 2.3.1 Outcome 85 ETP species 2.3.2 Management 80 2.3.3 Information 80 2.4.1 Outcome 85 Habitats 2.4.2 Management 75 2.4.3 Information 85 2.5.1 Outcome 80 Ecosystem 2.5.2 Management 80 2.5.3 Information 85 Legal & customary 95 3.1.1 framework Governance Consultation, roles & 100 and policy 3.1.2 responsibilities 3.1.3 Long term objectives 100 3.2.1 Fishery specific 90 objectives Fishery 3.2.2 Decision making 100 specific processes management 3.2.3 Compliance & 100 system enforcement Management 80 3.2.4 performance evaluation
Table 35: Principle level scores for the different UoC in the Norway pout fishery Norway pout PI Performance fishery Component No. Indicator (PI) UoC 4 UoC 5 BT PT 1.1.1 Stock status 90 Outcome Stock N/R 1.1.2 rebuilding Harvest 90 1.2.1 strategy 1.2.2 Harvest 65 control rules & Management tools 1.2.3 Information & 100 monitoring 1.2.4 Assessment of 100 stock status 2.1.1 Outcome 90 90 Primary 2.1.2 Management 90 90 species 2.1.3 Information 100 100 2.2.1 Outcome 90 90 Secondary 2.2.2 Management 85 85 species 2.2.3 Information 85 85 2.3.1 Outcome 85 85 ETP species 2.3.2 Management 80 80 2.3.3 Information 80 80 Habitats 2.4.1 Outcome 70 100
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 32
2.4.2 Management 70 80 2.4.3 Information 85 95 2.5.1 Outcome 80 Ecosystem 2.5.2 Management 80 2.5.3 Information 85 Legal & 95 customary 3.1.1 framework Governance Consultation, 100 and policy roles & 3.1.2 responsibilities Long term 100 3.1.3 objectives 3.2.1 Fishery 90 specific objectives 3.2.2 Decision 100 Fishery making specific processes management 3.2.3 Compliance & 100 system enforcement Management 80 performance 3.2.4 evaluation
Table 36: Principle level scores for the different UoC in the sprat fishery. Sprat fishery PI Performance Component No. Indicator (PI) UoC 6 UoC 7 UoC 8 BT PT PS 1.1.1 Stock status 90 Outcome Stock N/R 1.1.2 rebuilding Harvest 90 1.2.1 strategy 1.2.2 Harvest 65 control rules & Management tools 1.2.3 Information & 100 monitoring 1.2.4 Assessment of 100 stock status 2.1.1 Outcome 90 90 90 Primary 2.1.2 Management 95 95 95 species 2.1.3 Information 100 100 100 2.2.1 Outcome 100 100 100 Secondary 2.2.2 Management 100 100 100 species 2.2.3 Information 100 100 100 2.3.1 Outcome 85 85 85 ETP species 2.3.2 Management 80 80 80 2.3.3 Information 80 80 80 2.4.1 Outcome 70 100 100 Habitats 2.4.2 Management 70 80 80
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 33
2.4.3 Information 85 95 95 2.5.1 Outcome 80 Ecosystem 2.5.2 Management 80 2.5.3 Information 85 Legal & 95 customary 3.1.1 framework Governance Consultation, 100 and policy roles & 3.1.2 responsibilities Long term 100 3.1.3 objectives 3.2.1 Fishery 90 specific objectives 3.2.2 Decision 100 Fishery making specific processes management 3.2.3 Compliance & 100 system enforcement Management 80 performance 3.2.4 evaluation
6.3 Summary of Conditions
Table 37 Summary of Conditions Condition Condition Performance Related to number indicator previously raised condition? 1 (applies The Client should work with relevant authorities PI 1.2.2 N/A to UoC and industry colleagues to develop appropriate 1,3,4,5,6,7 HCRs and to have these HCRs evaluated (e.g. by and 8) ICES) and shown to be precautionary and robust to the main uncertainties. 2 (applies Conservation and management measures for all PI 2.4.1 N/A to UoC 4 vulnerable marine habitats in the UoC fishing and UoC 6) grounds shall be in place and implemented, such that the UoC does not cause serious or irreversible harm to structure and function of VME habitats. 3 (applies Conservation and management measures directed PI 2.4.2 N/A to UoC to the protection of VME shall be in place and 1,2,3,4 and implemented, such that the Habitat Outcome 80 UoC 6) level of performance is achieved. Besides, the client shall present some quantitative evidence of the compliance with both its management requirements and with protection measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non MSC fisheries, where relevant.
6.4 Recommendations There is one recommendation for the fishery:
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 34
Recommendation 1 (applies to all UoC)
PI 2.3.3.b: Information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage impacts, minimize mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives.
Recommendation: The assessment team recommends that systems are put in place to ensure that all interactions with ETP species are recorded on log books irrespective of whether they are landed or discarded and that the captures of all ETP species are mapped.
6.5 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement
The Norway sandeel, pout and North Sea sprat fishery achieved a score of 80 or more for each of the three MSC Principles, and did not score under 60 for any of the set MSC criteria.
Based on the evaluation of the fishery presented in this report, the assessment team recommends the certification of the Norway sandeel, pout and North Sea sprat fishery for the client Norges Fiskerlag.
As the fishery achieved a score of below 80 against three scoring indicators, the assessment team has set three conditions for the continued certification that the client is required to address. The conditions are applicable to improve performance to al least the 80 level within the period set by the assessment team.
The assessment team also makes one reccomendation for the fishery.
REFERENCES
• 1982 Law of the Sea Convention • 1993 FAO Compliance Agreement • 1995 Fish Stocks Agreement. • 1997 Coast Guard Act • 1999 Act on the Right to Participate in Fisheries. • 2015 Act on First-Hand Sales of Wild Catch of Marine Resources. • 2016 Regulation on Landing and Sales Notes • 2016 Regulation on Licencing • 2016 Regulation on Participation in Fisheries. • 2016a, see Nielsen (2016; Sections 2–4 in WD1, Annex 3). • 2016a. see Nielsen WD1, Annex 3. • 2017a. Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Sandeel Stocks (WKSAND), 31 October–4 November 2016, Bergen, Norway. ICES CM 2016/ACOM:33. • Agreed record of the fisheries consultations between EU and Norway December 2016. • Agreed Records of Fisheries Consultations between Norway and the European Union for 2017, 2 December 2016. • Agreement on Fisheries between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway, signed 27 February 1980, in force 16 June 1981. • Beaugrand, G. 2004. The North Sea regime shift: Evidence, causes, mechanisms and consequences. Progress in Oceanography 60. 245-262. • Brown and May Ltd, 2013. Dogger Bank Creyke Beck Environmental Statement Chapter 13 Appendix E - Dogger Bank Sandeel Survey Reports. • Brunel, T., and Miller, D.C.M. 2013. An Evaluation of the Impact of Inter-annual Quota Flexibility (Banking and Borrowing) on the Performance of the North Sea Flatfish Long Term Management Plan , June 2013, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen. ICES CM 2013/ACOM:64. 39 pp . • Christensen, V., 1995. A model of trophic interactions in the North Sea in 1981, the year of the stomach. Dana, 11(1): 1-28.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 35
• COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1010/2009 of 22 October 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. • Common Fishery Policy Basic Regulation • Control Regulation, on EU systems for fisheries control. 2010. • Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in North-East Atlantic Fisheries, 2006. • Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention). • Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn Convention). • Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 Annex I. If there are two target species (not likely) the sum of these two should be at least 90 %. • CoralFish project • COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006. • Deltakerloven, LOV-1999-03-26-15, 1999 (Act on the Right to Participate in Fisheries). • Email correspondence with representatives of the Coast Guard and the Directorate of Fisheries. • Engelhard, G. H., Peck, M. A., Rindorf, A., Smout, S. C., van Deurs, M., Raab, K., Andersen, K. H., Garthe, S., Lauerburg, R. A. M., Scott, F., Brunel, T., Aarts, G., van Kooten, T., and Dickey-Collas, M. Forage fish, their fisheries, and their predators: who drives whom? – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 71: 90–104. • EU Council Directive 92/43/EEC • EU Natura Directive (http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/#) • European Common Fisheries Policy • European Marine Observation and Data Network ( http://www.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/ ) • Fisheries Management Options Paper • Forvaltning og kontroll av fiskeressursene i Barentshavet: en parallelrevisjon mellom norsk og russisk Riksrevision, Office of the Auditor General, Oslo, 2007 (Management and Control of the Fish Resources in the Barents Sea: A Parallel Audit between the Norwegian and Russian Auditors General). • Framework agreement on fisheries cooperation between Norway and the EU from 1980 (in force 1981). • Gezelius, S.S. (2003/2012), Regulation and Compliance in the Atlantic Fisheries: State/Society Relations in the Management of Natural Resources, Dordrecht: Springer. • Gordon, D.C., Gilkinson, K.D., Kenchington, E.L.R., Prena, J., Bourbannais, C, Maclsaac, K., McKeown, D.L. and Vass, W.P., 2002. Summary of the Grand Banks otter trawling experiment (1993-1995): Effects on benthic habitat and communities. Canadian Technical Report on Fisheries Aquatic Sciences. No. 2416, 72 pp. http://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/Library/336797.pdf • Hammond, P.S., Hall, A.J., and Prime, J.H., 1994. The diet of grey seals around Orkney and other island and mainland sites in north-eastern Scotland. J. Appl. Ecol., 31: 340-350. • Hønneland, G. (2000/2012), Coercive and Discursive Compliance Mechanisms in the Management of Natural Resources: A Case Study from the Barents Sea Fisheries, Dordrecht: Springer. • Hønneland, G. (2013), Making Fishery Agreements Work: Post-Agreement Bargaining in the Barents Sea, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. • http://artsdatabanken.no/Rodliste • http://dx.doi.org.bibezproxy.uca.es:2048/10.1016/j.pocean.2004.02.018 • http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:01992L0043- 20070101&from=EN • http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31992L0043&from=EN • http://ices.dk/ • http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/dgs-nea.pdf • http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/eel-eur.pdf • http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/Greater_North_Sea_Ec oregion-Ecosystem_overview.pdf • http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/hom-west.pdf • http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2016/I BPBLW/ibpblw_2016.pdf
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 36
• http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2016/ WKPOUT/wkpout_2016.pdf • http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-1586 • http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-4524 • http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-6476 • http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/Central_Fladen_Site_Summary_Document_July14.pdf • http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/Fisheries%20Options%20Paper_Central%20Fladen_20150204 .pdf • http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/# • http://ocean.ices.dk/Project/IBTS/ • http://www.aqua.dtu.dk/Om_DTU_Aqua/Mission_vision_opgaver (DTU Aqua) • http://www.imr.no/om_havforskningsinstituttet/en • http://www.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/ • http://www.fishbase.de • http://www.fishbase.org/popdyn/KeyfactsSummary_1.php?ID=1023&GenusName=Trisopt erus&SpeciesName=esmarkii&vStockCode=1039&fc=183 • http://www.fishbase.org/popdyn/KeyfactsSummary_1.php?ID=1357&GenusName=Sprattu s&SpeciesName=sprattus&vStockCode=1375&fc=43 • http://www.fishbase.org/popdyn/KeyfactsSummary_1.php?ID=37&GenusName=Ammodyt es&SpeciesName=marinus&vStockCode=47&fc=402 • http://www.fisheries.is/ • http://www.fisheries.no/ (with fishing regulations) • http://www.fiskeridir.no/ • http://www.fiskeridir.no/English/Fisheries/Real-Time-Closure-RTC • http://www.fiskeridir.no/English/Fisheries/Regulations . • http://www.fiskeridir.no/register/kjoperreg/ • http://www.fiskeridir.no/Yrkesfiske/Regelverk-og-reguleringer/J-meldinger/Gjeldende-J- meldinger/J-266-2016 • http://www.ICES.dk 28/3/2017 • http://www.ices.dk/community/groups/Pages/WGFTFB.aspx • http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2013/2013/mult-NS.pdf • http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2015/2015/wit-nsea.pdf • http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/cod-347d.pdf • http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/gug-347d.pdf • http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/had-346a.pdf • http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/her-47d3.pdf • http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/hke-nrtn.pdf • http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/mac-nea.pdf • http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/nep-32.pdf • http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/nep-7.pdf • http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/nop-34-oct.pdf • http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/ple-nsea.pdf • http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/sai-3a46.pdf • http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/spr-nsea.pdf • http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/whb-comb.pdf • http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/whg-47d.pdf • http://www.imr.no/ • http://www.iucnredlist.org/ • http://www.lenfestocean.org/~/media/legacy/lenfest/pdfs/littlefishbigimpact_revised_12ju ne12.pdf?la=en • http://www.meece.eu/library/EwE.html • http://www.nsrac.org/ The North Sea Advisory Council • http://www.ospar.org/work-areas/bdc/species-habitats • http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/CetaceansAtlas_Species_pt1_web.pdf • https://acap.aq/en/acap-species/307-acap-species-list/file Albatross and Petrel Species to which the ACAP Agreement applies • https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/multi_annual_plans_en • https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/tacs_en • https://kart.fiskeridir.no/fiskeri • https://odnature.naturalsciences.be/remsem/ecosystem-modelling • https://odnature.naturalsciences.be/remsem/ecosystem-modelling REMSEM “Od Nature Remote Sensing and Ecosystem Modelling team • http://www.ascobans.org/en/species
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 37
• https://www.catchcertificate.no/ • https://www.sildelaget.no/ (with allocated quotas) • https://www.sildelaget.no/en/catches-and-quotas/catch/catch-areas/ • https://www.uu.nl/en/research/strandings-investigation/which-species-of-cetaceans-are- found-in-the-north-sea • ICES (2004) WGNSSK • ICES (2008) AGSAN • ICES (2010). Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Sandeel (WKSAN), 6–10 September 2010, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2010/ACOM:57. 201 pp. • ICES (2012) and in subsequent work. For details see references in ICES (2016b). • ICES (2012). Report of the Workshop for Revision for the North Sea Herring Long Term Management Plan, 1–2 October 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES ACOM:72. 110 pp. • ICES (2013). Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Sprat (WKSPRAT), 11–15 February 2013, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2013/ACOM:48. • ICES (2014) Interim Report of the Working Group on Multispecies Assessment Methods (WGSAM), 20–24 October 2014, London, UK. ICES CM 2014/SSGSUE:11. 104 pp. • ICES (2014). Report of HAWG Annex 12 Stock Annex for sand eel • ICES (2014). Report of the Workshop to consider reference points for all stocks (WKMSYREF2), 8-10 January 2014, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2014/ACOM:47. 91 pp. • ICES (2014a). Interim Report of the Working Group on Multispecies Assessment Methods (WGSAM), 20–24 October 2014, London, UK. ICES CM 2014/SSGSUE:11. 104 pp. • ICES (2014a-sp). • ICES (2014b). Report of the Workshop to consider reference points for all stocks (WKMSYREF2), 8-10 January 2014, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2014/ACOM:47. 91 pp. • ICES (2015). Report of the Workshop on evaluating current national acoustic abundance estimation methods for HERAS surveys (WKEVAL), 24-28 August 2015, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2015/SSGIEOM:16. 48 pp • ICES (2016) Advice on Nporway pout and sprat • ICES (2016) Advice. Norway pout and sprat • ICES (2016) Book 1 General guidance to ICES advice • ICES (2016) HAWG (Sand eel and sprat) • ICES (2016) Stock code • ICES (2016) WGNSSK (Norway pout) • ICES (2016) WKSAND 2016 • ICES (2016). Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Norway Pout (Trisopterus esmarkii) in Subarea 4 and Division 3.a (North Sea, Skagerrak, and Kattegat), 23–25 August 2016, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2016/ACOM:35. 396 pp. • ICES (2016a). • ICES (2016a-sp). • ICES (2016b) • ICES (2016d) • ICES (2016e). • ICES (2017) Advice on sandeel • ICES (2017) Sand eel benchmark (WKSAND 2016) • ICES (2017a) Section 1.5.6 • ICES (2017a). Report of the Benchmark on Sandeel (WKSand 2016), 31 October - 4 No- vember 2016, Bergen, Norway. ICES CM 2016/ACOM:33. 214 pp. • ICES (2017b). • ICES (2017b). Advice on fishing opportunities, catch and effort Greater North Sea Ecoregion ICES Advice 2017 Sandeel (Ammodytes spp.) in divisions 4.b–c, Sandeel Area NS-1r. ICES February 2017 • ICES (2017) HAWG. Tables 9.1.1 and 9.2.11. • ICES (2017b). Sandeel in Division 3.a and Subarea 4. Section 9 in Report of the Herring Assessment Working Group for the Area South of 62°N (HAWG), 16–22 March 2017, ICES HQ, Denmark. ICES CM 2017/ACOM:07. Available separately at the HAWG website. EU. 2013. Regulation (EU) No. 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No. 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No. 2371/2002 and (EC) No. 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32013R1380. ICES (2017c). Advice on fishing opportunities, catch and effort Greater North Sea Ecoregion
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 38
ICES Advice 2017 Sandeel (Ammodytes spp.) in divisions 4.b–c, Sandeel Area NS-2r. ICES February 2017 • ICES (2017d). Advice on fishing opportunities, catch and effort Greater North Sea Ecoregion ICES Advice 2017 Sandeel (Ammodytes spp.) in divisions 4.a-b, Sandeel Area NS-3r. ICES February 2017 • ICES (2017e). Advice on fishing opportunities, catch and effort Greater North Sea Ecoregion ICES Advice 2017 Sandeel (Ammodytes spp.) in divisions 4.a-b, Sandeel Area NS-4. ICES February 2017 • ICES (2017f). Advice on fishing opportunities, catch and effort Greater North Sea Ecoregion ICES Advice 2017 Sandeel (Ammodytes spp.) in divisions 4.a, Sandeel Area NS_5r. ICES February 2017 • ICES (2017g). Advice on fishing opportunities, catch and effort Greater North Sea Ecoregion ICES Advice 2017 Sandeel (Ammodytes spp.) in divisions 3a, Sandeel Area NS-6. ICES February 2017 • ICES (2017h). Advice on fishing opportunities, catch and effort Greater North Sea Ecoregion ICES Advice 2017 Sandeel (Ammodytes spp.) in divisions 4.a, Sandeel Area NS-7r. ICES February 2017 • ICES (2017i). HAWG REPORT 2017 Chapter 9. Sandeel in Division 3.a and Subarea 4. ICES February 2017. • ICES Advisory Committee on Ecosystems (ACE) • ICES Advisory Committee on Ecosystems (ACE) • ICES sandeel benchmark in 2010 • Interviews with representatives of the Directorate of Fisheries, the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries, the Institute of Marine Research, the Norwegian Fishermen’s Association as well as individual fishermen during the site visit. • J-115-2016: Konsesjonsforskriften, 2016 (Regulation on Licencing). • J-122-2016: Deltakerforskriften, 2016 (Regulation on Participation in Fisheries). • J-125-2016: Forskrift om utøvelse av fisket i sjøen, 2016 (Regulation on the Execution of Marine Fisheries). • J-215-2015: Forskrift om posisjonsrapportering og elektronisk rapportering for norske fiske- og fangstfartøy (Regulation on Reporting of Position and Electronic Reporting for Norwegian Fishing and Catch Vessels). • J-249-2016: Forskrift om regulering av fisket etter tobis i 2017 (Regulation on the Fishery for Sandeel in 2017). • J-250-2016: Forskrift om regulering av fisket etter brisling i 2017 (Regulation on the Fishery for Sprat in 2017). • J-251-2016: Forskrift om regulering av fisket etter øyepål i 2017 (Regulation on the Fishery for Norway Pout in 2017). • J-36-2016: Forskrift om landings- og sluttseddel (landingsforskriften), 2016 (Regulation on Landing and Sales Notes). • Joint Nature Conservation Committee • Jones, R., 1982. Species interactions in the North Sea. pp48-63. In: (M. C. Mercer (Ed.)) Multispecies Approaches to Fisheries Management Advice, Canadian Special Publication • of Fisheries and Aquatic Science no. 59. 169 pp. • Kaiser, M.J., Clarke, K.R., Hinz, H., Austen, M.C.V., Somerfield, P.J., Karakassis, I. Global analysis of response and recovery of benthic biota to fishing. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 311:1-14 (2006). http://www.int-res.com/articles/feature/m311p001.pdf doi:10.3354/meps311001 • Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force: Little fish, big impact • Lewy, P., Vinther, M. and Thomsen, L. 1992. Description of the STCF North Sea database system and the prediction model ABC, assessments of bioeconomic consequences of technical measures ICES C.M.1992/D:17. • Lynam, C. and Brierly, A. 2007. Enhanced survival of 0-group gadoid fish under jellyfish umbrellas. Mar. Biol., 150(6): 1397-1401. http://www.ices.dk/community/Documents/Expert%20Groups/Lynam_tGAMmodel_key_m ov.pdf • Lov om førstehandsomsetning av viltlevande marine ressursar (fiskesalslagslova), LOV- 2015-06-19-65, 2015 (Act on First-Hand Sales of Wild Catch of Marine Resources). • Lov om forvaltning av viltlevande marine ressursar (havressurslova), LOV-2008-06-06-37, 2008 (Marine Resources Act). • Lov om kystvakten (kystvaktloven), LOV-2015-06-19-65, 1997 (Coast Guard Act). • MAREANO Programme • Marine Strategy Framework Directive
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 39
• Mackinson, S. and Daskalov, G., 2007. An ecosystem model of the North Sea to support an ecosystem approach to fisheries management: description and parameterisation. Sci. Ser. Tech Rep., Cefas Lowestoft, 142: 196pp. • McGlade, 2002. The North Sea Large Marine Ecosystem, p339-412. In: (Sherman, K. and Skjoldal HR (Eds.) Large Marine Ecosystems of the North East Atlantic: changing states and sustainability. Elsevier, Amsterdam, • The Netherlands. • Meld. St. 20 (2015–2016) Noregs fiskeriavtalar for 2016 og fisket etter avtalane i 2014 og 2015, 2016 (White Paper on Norway’s [International] Fisheries Agreements and Fishing in Accordance with the Agreements in 2014 and 2015). • Meld. St. 37 (2008-2009) Helhetlig forvaltning av det marine miljø i Norskehavet (forvaltningsplan), 2009 (White Paper on the Integrated Management Plan for the Norwegian Sea). • Meld. St. 37 (2012–2013) Helhetlig forvaltning av det marine miljø i Nordsjøen og Skagerrak (forvaltningsplan), 2013 (White Paper on the Integrated Management Plan for the North Sea and Skagerrak). • Meld.St. 10 (2010–2011) Oppdatering av forvaltningsplanen for det marine miljø i Barentshavet og havområdene utenfor Lofoten, 2011 (Update of the [Integrated] Management Plan for the Marine Environment in the Barents Sea and the Marine Area outside Lofoten). • Meenakumari, B., Bhagirathan, U. and Pravin, P. Impact of Bottom Trawling on Benthic Communities: A Review. Fishery Technology 2008, Vol. 45(1) pp: 1 – 22. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259979122_Impact_of_bottom_trawling_on_be nthic_communities_a_review • Nævdal, G. and S. Thorkildsen, 2002. Genetic studies on species composition and population structure of sand eels (Genera: Ammodytes, Hyperoplus and Gymnammodytes ) in Norwegian waters. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 18:124-126 • NEAFC Dispute Resolution Mechanism, Annex K – Amendment of the Convention on Dispute Settlement, 2004. • NEAFC Scheme of Control and Enforcement, London: NEAFC, updated as per 9 February 2017 ( https://www.neafc.org/scheme ). • Needle C. L. (2011) Fleet dynamics in fisheries management strategy evaluations. University of Strathclyde • Norge fiskerilov: Lov om forvaltning av viltlevande marine ressursar (havressurslova) LOV- 2008-06-06-37. Latest amendment LOV-2015-06-19-65 Northridge, S. P. (2011). An overview of the state of bycatch monitoring and mitigation measures being implemented in European Fisheries. Paper presented at 63rd Annual Meeting of the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission, Tromso, Norway. • Norwecom.E2E Norwegian Marine Resources Act • OSPAR Commission ( www.ospar.org ) • Pedersen, M. W., and Berg, C. W. 2017. A stochastic surplus production model in continuous time. Fish and Fisheries, 18: 226–243. doi: 10.1111/faf.12174.Prosedyrer for konsultasjoner med Sametinget, Kgr. res. 04/186, 2005 (Royal Decree on Procedures for Consultations with the Sami Parliament). • Referat fra reguleringsmøtet 2. og 3. november 2016, Directorate of Fisheries, 2015 (Minutes from the Regulatory Meeting 2 and 3 November 2016). • Regulation (EU) No. 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No. 1954/2003 and (EC) No. 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No. 2371/2002 and (EC) No. 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC. • Regulation J-48-2016 • REGULATIONS COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 404/2011 of 8 April 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy. • Rice et al (2017). DFPO and DPPO North Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat Sandeel, Norwary Pout, and Sprat fisheries. MRAG Americas 2017. • Riksrevisjonens oppfølging av parallellrevisjonen med Den russiske føderasjons riksrevisjon om forvaltningen av fiskeressursene i Barentshavet og Norskehavet, Dokument 3:8 (2010- 2011), Office of the Auditor General: Oslo, 2011 (The Office of the Auditor General’s Follow- up of the Parallel Audit with the Auditor General of the Russian Federation on the Management of the Fish Resources in the Barents Sea and the Norwegian Sea).
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 40
• Riksrevisjonens undersøkelse av forvaltninen av fiskeressursene, Dokument nr. 3:13 (2003– 2004), Office of the Auditor General, 2004 (The Office of the Auditor General’s Investigation on the Management of Fish Resources). • STCF North Sea database system and the prediction • Wakefield, J., Reforming the Common Fisheries Policy, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2016. • www.ospar.org • www.searchmesh.net
APPENDIX 1 SCORING AND RATIONALES
Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale
Principle 1 – Evaluation tables Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1 – Stock status
The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low PI 1.1.1 probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Stock status relative to recruitment impairment Guidepost It is likely that the stock It is highly likely that There is a high degree is above the point where the stock is above the of certainty that the recruitment would be PRI. stock is above the PRI. impaired (PRI). Sandeel Y Y Y NS-1r UoC 1 Sandeel Y Y Y NS-3r UoC 2 Sandeel Y Y Y NS-4 UoC 3 Norway Y Y Y pout UoC 4-5 Sprat Y Y Y UoC 6-8
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 41
The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low PI 1.1.1 probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue Justificati The reference points are summarized at the end of the scoring PI 1.1.1 table. Blim on is used to judge the status vis-a-vis PRI. For short-lived species, the biomass can fluctuate wildly between years. A precautionary approach in this situation implies that a minimum stock size, MSY B escapement , should remain in the sea every year after fishing. (ICES Book 1, section 1.2.5.1 ICES MSY advice rule). The species are all short lived with fairly high natural mortality and low age at first maturity. The time period considered for fluctuations is less than 10 years.
Norway Pout : The Norway pout stock is above Blim after 2005 (see Figure 10 and Figure 11). The stock is increasing after been close to Bpa in 2012. The 2016 status is at full reproductive capacity. SG 60 is met. The confidence limits (5%-95%) for 2016 indicates that the stock is about Blim with high certainty. SG 80 and SG 100 is met.
Sand eels NS-1r: The spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has been at or above Blim after 2012, see Table 17 and Figure 9. SG 60 is met. The confidence limits (5%-95%) for 2016 indicate that the stock is about Blim with high certainty. The lower 5% limit of the estimated SSB is well above Blim for 2015 and 2016 and at Blim in 2017. SG 80 is met. The lower 5% limit of the estimated SSB is well above Blim for 2015 and 2016 and just at Blim in 2017. SG 100 is met (High degree of certainty = 90%).
Sand eel NS-3r: The spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has been at or above Blim after 2012, see Table 17 and Figure 9. SG 60 is met. The confidence limits (5%-95%) for 2016 indicate that the stock is about Blim with high certainty. The lower 5% limit of the estimated SSB is well above Blim for 2015 and 2016 and just at Blim in 2017. SG 80 is met. The lower 5% limit of the estimated SSB is well above Blim for 2015 and 2016 and just at Blim in 2017. SG 100 is met (High degree of certainty = 90%).
Sand eel NS-4r: The spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has been above Blim after 2009, see Table 17 and Figure 9. SG 60 is met. Fishing mortality (F) has been very low since 2006 and sandeels were only fished in a monitoring fishery. Spawning- stock biomass (SSB) has increased from the time-series low in 2009 to levels well above precautionary reference points (Bpa = MSY B escapement ) and has remained at this level since 2011, with one exception (2015). Two large year classes (2009 and 2014) drove the increase in SSB, and the 2016 year class is estimated to be well above the long-term average. Uncertainty in SSB and recruitment estimates is large in the most recent years. The confidence limits (5%-95%) for 2016 indicate that the stock (2017) is about Blim with high certainty. The lower 5% limit of the estimated SSB is well above Blim for 2015 and 2016 and at Blim in 2017. SG 80 is met. The lower 5% limit of the estimated SSB is well above Blim for 2015 and 2016 and at Blim in 2017. SG 100 is met (High degree of certainty = 90%).
Sprat: The spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has been at or above Blim since 1994, see ver observed (> 2%).
Figure 12 and Figure 13. SG 60 is met.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 42
The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low PI 1.1.1 probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue The confidence limits (5%-95%) for 2014-2016 indicate that the stock is above Blim with high certainty SG 80 is met. The lower 5% limit of the estimated SSB is well above Blim for 2014 – 2016. SG 100 is met (High degree of certainty > 90%). b Stock status in relation to achievement of MSY Guidepost The stock is at or There is a high degree fluctuating around a level of certainty that the consistent with MSY. stock has been fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years. Sandeel Y N NS-1r UoC 1 Sandeel Y N NS-3r UoC 2 Sandeel Y N NS-4 UoC 3 Norway Y N pout UoC 4-5 Sprat Y N UoC 6-8 Justificati For short-lived species, the biomass can fluctuate wildly between years. A on precautionary approach in this situation implies that a minimum stock size, MSY Bescapement, should remain in the sea every year after fishing. (ICES Book 1, section 1.2.5.1 ICES MSY advice rule). Furthermore, the fishing mortalty is capped by the reference points Fcap. Provided that the stock is exploited inside these reference points the stock is considered to exploited consistent with the MSY approach. This reference point MSY Bescapement can be set by proxy as Bpa, or MSY Btrigger. ICES incorporates species interaction considerations into the single-species framework by applying natural mortality and growth rates derived from models of species interactions, using size, age, and stomach data for several species in the Baltic, the Barents Sea, and the North Sea. ICES routinely incorporates short-term changes in growth and maturation in short-term projections to account for competition and food supply. Also, ICES expects to update MSY reference points (typically as part of the benchmark process) to ensure they reflect current dynamics . For the sand eel stocks, the information on stock status and stock development is found in Figure 9 and Table 17.
Sand eel NS-1r: The spawning stock biomass (SSB) is fluctuating at or above MSY Bescapement for most years since 2008 fishing mortality have not been excessive for this stock and is below Fcap. The stock SSB (2017) and the confidence limits for this estimate is above MSY Bescapement but only just and rather fluctuate around MSY Btrigger, with two peaks as the exception. SG 100 is not met.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 43
The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low PI 1.1.1 probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue
Sand eel NS-3r: The stock has fluctuated widely around MSY B escapement since 2010 with periods both above and below. The current situation is that the stock is above MSY B escapement and F below F cap , SG 80 is met. However, the lower confidence limit for the SSB is below MSY B escapement and SG 100 is not met.
Sand eel NS-4r: Fishing mortality (F) has been very low since 2006 and sandeels were only fished in a monitoring fishery. Spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has increased from the time-series low in 2009 to levels well above precautionary reference points (Bpa = MSY Bescapement) and has remained at this level since 2011, with one exception (2015). Two large year classes (2009 and 2014) drove the increase in SSB, and the 2016 year class is estimated to be well above the long-term average. Uncertainty in SSB and recruitment estimates is large in the most recent years. The stock has been above MSY B escapement in most years and the lower confidence limits has been below MSY B escapement 2011-2014. Thus, although the confidence area is biased towards areas above MSY B escapement and there is not a high degree of certainty that the stock has fluctuated around this reference point. SG 100 is not met.
Norway pout: The stock size is highly variable from year to year, due to recruitment variability and a short life span. Stock size has increased and is above Bpa in 2016. Fishing mortality has been below the long-term average F (0.45) since 1995. Recruitment in 2014 and 2016 are high, while recruitment in 2015 is around average. Fcap is not defined for this stock nor has ICES established the use of Bpa as MSY Bescapement. For the evaluation, the Bpa is used as a proxy. The stock is at full reproductive capacity and increasing. The stock has fluctuated above Bpa in the most recent decade, Figure 10 and Figure 11, SG 80 is met. The lower confidence limit for SSB (2016) is below Bpa and has been so for a number of years. SG 100 is not met.
Sprat: ICES has defined MSY reference points for this stock and concluded that the estimated SSB is above these reference points, see ver observed (> 2%).
Figure 12 and Figure 13 . The lower confidence limit (5%) as estimated in 2016 was just below MSY B escapement in 2016 and well above in 2014 and 2015. The 2017 assessment puts this lower limit well above Blim. SG 80 is met. Based on the 2016 assessment, the lower confidence limit of the SSB is well below th MSY B escapement and SG 100 is not met. ICES (2016) HAWG (Sand eel and sprat) ICES (2016) WGNSSK (Norway pout) ICES Advice (2016) Norway pout and sprat References ICES (2017) Sand eel advice ICES (2017) Sand eel benchmark (WKSAND 2016) ICES (2016) Book 1 General guidance to ICES advice UoC 1, 2, 3 Score Sand eel NS-1r, NS-3r, NS-4r 90
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 44
The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low PI 1.1.1 probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue UoC 4 and UoC 5: Score Norway pout 90 UoC 6, 7, 8: Score Sprat 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
Stock Status relative to Reference Points Norway pout Current stock status Type of reference Value of reference relative to reference point point point
PRI concerns Blim 60,000 t 166,849 t
MSY Approach MSY B escapement /Bpa 150,000 t 166,849 t Fcap 0.6 Sand eel NS -1r
PRI concerns Blim 110 kt 222 kt (for 2017)
MSY Approach MSY B escapement /Bpa 145kt 222 kt
Fcap 0.49 0.02 (2016) Sand eel NS -3r
PRI concerns Blim 80 kt 132 kt (2017)
MSY Approach MSY B escapement /Bpa 129 kt 132 kt (2017)
Fcap 0.29 0.13 (2016) Sand eel NS -4
PRI concerns Blim 48 kt 188 kt (2017)
MSY Approach MSY B escapement /Bpa 102 kt 188 kt (2017)
Fcap 0.15 0.02 Sprat
PRI concerns Blim 90 kt 209 kt
MSY Approach MSY B escapement /Bpa 142 kt 209 kt
Fcap 0.7 1.2
Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1A - key LTL [NOTE: only use this table for stocks identified as key LTL] No individual species is defined as key LTL and hence, this table is not relevant. Effects on ecosystem of the total biomass is scored under PI 2.5. Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding This PI is not scored as no stock scored below SG80 at PI 1.1.1
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 45
Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Harvest strategy design Guidepost The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is expected to achieve responsive to the state of responsive to the state of stock management the stock and the the stock and is objectives reflected in PI elements of the harvest designed to achieve 1.1.1 SG80. strategy work together stock management towards achieving stock objectives reflected in PI management objectives 1.1.1 SG80. reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Norway Y Y Y Pout (Joint Stock). UoC 4, 5 Sandeel Y Y Y (EUstocks). NS-1r, NS- 4r. UoC 1,3 Sandeel Y Y Y (Norwegian stocks) NS- 3r UoC 2
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 46
PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Sprat (EU Y Y Y stock) UoC 6-8 Justificati The EU CFP as well as the Norwegian fisheries management system s are designed on to achieve the objectives laid down in the basic documents: the EU CFP and the Norwegian Fisheries law. The Parties (EU and Norway) share the overall harvest strategy i.e. to achieve MSY fisheries. The harvest strategy is for all stocks based on following advice from ICES. This strategy is expected to achieve MSY fishery, SG 60 is met for all fisheries. The ICES advice reflects stock development and status for each of the stock areas. The tools available to the Parties for reaching this goal are the same: TAC, closed areas and seasons, by-catch regulations, technical measures, landing obligations, and range of control measures (VMS, port state measures, logbook, coast guard inspections, landing inspections, statistical obligations, etc.). However, implementation of the harvest strategy differs between EU and Norway. The strategy for all stocks is responsive to the state of the stock because the ICES advice – which is the guidepost for the regulations of the fisheries - is based on a stock assessment that reflects stock size and stock status. The elements of the strategy: data collection and data analysis, advice, consultations among stakeholders and between the governments, adoption of regulation and implementation of the management decisions work together to achieve the target – MSY fishery – on which the decisions are made. This applies to both EU regulated fisheries as well as Norwegian regulated fisheries. SG 80 is met.
EU stocks: The sprat stock and sandeel stocks NS 1r, NS-2r, NS 4r and NS 7r are managed under the EU Common Fisheries Policy. The total TACs are set by the EU Council of Ministers. There is no multiannual management plan for either of these stocks. The EU annual TACs are is set based on scientific advice from ICES and STECF. This advice include provision for reduction of the exploitation rate if the stock falls below precautionary reference points. The advice is based on the ICES advisory scheme ICES advice (2016) Book 1. For sand eel, in addition to area- based TACs the fishery is regulated by a limited fishing season (approx. 1 April – 1 July). The ICES advice reflects stock development and status for each of the stock areas. Past decisions on sandeel (NS-1r, NS-4r) and sprat quotas generally have not exceeded TACs advised by ICES and the CFP requires the EU member states to regulate fisheries consistent with CFP objectives, (i.e sustainable fisheries, see preamble to CFP). SG100 is met. Joint EU-Norway stock: Norway pout is a joint stock between EU and Norway but not currently jointly managed EU. The strategy is for both Parties to achieve MSY fisheries and to do so they base their regulations on advice from ICES and for EU also from STECF. The TACs are set autonomously after annual consultations under the EU-Norway fisheries agreement. The Parties agree in wishing for joint management of the Norway pout stock, see Agreed record of the fisheries consultations between EU and Norway December 2016 and is thus designed to achieve stock status objectives laid down in PI 1. SG 100 is met Norwegian stocks : The Sandeel stock NS-3r is managed by Norway. The Norwegian sand eel fisheries are subject to a management plan, see section 3.3.3.5.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 47
PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place The Norwegian fisheries management system is designed to achieve the objectives laid down in the basic documents: the Norwegian Fisheries law. SG 100 is met. Harvest strategy evaluation b Guidepost The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy may The performance of the likely to work based on not have been fully harvest strategy has been prior experience or tested but evidence fully evaluated and plausible argument. exists that it is achieving evidence exists to show its objectives. that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Norway Y Y N Pout (Joint Stock) UoC 4, 5 Sandeel Y Y N (EU stocks) NS-1r, NS- 4r. UoC 1,3 Sandeel Y Y Y (Norwegian stocks) NS- 3r. UoC 2 Sprat (EU Y Y N stock). UoC 6-8 Justificati The harvest strategy has been in place since the early 1980s and has been refined on over the years, e.g. the EU CFP was last reviewed and amended in 2013 while the Norwegian fishing law was overhauled last in 2015 the latest major overhaul was in 2008. The stocks are in general good shape so the strategy is expected to work also in the future based on past experience. SG 60 is met. The harvest strategy has been put to the test of implementation for several decades. Earlier TACs were defined for the entire North Sea divided only between the Norwegian and the EU zone. The regionalization of the TACs have been gradually introduced over the last decade in response to increasing understanding of the population structure. The most developed of the management plans is the Norwegian spatial management plan, see section Error! Reference source not found. . The status of the stocks, the recovery of the sand eel stocks in recent years (e.g. sandeel in NS-3r) provide evidence that the strategy is achieving its objectives. SG 80 is met. For the EU stocks and the joint Norway pout stock the strategy has not been fully implemented has fully evaluated inter alia because there is no HCR has been evaluated and been found to precautionary. The Norwegian spatial plan has been in operation since 2010 and the recent recovery of the sandeel in NS-3r is evidence that the plan is achieving its objectives. c Harvest strategy monitoring Guidepost Monitoring is in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Norway Y Pout (Joint
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 48
PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Stock)UoC 4, 5 Sandeel Y (EU stocks) NS-1r, NS- 4r UoC 1,3 Sandeel Y (Norwegian stocks) NS- 3r. UoC 2 Sprat (EU Y stock). UoC 6-8 Justificati All fisheries are well monitored (logbooks, VMS, landing obligations, port state on measures, landing control, sampling of landings, some observer coverage giving detailed statistics of the catches, 2 annual surveys for sand eels (Danish dredge survey, Norwegian acoustic survey), for Norway pout and sprat two annual trawl surveys (IBTS 1q and IBTS 3q). The data are processed and are fundamental to the annual assessments of the stocks under the ICES umbrella. d Harvest strategy review Guidepost The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. Norway Y Pout (Joint Stock) UoC 4, 5 Sandeel EU Y stocks NS- 1r, NS-4r UoC 1, 3 Sandeel Y Norwegian stocks NS- 3r UoC 2 Sprat EU Y stock UoC 6-8 Justificati The harvest strategy is under constant review. The recent (2016) change of the on region and the introduction of regionalized TAC are examples of these reviews. Also the development of the Norwegian spatial management plan is an example of the this review. In the EU the development of the experimental fisheries in the beginning of the season and in-year adjustment of the TAC are examples of the review and consequent improvement of the strategy. SG 100 is met. e Shark finning Guidepost It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree finning is not taking shark finning is not taking of certainty that shark place. place. finning is not taking place. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 49
PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Justificati Not relevant on f Review of alternative measures Guidepost There has been a review There is a regular There is a biennial of the potential review of the potential review of the potential effectiveness and effectiveness and effectiveness and practicality of alternative practicality of alternative practicality of alternative measures to minimise measures to minimise measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of the unwanted catch of the unwanted catch of the target stock. target stock and they are target stock, and they implemented as are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. All stocks Y Y N Justificati In particular , catch of 0 -group sand eel has been considered unwanted catch. The on potential for such catch is minimized through the seasonal closures of the fisheries. SG 60 and SG 80 is met. However, there is no formal biennial review and SG 100 is not met. Common Fishery Policy Basic Regulation . Agreed record of the fisheries consultations between EU and Norway December References 2016. Norge fiskerilov: Lov om forvaltning av viltlevande marine ressursar (havressurslova) LOV-2008-06-06-37. Latest amendment LOV-2015-06-19-65 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Norway Pout (UoC 4, 5) 90 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Sandeel (EU stocks) (UoC 1, 3) 90 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Sandeel (Norwegian stocks) (UoC 2) 95 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Sprat (UoC 6-8) 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 50
Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in PI 1.2.2 place Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a HCRs design and application Guidepost Generally understood Well defined HCRs are The HCRs are expected to HCRs are in place or in place that ensure keep the stock available that are that the exploitation rate fluctuating at or above expected to reduce the is reduced as the PRI is a target level consistent exploitation rate as the approached, are expected with MSY, or another point of recruitment to keep the stock more appropriate level impairment (PRI) is fluctuating around a taking into account the approached. target level consistent ecological role of the with (or above) MSY, or stock, most of the time. for key LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. EU Sandeel Y N N NS-1r, NS- 4r. (UoC 1, 3) Norwegian Y Y N SandeelNS -3r (UoC 2) Joint EU- Y N N Norway Norway Pout (UoC 4, 5) EU Sprat Y N N (UoC 6-8)
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 51
Justificati Norway pout : This is joint stock. The TACs are set autonomously based on on consultations under the bilateral EU-Norway fisheries agreement. The ICES harvest control rule for short-lived species is used by ICES in provision of scientific advice, and is de facto applied by the management authority of the fishery. The area-specific values for B escapement and F i are shown in Table 19 with the justification for PI 1.1.1, and de factor serve as management targets for each area. As SSB approaches the B escapement value, ICES advises that harvests be reduced, so exploitation rate is reduced even before the target is reached, and advice is to stop harvests once the stock is below the target B escapement (ICES 2016) Book 1. There is a generally understood HCR that is respected by both EU and Norway. Management decisions have generally been consistent with the science advice. SG 60 is met. The management authority has not adopted the reference points and harvest strategy in any formal way, nor prepared management plans for the fishery that contain the rules. Consequently, there is no assurance that in future harvest rate will continue to be reduced as SSB approaches B escapement and reach zero by the time SSB passes B lim . As this control rule has not been adopted by the management authority, it cannot be concluded that “well defined harvest control rules are in place”. Hence SG 80 is not met.
Sandeel NS1r, NS-4: These stocks are under EU management. The ICES harvest control rule for short-lived species is used by ICES in provision of scientific advice, and is de facto applied by the management authority of the fishery. The area-specific values for B escapement and F cap are shown in Table 17 and in the table attached to the justification for PI 1.1.1, and serve de facto as management targets for each area. As SSB approaches the Bescapement value, ICES advises that harvests be reduced, so exploitation rate is reduced even before the target is reached, and advice is to stop harvests once the stock is below the target Bescapement (ICES 2016) Book 1. Management decisions have generally been consistent with the science advice. Nevertheless, in all three areas there have been non-zero quotas in some years when SSB was below B escapement ., and even below B lim . However, in practice the management is reducing exploitation as the limit is approached. This means that SG 60 is reached for all three areas. The harvest control rules are being applied for all three stocks in the science advice and in the management decisions on quotas (ICES 2017). The management authority has not adopted the reference points and harvest strategy in any formal way, nor prepared management plans for the fishery that contain the rules. Consequently, there is no assurance that in future harvest rate will continue to be reduced as SSB approaches Bescapement and reach zero by the time SSB passes Blim. As this control rule has not been adopted by the management authority, it cannot be concluded that “well defined harvest control rules are in place”. Hence SG 80 is not met.
Sandeel NS-3r : ICES provides advice for this stock according to the MSY approach This stock is under Norwegian management.; however, most of this area is within the Norwegian EEZ and fisheries are managed by alternately opening and closing areas, see the background section. ICES has not evaluated this management plan. The plan prescribes that there is one TAC advice combined is given for all open subareas. The plan further states “There is no analytic stock assessment in place, and to calculate the TAC the survey abundance estimates are used as absolute numbers. A natural mortality of 0.6 is used to estimate the survival of individuals age > 1 at the start of next fishing year.” This estimate has in recent years and for 2017 however been below what is advised by ICES (Johnsen pers. Comm.). There is an explicit HCR in place that if the stock falls to low levels will dictate the closure of the fishing grounds. SG 60 is met. The Spatial Plan is well-defined and implemented for the Norwegian fishery and ensure reduction of the exploitation rate as low stocks are approach. The PRI point is not explicitly defined in the plan., the plan does not define a MSY level. However, the plan is designed to achieve the stock to be fluctuating around MSY and the plan include an overall cap that is linked to observed abundance (Norwegian acoustic survey). It is judged that the plan is expected to keep the
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 52
stock fluctuating around MSY based on the link to the acoustic survey and the general reflection in the Norwegian management system of the ICES advice. SG 80 is met. The TAC setting and other spatial regulation does not include ecological considerations and SG 100 is not met.
Spra t: This is an EU stock. The ICES harvest control rule for short-lived species is used by ICES in provision of scientific advice, and is de facto applied by the management authority of the fishery. The area-specific values for B escapement and Fcap are shown in Table 18 and in the table attached to the justification for PI 1.1.1 above, and serve de facto as management targets for each area. As SSB approaches the Bescapement value, ICES advises that harvests be reduced, so exploitation rate is reduced even before the target is reached, and advice is to stop harvests once the stock is below the target B escapement (ICES 2016) Book 1. There is a generally understood HCR that is respected by EU. Management decisions have generally been consistent with the science advice. SG 60 is met. The management authority has not adopted the reference points and harvest strategy in any formal way, nor prepared management plans for the fishery that contain the rules. Consequently, there is no assurance that in future harvest rate will continue to be reduced as SSB approaches Bescapement and reach zero by the time SSB passes Blim. As this control rule has not been adopted by the management authority, it cannot be concluded that “well defined harvest control rules are in place”. Hence SG 80 is not met. b HCRs robustness to uncertainty Guidepost The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account of robust to the main a wide range of uncertainties. uncertainties including the ecological role of the stock, and there is evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties. EU Sandeel N N NS-1r, NS- 4r (UoC 1, 3) Norwegian Y N Sandeel NS-3r (UoC 2) Joint EU- N N Norway Norway Pout (UoC 4, 5) EU Sprat N N (UoC 6-8) Justificati EU Stocks (Norway pout, Sandeel (EU stocks, NS -1r, NS -4 and sprat): For the EU on stocks there is a generally understood HCR based on the ICES advisory framework by no explicit well-defined HCR. The main uncertainties regard any causes of fluctuations in stock productivity and are taken into account in the HCR. The main uncertainties include the scientific assessment results (uncertainties in survey results) but also variation in the natural mortality as a result of variation in predation by other fish (e.g. cod like fish). The design of the advisory harvest control rule was investigated in detail during the sandeel benchmarking assessment (ICES 2010) and in a general way again on the MSY Workshop (ICES 2014) under a wide range of uncertainties, including top
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 53
down and bottom up ecological effects on sandeel productivity, uncertainties in the catch data and effort data (including uncertainties about spatial distribution of each, uncertainty about the dredge survey data, and uncertainty biological parameters including growth, maturation and natural mortality. The SG 80 and SG100 guideposts would be met if the HCR was closely linked to the management HCR. However, as no such HCR has been adopted and implemented SG 80 is not met. Norwegian stocks Sandeel NS-3r : There is a clear HCR. The main uncertainties are as for the EU stocks related to changes in the stock productivity and the ability of the scientific assessment to map these fluctuations and management ability to react on this information. The HCR reacts on changes in stock abundance through opening and closing fishing grounds. The system is simple and is expected to be robust to the main uncertainties. SG 80 is met. The ecological aspects of the HCR and how this shall be included in the HCR was investigated ICES (2010). SG 80 is met. The stock has been increasing during the period in which the spatial plan has been in effect (since 2010). However, the plan has not been explicitly evaluated and the evidence for its effectiveness is not complete. SG 100 is not met. c HCRs evaluation Guidepost There is some evidence Available evidence Evidence clearly that tools used or indicates that the tools shows that the tools in available to implement in use are appropriate use are effective in achieving the HCRs are appropriate and and effective in achieving exploitation levels effective in controlling the exploitation levels required under the HCRs. exploitation. required under the HCRs. EU Sandeel Y Y N NS-1r, NS- 4r (UoC 1, 3) Norwegian Y Y N SandeelNS -3r (UoC 2) Joint EU- Y Y N Norway Norway Pout (UoC 4, 5) EU Sprat Y Y N (UoC 6-8) Justificati The MSC -MSCI vocabularium defines tools as mechanism. The management on systems that regulates the fisheries for Norway pout, sand eel and sprat have a long series of tools at their disposal including scientific advice, intergovernmental consultations, TAC, technical regulations, by-catch limitations, closed areas and closed seasons, and a range of control and enforcement measures. This toolbox is embedded in the legal framework that regulate fisheries in EU and in Norway. These mechanisms are used widely and are known to be effective. SG 60 is met. These tools are in use in regulating the reduction fisheries for Norway pout, sandeel and sprat. The tools are appropriate to control exploitation and in achieving the exploitation level required under the HCR (general understood). This is clear from the results that are achieved in stock recovery for sand eel NS-3r stock and the high levels of the Norway pout and sprat stocks.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 54
Norway pout: SG60 is met based on general arguments see above. The tools have been effective in reducing the fishing mortality and maintaining this on a low level, The stock is at full reproductive capacity, and have been so for a number more than a decade, Figure 11 . The tools have been effective to almost close the fishery at low stock levels (2005, 2007 and 2011). SG80 is met. However, the lower confidence limit is not clear of the Blim limit and SG100 is not met. Sand eel: SG60 is met based on general arguments see above. The tools have been effective in maintaining the stocks – NS-3r sandeel in rebuilding - at full reproductive capacity for most years. SG80 is met. The high mortality that is generated for sand eel in the period 2003-2008 suggests that the SG100 is not met. Because that management is similar for all the ‘industrial’ fish (Norway pout, sand eel, sprat) there is some doubt about the ‘Clear evidence’. Sprat: SG60 is met based on general arguments see above. The stock status has for the most recent three years been at full reproductive capacity and fishing mortality has been reduced. The fishery is under control. SG80 is met. The high fishing mortality that is generated for sprat indicates that the evidence is not completely clear and SG 100 is not met. Interannual quota swops are implemented as part of the HCR. These swops are investigated for several stocks ICES (2012) and found not to invalidate the precautionarity fo the HCRs. ICES. 2010. Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Sandeel (WKSAN), 6–10 September 2010, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2010/ACOM:57. 201 pp. ICES. 2014. Report of the Workshop to consider reference points for all stocks (WKMSYREF2), 8-10 January 2014, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES. 2012. Report of the Workshop for Revision for the North Sea Herring Long Term Management Plan, 1–2 October 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES References ACOM:72. 110 pp. ICES CM 2014/ACOM:47. 91 pp. ICES (2016) WKSAND 2016 ICES (2017) Advice on sandeel ICES (2016) Advice on Norway pout and sprat ICES (2016) HAWG (sprat) ICES (2016) WGNSSK (Norway pout) Score Sandeel EU stocks (NS-1r, NS-4) UoC 1, 3 65 Score Sandeel Norwegian stocks (NS-3r) UoC 2 80 Score Norway Pout UoC 4, 5 65 Score Sprat UoC 6-8 65 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Applies to UoC 1,3,4,5,6,7 and 8. 1
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 55
Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Range of information Guidepo Some relevant Sufficient relevant A comprehensive st information related to information related to range of information (on stock structure, stock stock structure, stock stock structure, stock productivity and fleet productivity, fleet productivity, fleet composition is available composition and other composition, stock to support the harvest data is available to abundance, UoA strategy. support the harvest removals and other strategy. information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. Sandeel Y Y Y NS-1r, NS-3r, NS-4 UoC 1-3 Norway Y Y Y Pout UoC 4, 5 Sprat Y Y Y UoC 6-8 Justifica Sandeel NS -1r, NS -3r, NS -4r , Norway pout and sprat: tion The harvest strategy is based on availability of data for the fisheries and biological data. The stock structure is well studied for all 8 stocks and were benchmarked recently ICES (2017) WKSAND 2016, ICES (2016) [Norway pout] and ICES (2013) [sprat]. The stock productivity is studied through annual assessments and the fleet comsposition is available at the Norwegian Fiskeridirektorat’s web site (Statistikkbank). There is no sorting of the catch at sea but dockside sampling of the landings. The level of dockside monitoring and catch sampling in quarters is high enough for accurate information on size and age composition of the catches. Note that the fishery is highly seasonal and sampling effort is concentrated in the fishing season, for Norway April – June. VMS is available to document, see also Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3. In addition, for sand eel, there are data from the dredge and hydroacoustic surveys and for Norway pout and sprat the IBTS 1q and IBTS 3q surveys provide stock data. Furthermore, for sprat the HERAS survey data are available. These surveys provide fishery independent data on abundance and biological parameters of all units supporting directed exploitation ICES (2017) Advice. This is suffient to feed the the Harvest Strategy Substantial monitoring of the North Sea physical oceanography is conducted, and spatially resolved time series data on a number of oceanographic parameters are available (Drinkwater 2010, http://www.bodc.ac.uk/projects/uk/north_sea/). Likewise, populations of key fish, bird and marine mammals are monitored on an annual basis, and extensive diet data are available for use in trophodynamic models (ICES 2014). SG 60 and SG 80 are met and exceeded.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 56
PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy There have been discussions of the stock structure for sandeel and substantial research has appeared. With the 2017 benchmark these issues are concluded for sand eel ICES (2017) WKSAND 2016.SG 100 is met for these four sandeel stocks For Norway pout and sprat the structure is well known, see sections 3.3.4 and 3.3.5. Also for these two stocks SG 100 is met. b Monitor ing Guidepo Stock abundance and UoA Stock abundance and UoA All information required st removals are monitored removals are regularly by the harvest control and at least one indicator monitored at a level of rule is monitored with is available and accuracy and coverage high frequency and a high monitored with sufficient consistent with the degree of certainty, and frequency to support the harvest control rule , there is a good harvest control rule. and one or more understanding of inherent indicators are available uncertainties in the and monitored with information [data] and sufficient frequency to the robustness of support the harvest assessment and control rule. management to this uncertainty. Sandeel Y Y Y NS-1r, NS-3r, NS-4 UoC 1-3 Norway Y Y Y Pout UoC 4, 5 Sprat Y Y Y UoC 6-8 Justifica The fisheries are fully documented as noted above in PI 1.2.3a. There are annual tion survey data available that covers all areas with the exception of the NS-7r stock (Shetland). For the sand eel NS-5r the survey data are not satisfactory for an ICES trend assessment. All information required by HCR is available for the UoCs’ included in the assessment (i.e. excluding 5r and 7r) For the Sandeel NS-1r, NS-2r, NS-3r, NS4r, Norway pout and sprat SG 80 is met (data are sufficient for annual assessments of stock status. The harvest control rule (Norwegian the spatial management plan), EU (based on annual survey results). All data required for these management approaches are available. The surveys are annual and conducted based on ‘best scientific practise’. There is a good understanding of the uncertainties based on studies of the behaviour of the surveys and the robustness of the assessments has been investigated at ICES benchmarks. SG100 is met. c Comprehensiveness of information Guidepo There is good information st on all other fishery removals from the stock. Sandeel Y UoC 1-3 Norway Y Pout
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 57
PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy UoC 4, 5 Sprat Y UoC 6-8 Justifica Removals in other fisheries are well documented through the EU and Norwegian tion fisheries statistics programmes; Good information on all removal. SG 80 is met.
ICES. 2010. Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Sandeel (WKSAN), 6 –10 September 2010, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2010/ACOM:57. 201 pp. ICES. 2016. Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Norway Pout ( Trisopterus esmarkii ) in Subarea 4 and Division 3.a (North Sea, Skagerrak, and Kattegat), 23– 25 August 2016, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2016/ACOM:35. 396 pp. ICES. 2013. Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Sprat (WKSPRAT), 11–15 February 2013, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2013/ACOM:48. ICES. 2014a. Interim Report of the Working Group on Multispecies Assessment Methods (WGSAM), 20–24 October 2014, London, UK. ICES CM 2014/SSGSUE:11. 104 pp. ICES. 2014b. Report of the Workshop to consider reference points for all stocks (WKMSYREF2), 8-10 January 2014, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark. References ICES CM 2014/ACOM:47. 91 pp. 2017a. Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Sandeel Stocks (WKSAND), 31 October–4 November 2016, Bergen, Norway. ICES CM 2016/ACOM:33. ICES. 2017b. Sandeel in Division 3.a and Subarea 4. Section 9 in Report of the Herring Assessment Working Group for the Area South of 62°N (HAWG), 16–22 March 2017, ICES HQ, Denmark. ICES CM 2017/ACOM:07. Available separately at the HAWG website. EU. 2013. Regulation (EU) No. 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No. 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No. 2371/2002 and (EC) No. 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32013R1380. Score Sandeel NS-1r, NS-3r, NS-4. UoC 1-3 100 Score Norway pout UoC 4, 5 100 Score Sprat UoC 6-8 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 58
Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration Guidep The assessment is The assessment takes ost appropriate for the stock into account the major and for the harvest features relevant to the control rule. biology of the species and the nature of the UoA. Sandeel Y Y NS-1r UoC 1 Sandeel Y Y NS-3r UoC 2 Sandeel Y Y NS-4 UoC 3 Norway Y Y pout UoC 4, 5 Sprat Y Y UoC 6- 8 Justific Norway pout: The Norway pout assessment was benchmarked ICES (2016) and ation the assessment carried out on the adopted SESAM mode. This formulation excludes commercial cpue data, omits 1983 data from the assessment and omits the years of fishery closure from the random walk variance calculation. Blim is set equal to Bloss based on quarter 4 SSB values to align with the new fishing season (1st November to 31st October). The short-term forecast is stochastic, which allows the probability of SSB being below Blim to be evaluated immediately following the fishing season. The SG100 is met. Sandeel (NS-1r, NS-3r, NS-4): The sand eel assessments (excl NS-7r and NS- 7r) are based on the outcome of the ICES (2017) Benchmark WKSAND 2016 which adopted an analytical seasonal age-based model (SMS-effort), see ICES (2017) WKSAND 2016 for details. The model is based on data for Acoustic survey index (2009–2016) and dredge survey index (dredge survey 2005–2016). Total international catch and fishing effort. Constant maturity-at-age estimated from the dredge survey. Natural mortality estimated from multispecies assessment. From 2012 and onwards the mortality has been constant. Age and length frequencies from catch sampling are also input to the model. AG 100 is met. Sprat: The sprat assessment was benchmarked ICES (2013) and the assessment carried out on the adopted SMS mode, see ICES 2016) HAWG and ICES (2013) WKSPRAT for detail. This formulation uses the following data: Commercial catches (international landings, ages and length frequencies from catch sampling), three survey indices (IBTS Q1&3, HERAS), annual maturity data from IBTS Q1 survey, natural mortalities from multispecies model (ICES, 2014). The Benchmark reviewed the full rnage of problems in relation to the sprat assessment in relation to the advisory harvest control rule (ICES) and the considered the main features including variation in the natural mortality. The SG100 is met. b Assessment approach Guidep The assessment The assessment ost estimates stock status estimates stock status
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 59
PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status relative to generic relative to reference reference points points that are appropriate to the species appropriate to the stock category. and can be estimated. Sandeel Y Y NS-1r UoC 1 Sandeel Y Y NS-3r UoC 2 Sandeel Y Y NS-4 UoC 3 Norway Y Y pout UoC 4, 5 Sprat Y Y UoC 6- 8 Justific The assessment approaches for Norway pout, sand eel (excl NS -5r and NS -7r) and ation sprat estimates the status relative to reference points, see PI 1.1.1. SG 80 is met.
c Uncertainty in the assessment Guidep The assessment The assessment takes The assessment takes ost identifies major uncertainty into account. into account uncertainty sources of uncertainty. and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Sandeel Y Y Y NS-1r, NS-3r, NS-4 UoC 1-3 Norway Y Y Y Pout UoC 4, 5 Sprat Y Y Y UoC 6-8 Justific The Norway pout assessment (SESAM), the sprat and the sandeel assessments ation (SMS) takes into account uncertainty due to the relationship between effort and catch, and the CVs of catch at age and in the survey estimates of abundance and age composition (ICES 2016, 2017). Hence SG 60 and SG 80 are met. The models provide probabilistics estimates (confidence limits) and SG 100 is met. d Evaluation of assessment Guidep The assessment has been ost tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 60
PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Sandeel Y NS-1r, NS-3r, NS-4 UoC 1-3 Norway Y pout UoC 4, 5 Sprat Y UoC 6-8 Justific All the assessments are subject to benchmarking (ICES 2017, ICES 2016, ICES ation 2013). At these banchmarks the robustness of the assessment to assumptions/hypotheses and uncertainties in all the major potential sources of uncertainty and inaccuracies in the assessments are explored and this is a significant determinant in adoption of the ‘best practise’ assessment model for the particular stock. As an example, the ICES (2010) WKSAN studied: Top-down effects on sandeel productivity (ICES 2010, Section 3.1) Bottom-up effects on sandeel productivity (ICES 2010, Section 3.2) Other ecosystem impacts on stock productivity (ICES 2010, Section 3.6) Commercial catch-at-age and weight-at-age (ICXES 2010, Section 4.1.1) Commercial catch-per-unit-effort (ICES 2010, Section 4.1.3) Dredge survey catches and age-weight composition (ICES 2010 Section 4.2) Maturity at age (ICES 2010, Section 4.3) Natural mortality (ICES 2010, Section 4.4) Fleet and gear characteristics (ICES 2010, Section 4.5)
In addition, the comparisons among the different assessment modelling approaches explored the robustness of the methods to different hypotheses regarding the relationships between catch and effort and between recruitment and SSB. The model formulations are all introduced fairly recently and there is no test over any length of time if the is robust. However, based on the thorough testing at the Benchmark it is considered that SG 100 is met. e Peer review of assessment Guidep The assessment of stock The assessment has been ost status is subject to peer internally and review. externally peer reviewed. Sandeel Y Y NS-1r, NS-3r, NS-4 UoC 1-3 Norway Y Y pout UoC 4, 5 Sprat Y Y UoC 6-8
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 61
PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Justific The ICES assessments are subject to an extensive peer review control procedure, ation see section 0 The benchmark includes external reviewers. SG 100 is met. ICES. 2015. Report of the Workshop on evaluating current national acoustic abundance estimation methods for HERAS surveys (WKEVAL), 24-28 August 2015, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2015/SSGIEOM:16. 48 pp References ICES. 2014 Interim Report of the Working Group on Multispecies Assessment Methods (WGSAM), 20–24 October 2014, London, UK. ICES CM 2014/SSGSUE:11. 104 pp. Score Sandeel NS-1r, NS-3r, NS-4 UoC 1-3 100 Score Norway pout UoC 4, 5 100 Score Sprat UoC 6-8 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 62
Principle 2 UoC 1-3 - – Evaluation tables UoC 1-3: Sandeel in North Sea (IVa and IVb), with bottom trawlers (including some sporadic catches with midwater trawlers). Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not PI 2.1.1 hinder recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Main primary species stock status Guidep Main primary species are Main primary species are There is a high degree ost likely to be above the PRI highly likely to be above of certainty that main OR the PRI primary species are above the PRI and are If the species is below the OR fluctuating around a level PRI, the UoA has If the species is below the consistent with MSY. measures in place that PRI, there is either are expected to ensure evidence of recovery or that the UoA does not a demonstrably effective hinder recovery and strategy in place rebuilding. between all MSC UoAs which categorise this species as main , to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. UoC 1-3 Y Y Y Justific According to MSC CRv2 SA3.1.3.3, primary species are those where management ation tools and measures are in place, intended to achieve stock management objectives reflected in either limit or target reference points. Main primary species would be those comprising 5% or more of the total catch (per gear), or those less resilient species comprising more than 2% of the catch (MSC CR v2 SA 3.4.2.2). According to catch data shown in Table 20, there are no main primary species to consider for this UoC. According to FCR SA 3.2.1, if a team determines that a UoA has no impact on a particular component, it shall receive a score of 100 under the Outcome PI. SG100 is granted. b Minor primary s pecies stock status Guidep Minor primary species are ost highly likely to be above the PRI OR If below the PRI, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of minor primary species UoC 1-3 Y Justific Minor primary species to consider are: Cod, haddock, hake, mackerel, North Sea ation herring, Norway Pout, saithe, sprat, whiting and witch. More than 96% of the UoC catch is comprised by sandeel, leaving 4% of the catch to all other species. Therefore, the proportion (and quantities) of these species in the catch are very low.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 63
The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not PI 2.1.1 hinder recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. ICES gives catch advice for all minor primary species, and a summary of the stock status for each species: Cod: Fishing mortality (F) has been declining since 2000 and is estimated to be above FMSY. Spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has increased from the historical low in 2006 and is close to MSY Btrigger. ICES advices that catches in the North Sea should not exceed 59888 tons in 2018. The UoC landed 49 kg of cod during 2016. The estimated impact of the UoC in the stock is considered negligible. Haddock: Fishing mortality (F) is above FMSY and spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has fallen below MSY Btrigger. ICES Advices that for 2018 catches in the North Sea should be no more than 51037 tones. The UoC landed 5 tonnes of haddock during 2016. The estimated impact of the UoC in the stock is considered negligible. Hake: The spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has increased significantly since 2006 and is well above MSY Btrigger. Fishing mortality (F) has decreased significantly over the last decade and has been below FMSY since 2011. ICES advices that, for 2018, catches in the Greater North Sea region (including the Celtic Sea and the Northern of the Bay of Biscay) should be no more than 115335 tones. The UoC landed 1.9 tonnes of hake during 2016. The estimated impact of the UoC in the stock is considered negligible. Mackerel: The spawning-stock biomass (SSB) is estimated to have increased since the early 2000s and has been above MSY Btrigger since 2009. The fishing mortality (F) has been declining from high levels in the mid-2000s but remains above FMSY. ICES advices that, for 2018, in the whole North East Atlantic, catches should be of no more than 550948 tones. The UoC landed 35 tonnes of mackerel during 2016. The impact of the UoC in the stock is considered negligible. North Sea herring: The spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has been above MSY Btrigger since 2009. Fishing mortality (F) has been below FMSY since 1996. ICES advices that, for 2018, catches in the North Sea should be of no more that 517891 tones. The UoC landed 117 tonnes of North Sea herring during 2016. The impact of the UoC in the stock is considered negligible. Norway pout: The stock size is highly variable from year to year, due to recruitment variability and a short life span. Stock size has increased and is above Bpa in 2016. Fishing mortality has been below the long-term average F since 1995. ICES advices that, for the fishing period between 1st November 2017 and 31 st October 2018, catches in the North Sea should not exceed 155955 tones. The UoC landed 1.3 tonnes of Norway pout during 2016. The impact of the UoC in the stock is considered negligible. Saithe: Fishing mortality (F) has been below FMSY since 2013. Spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has fluctuated without trend, remaining above MSY Btrigger since 1997. ICES Advices that, for 2018, catches in the North Sea should not exceed 118460 tones. The UoC landed 1.3 tonnes of saithe during 2016. The impact of the UoC in the stock is considered negligible. Sprat: The spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has been at or above MSY Bescapement since 2013. Fishing mortality (F) has shown an increase in the last two years. ICES advices that, for the period between 1 st July 2017 and 30 th June 2018, catches in the North Sea should not exceed 170387 tones, while catches in the Skagerrak (and Kattegat) should not exceed 6255 tones. The UoC landed 2 tonnes of sprat during 2016. The estimated impact of the UoC in the stock is considered negligible. Whiting: Spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has fluctuated around MSY Btrigger. And is now just above Btrigger. Fishing mortality (F) has been above FMSY throughout the time-series, but below Fpa since 2002. ICES advices that, for 2018, catches in the North Sea should not exceed 26804 tones while in the Skagerrak (and
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 64
The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not PI 2.1.1 hinder recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. Kattegat) they should not exceed 400 tones. The UoC landed 35 tonnes of whiting during 2016. The estimated impact of the UoC in the stock is considered low. Witch: Reference points are not specifically defined for witch. Although the abundance index shows a declining trend after 2000, the index significantly increased during 2014– 2015. The Surplus Production in Continuous Time analysis (SpiCT model for ICES category 3 stocks, with limited information; Pedersen and Berg, 2017) suggests that fishing mortality is below, and the stock size is above, proxies of the MSY reference points, showing the safe status of the stock. ICES advices that, for 2018, landings of witch in the North Sea should not exceed 2079 tones. The UoC landed 14 tonnes of witch during 2016. The impact of the UoC in the stock is considered low. The witch stock is managed through a joint TAC with the lemon sole stock. As seen above, most of these species are at present at safe stock levels where spawning stock biomass is above MSY B trigger. Only cod and haddock stocks are at present not above MSY, however it is considered that the small quantities taken by the fleet does not hinder the recovery of both cod and haddock. The only species where reference points are not defined is witch, however, proxies of MSY reference points were calculated using the SPiCT model. The team considers that, thanks to the good stock status of most minor species, and the small quantities taken by the UoC, that the UoA is not hindering the recovery of these species. SG 100 is granted. Landing records. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/cod- 347d.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/had- 346a.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/hke- nrtn.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/her- 47d3.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/mac- nea.pdf References http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/nop-34- oct.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/sai- 3a46.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/spr- nsea.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/whg- 47d.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2015/2015/wit- nsea.pdf Pedersen, M. W., and Berg, C. W. 2017. A stochastic surplus production model in continuous time. Fish and Fisheries, 18: 226–243. doi: 10.1111/faf.12174. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 1-3 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 65
Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.2 – Primary species management strategy There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and PI 2.1.2 implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Management strategy in place Guidep There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in ost place for the UoA, if strategy in place for the place for the UoA for necessary, that are UoA, if necessary, that is managing main and expected to maintain or expected to maintain or minor primary species. to not hinder rebuilding of to not hinder rebuilding of the main primary species the main primary species at/to levels which are at/to levels which are likely to above the point highly likely to be above where recruitment would the point where be impaired. recruitment would be impaired. UoC 1-3 Y Y Y Justific The different measures in place, such as gear and mesh size regulations, along ation with the establishment of fishing seasons, move on rules, seasonal area closures and protected areas are sufficient to be considered as a partial strategy in place which is expected not to hinder the recovery or rebuilding of these species, if necessary. Besides, monitoring of landings serves to monitor any potential increase in the risk for the stock status of primary species. The bulk of the sandeel fishery takes place from April to June. The area where the fishery takes place is very limited, as shown in Error! Not a valid result for table. , and at present only includes the Norwegian EEZ. Of all primary species affected by the UoC, only mackerel and North Sea herring are subject to quota when caught in Norwegian EEZ. All Norwegian vessels are subject to the landing obligation since 1984. There are no main primary species to consider in UoC 1-3. The fishing strategy, along with the location of the fishing grounds, make it possible that more than 96% of the catch is the targeted species. Minor primary species to consider are: Cod, haddock, hake, mackerel (with quota in Norwegian EEZ), North Sea herring (with quota in the Norwegian EEZ), Norway Pout, saithe, sprat, whiting and witch. All these species (apart from witch) are subject to quota when caught in the EU waters of the North Sea. The team considers that the fishing strategy (and selectivity of catches), along with specific measures on the gears, fishing grounds and species, can be considered all together as a strategy to manage main and minor primary species. b Management strategy evaluation Guidep The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high ost considered likely to basis for confidence confidence that the work, based on plausible that the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g., general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on some information information directly about comparison with similar directly about the fishery the fishery and/or species fisheries/species). and/or species involved. involved. UoC 1-3 Y Y Y Justific There is reliable information both on the landings and on the stock status state of ation all primary species, as they are regularly monitored by ICES which issues a fishing
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 66
There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and PI 2.1.2 implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. advice for each of them. The monitoring of the different species and the advice given serve to give confidence to the fishing strategy, as any drop of the stock will easily be noticed, and the advice would result in lower quotas, area closures or specifically designed management plans. The team considers that both these measures along with the fishing strategy, which reaches a high degree of selectivity, with more than 96% of the catch being the targeted sandeel, and hence minimizing the mortality of other species, serve as evidence to support with a high degree of confidence that this strategy will work. c Management strategy implementation Guidep There is some evidence There is clear evidence ost that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully successfully . and is achieving its overall objective as set out in scoring issue (a). UoC 1-3 Y Y Justific All measures mentioned in SGa and SGb (landing obligation, ICES fishing advice, ation establishment of quotas, and gear, areal and temporary restrictions) have been successfully implemented for more than 2 decades now. The low proportion of non-target species in the catch, along with the good stock status of most primary species, serve to conclude that the strategy is achieving its objective of minimizing the mortality of unwanted catch. Besides, the fact that the catch goes is pumped into catch tanks without being sorted on board also serves to give confidence on the verifiability of the sampling of the catch, which is done at the landing ports by registered operators. Sampling information can serve to implement fishing restrictions should these be considered needed. d Shark finning Guidep It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree ost finning is not taking shark finning is not taking of certainty that shark place. place. finning is not taking place. UoC 1-3 Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justific ation
E4 Review of alternative measures Guidep There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial ost potential effectiveness of the potential review of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative measures to practicality of alternative practicality of alternative minimise UoA-related measures to minimise measures to minimise mortality of unwanted UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of catch of main primary unwanted catch of main unwanted catch of all species. primary species and they primary species, and they are implemented as are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 67
There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and PI 2.1.2 implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. UoC 1-3 Y Y N Justific The sandeel fishery is a reduction fishery where all the catch is sold and used for ation producing fish meal and fish oil. Sandeel comprises more than 96% of the total catch, so there are no main primary species to consider in this UoC. SG80 is achieved. However, the team hasn’t found any evidence of biennial review of measures to minimize the catch of all other species, therefore SG100 is not met. Landing records. http://www.fiskeridir.no/ (with management measures) References https://www.sildelaget.no/ (with allocated quotas) http://www.fisheries.no/ (with fishing regulations) http://www.fiskeridir.no/English/Fisheries/Real-Time-Closure-RTC OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 1-3 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 68
Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.3 – Primary species information Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main primary species Guidep Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information ost adequate to estimate information is available is available and is the impact of the UoA on and is adequate to adequate to assess the main primary species assess the impact of the with a high degree of with respect to status. UoA on the main primary certainty the impact of OR species with respect to the UoA on main primary status. species with respect to If RBF is used to score PI status. 2.1.1 for the UoA: OR Qualitative information is If RBF is used to score PI adeqaute to estimate 2.1.1 for the UoA: productivity and Some quantitative susceptibility attributes information is adequate for main primary species. to assess productivity and susceptiblity attributes for main primary species. UoC 1-3 Y Y Y Justific The landing obligation, which was implemented in 1984, serves to provide ation quantitative information on the impacts of the fishery in all affected species. The status of all species present in the catch composition is evaluated by ICES on an annual basis, so the impact of the UoA on all primary species with respect to status can be easily evaluated. The ICES International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) in the North Sea, undertaken since the 70’s, contributes to increase the knowledge on the different species in the area. According to accurate quantitative information there are no main primary species to consider in these UoCs. The impact of the UoA can be consider negligible. SG100 is granted. b Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor primary species Guidep Some quantitative ost information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor primary species with respect to status. UoC 1-3 Y Justific As mentioned above, t he landing obligation, which was implemented in 1984, ation serves to provide quantitative information on the impacts of the fishery in all affected species. The status of all minor species is evaluated by ICES on an annual basis, so the impact of the UoA on minor primary species with respect to status can be easily evaluated. The ICES International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) in the North Sea, undertaken since the 70’s, contributes to increase the knowledge on the different species in the area. SG100 is granted. Information adequacy for management strategy
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 69
Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species c Guidep Information is adequate Information is adequate Information is adequate ost to support measures to to support a partial to support a strategy to manage main primary strategy to manage manage all primary species. main Primary species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. UoC 1-3 Y Y Y Justific There are no main primary species to consider for this UoC. SG 80 is granted. ation Minor primary species to consider are: Cod, haddock, hake, mackerel, North Sea herring, Norway Pout, saithe, sprat, whiting and witch. Information collected through landing records and with the ICES annual International bottom trawl survey, along with information on stock status serve to support a strategy to manage main primary species. The good level of information provided by ICES on all minor primary species is considered sufficient to evaluate, with a high degree of certainty, whether the strategy is achieving its objective of not hindering the status of these species. SG100 is achieved. Landing records. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/cod-347d.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/had-346a.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/hke-nrtn.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/her-47d3.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/mac-nea.pdf References http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/nop-34-oct.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/sai-3a46.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/spr-nsea.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/whg-47d.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2015/2015/wit-nsea.pdf http://ocean.ices.dk/Project/IBTS/ OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 1-3 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 70
Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.1 – Secondary species outcome The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based PI 2.2.1 limit and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Main secondary species stock status Guidep Main Secondary species Main secondary species There is a high degree ost are likely to be within are highly likely to be of certainty that main biologically based limits. above biologically based secondary species are limits within biologically based limits. OR OR If below biologically based limits, there is If below biologically either evidence of based limits, there are recovery or a measures in place demonstrably effective expected to ensure that partial strategy in place the UoA does not hinder such that the UoA does recovery and rebuilding. not hinder recovery and rebuilding. AND Where catches of a main secondary species outside of biological limits are considerable, there is either evidence of recovery or a, demonstrably effective strategy in place between those MSC UoAs that also have considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. UoC 1-3 Y Y Y Justific According to MSC CRv2 SA3.1.4, secondary species are those species in the catch ation that are within scope of the MSC program but are not covered under P1 nor P3. Main secondary species would be those comprising 5% or more of the total catch (per gear), or those less resilient species comprising more than 2% of the catch (MSC CR v2 SA 3.4.2.2). According to catch data shown in Table 20, there are no main secondary species to consider for this UoA. According to FCR SA 3.2.1, if a team determines that a UoA has no impact on a particular component, it shall receive a score of 100 under the Outcome PI. SG100 is granted. b Minor secondary species stock status Guidep Minor secondary species ost are highly likely to be above biologically based limits.
OR
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 71
The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based PI 2.2.1 limit and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. If below biologically based limits’, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of secondary species UoC 1-3 N Justific Minor secondary species to consider in UoC 1 -3 are argentine (46 tonnes landed ation in 2016; 0.37% of the total catch) and grey gunard (29 tonnes landed in 2016; 0.22% of the total catch) and greater sandeel ( Hyperoplus immaculatus ) (estimation of 240 tonnes landed in 2016; 1.93% of the total catch). The estimation on the landings of greater sandeel were made taken into account that according to scientific research 98% of landings of sandeel correspond to lesser sandeel (target species Ammodytes marinus ), while the resting 2% is greater sandeel ( Hyperoplus immaculatus ). Other sandeel species, which may be present in the catch, although this is highly unlikely, are small sandeel (Ammodytes tobianus ), smooth sandeel ( Gymnammodytes semisquamatus ), great sandeel ( Hyperoplus lanceolatus ) and Northern sand lance ( Ammodytes dubius ). According to ICES advice, reference points are not defined for the stock of grey gunard ( Eutrigla gunardus ). The time-series of mature biomass index shows a strong increase from the beginning of 1990s and has since fluctuated on a high level. Species misidentification and reporting of gurnard groups continues to be a problem in estimating the landings and discards of grey gurnard. In addition, discarding is estimated to be high. ICES advices that landings should be no more than 1763 tonnes for 2017. There is no ICES advice on Argentine ( Argentina sphyraena ) nor on Greater sandeel ( Hyperoplus immaculatus ) or other sandeel species. The team considers that, regardless that the small quantities taken by the fishery would support that the fishery is not expected to hinder the recovery of these species, there is no evidence to assure that the UoA is not hindering the recovery or rebuilding of these species, as at present is not possible to evaluate if the catch of Greater sandeel or Argentine taken by the UoA represents a big or a small proportion of the stock. SG100 is not met. Landing records References http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/gug- 347d.pdf OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 1-3 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 72
Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.2 – Secondary species management strategy There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species PI 2.2.2 and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Management strategy in place Guidep There are measures in There is a part ial There is a strategy in ost place, if necessary, which strategy in place, if place for the UoA for are expected to maintain necessary, for the UoA managing main and minor secondary species. or not hinder rebuilding of that is expected to
main secondary species maintain or not hinder at/to levels which are rebuilding of main highly likely to be within secondary species at/to biologically based limits levels which are highly or to ensure that the UoA likely to be within does not hinder their biologically based limits recovery. or to ensure that the UoA does not hinder their recovery. UoC 1-3 Y Y N Justific There are no main second ary species to consider for these UoC s. SG80 is achieved. ation The sandeel fishery is a very clean one where 94% of the catch is comprised by the targeted Amodytes marinus . The different measures in place, such as gear and mesh size regulations, along with the establishment of fishing seasons, move on rules, seasonal closures and protected areas are sufficient to be considered as a partial strategy in place which is expected not to hinder the recovery or rebuilding of unwanted species, if necessary. Monitoring of landings could serve to detect any increase of the catch of these species, but the lack of reliable information on stock status would make it difficult to determine if the UoA hinders the recovery of these species. The lack of specific measures to manage these species, along with the lack of reliable information on their stock status, prevent the fishery from achieving SG100. b Management strategy evaluation Guidep The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high ost considered likely to basis for confidence confidence that the work, based on plausible that the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g. general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on some information information directly about comparison with similar directly about the UoA the UoA and/or species UoAs/species). and/or species involved. involved. UoC 1-3 Y Y N Justific There are no main secondary species to consider. As regards minor secondary ation species, there is reliable information on landings, and also ICES advice for grey gunard. The team considers that the monitoring of landings serves to give some objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, but can’t provide evidence of testing. SG80 is achieved. Management strategy implementation
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 73
There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species PI 2.2.2 and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. c Guidep There is some evidence There is clear evidence ost that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully successfully . and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). UoC 1-3 Y N Justific The sandeel fishery is a very clean one and catches of secondary species remain ation low. However, there are no regional specific measures to manage grey gunard, argentine or greater sandeel. ICES advice on grey gunard specifically mentions that discarding of grey gunard in the North Sea is estimated to be high, and that species misidentification and reporting of gurnard groups continues to be a problem in estimating the landings and discards of grey gurnard in the North Sea. Notwithstanding this, landing obligation was implemented in Norway in 1984 and there is reliable information on the quantities of this species taken by the UoC. The team considers that measures such as the landing obligation and gear, areal and temporary restrictions are successfully implemented, but the lack of reliable information on the status of the stocks of secondary species prevent the fishery from achieving SG100, as it is not possible to determine if the strategy is achieving the objective of not hindering the recovery of these species. d Shark finning Guidep It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree ost finning is not taking shark finning is not taking of certainty that shark place. place. finning is not taking place. UoC 1-3 Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justific [Scoring issue need not be scored if no secondary species are sharks]. ation e Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch Justific There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial ation potential effectiveness of the potential review of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative measures to practicality of alternative practicality of alternative minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted measures to minimise measures to minimise catch of main secondary UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of species. unwanted catch of main unwanted catch of all secondary species and secondary species, and they are implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. UoC 1-3 Y Y N Guidep The sandeel fishery is a reduction fishery where all the catch is sold and used for ost producing fish meal and fish oil. Lesser sandeel comprises 94% of the total catch, and there are no main secondary species to consider in this UoC. SG80 is achieved.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 74
There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species PI 2.2.2 and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Howe ver, the team hasn’t found any evidence of biennial review of measures to minimize the catch of all other species, therefore SG100 is not met. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/gug - 347d.pdf Landing records. References http://www.fiskeridir.no/ (with management measures) http://www.fisheries.no/ (with fishing regulations) http://www.fiskeridir.no/English/Fisheries/Real-Time-Closure-RTC OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 1-3 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 75
Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.3 – Secondary species information Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is PI 2.2.3 adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on main secondary species Guidep Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information ost adequate to estimate information is available is available and the impact of the UoA on and adequate to adequate to assess the main secondary assess the impact of the with a high degree of species with respect to UoA on main secondary certainty the impact of status. species with respect to OR status. the UoA on main If RBF is used to score OR secondary species with PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score respect to status. Qualitative information is PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: adequate to estimate Some quantitative productivity and information is adequate susceptibility attributes to assess productivity and for main secondary susceptibility attributes species. for main secondary species. UoC 1-3 Y Y Y Justific The landing obligation, which was implemented in 1984, serves to provide ation quantitative information on the impacts of the fishery in all affected species. According to accurate quantitative information there are no main secondary species to consider in these UoCs. Sandeel comprises more than 96% of the total catch of the UoC. Minor secondary species are evaluated in SGb.The impact of the UoA on main secondary species can be consider nul. SG100 is granted. b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species Guidep Some quantitative ost information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor secondary species with respect to status.
UoC 1-3 N Justific As mentioned above, t he landing obligation, which was implemented in 1984, ation serves to provide quantitative information on the impacts of the fishery in all affected species. ICES provides advice for grey gunard, but recognizes misidentification of records and discarding of the species in the fishing area. There is no ICES advice for argentine or greater sandeel. The team considers that at present is not possible to determine the impact of the UoA on minor secondary species with respect to status. Therefore, SG100 is not met. c Information adequacy for management strategy Guidep Information is adequate Information is adequate Information is adequate ost to support measures to to support a partial to support a strategy to manage main secondary strategy to manage manage all secondary species. main secondary species. species, and evaluate
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 76
Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is PI 2.2.3 adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective . UoC 1-3 Y Y N Justific There are no main secondary species to consider for this UoC. SG 80 is granted. ation Minor secondary species to consider are argentine, grey gunard and greater sandeel. Information is collected through landing records and with the ICES annual International bottom trawl survey (IBTS) in the North Sea, undertaken since the 70’s, which contributes to increase the knowledge on the different species in the area. However, the team considers that are present there isn’t information enough to support a strategy to manage all secondary species, as, for example, there is no information on reference points for any of the minor secondary species stocks. SG 100 is not met. Landing records. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/gug- References 347d.pdf http://ocean.ices.dk/Project/IBTS/ OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 1-3 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 77
Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome The UoA meets national and international requirements for the PI 2.3.1 protection of ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Effects of the UoA on population/stock within national or international limits, where applicable Guidep Where national and/or Where national and/or Where national and/or ost international international international requirements set limits requirements set limits requirements set limits for ETP species, the for ETP species, the for ETP species, there is a effects of the UoA on the combined effects of high degree of population/stock are the MSC UoAs on the certainty that the known and likely to be population/stock are combined effects of within these limits. known and highly likely the MSC UoAs are within to be within these limits. these limits. UoC 1-3 Y Y Y Justific Landing obligation would require vessels to land any dead animal, regardless it ation being ETP species or not. Landing records show no landings by the sandeel fishery of any of the ETP species listed in Table 25. Landings by other UoC show some landings of 780 kg of eels by UoC 4 and 50 kg of spurdog by UoC 6. According to Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007 of 18 September 2007 establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of European eel, all directed fishing for eel is prohibited and catches should be kept as close to zero as possible in all European waters. As regards spurdog, the allocated quota by all EU countries is zero. Directed fisheries are prohibited and catches should be kept to minimum. This is in corcondance with ICES 2016 for each one of these species. The DFPO and DPPO sandeel, Norway pout and sprat fisheries also showed no direct effects on ETP species for 2014. According to these data, the team considers that there is a high degree of certainty that the combined effects of the different UoCs on ETP populations are within national and international limits. SG 100 is granted. b Direct effects Guidep Known direct effects of Known direct effects of There is a high degree of ost the UoA are likely to not the UoA are highly likely confidence that there are hinder recovery of ETP to not hinder recovery no significant detrimental species. of ETP species. direct effects of the UoA on ETP species. UoC 1-3 Y Y N Justific Landing obligation, which was implemented in Norway in 1984, would require ation vessels to land any dead animal, regardless it being ETP species or not. Landing records show 780 kg of eels landed by UoC 4 and 49 kg of spurdog landed by UoC 6, all of which accounts for a negligible proportion of catch for each UoC. The DFPO and DPPO sandeel, Norway pout and sprat fisheries also showed no direct effects on ETP species for 2014. Interactions with marine mammals are normally avoided by fishermen, as this would result in damage to the nets. Interviews with different stakeholders (fishermen, the Coast Guard and the Marine Research Institute) all concluded that direct interactions with birds or marine mammals only occur very rarely. The team considers that, according to landing records by the fleet, it is highly likely that the UoA is not hindering the recovery of ETP species, therefore SG80 is met. However, the team considers that the eel catch taken by UoC 4 (780 kg, which can range from over 150 adults to over 1.5 million alevins), the uncertainty on the stage of those individuals at the moment of the catch, and the poor condition of the stock, would prevent all UoCs in the UoA from achieving SG100. Indirect effects
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 78
The UoA meets national and international requirements for the PI 2.3.1 protection of ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species c Guidep Indirect effects have been There is a high degree of ost considered and are confidence that there are thought to be highly no significant detrimental likely to not create indirect effects of the unacceptable impacts. fishery on ETP species. UoC 1-3 Y N Justific Indirect effects on ETP populations would be those caused as results of interactions ation with the fishing gear (such as injuries, which are difficult to quantify) or those related to the reduction of prey availability for prey species. Such indirect effects are normally taken into account in the management plans by increasing the natural mortality in the assessment to account for the needs of higher trophic levels. Personal comments by the Institute of Marine Research in Bergen reported that marine mammals are normally taken into account on catch advice, but they could not asseverate the same for bird species. There are, however, examples of fishing closures due to indirect effects on bird populations (such as the closure of the fishing grounds by the Firth of Forth to protect kittiwake colonies). The sandeel fishery reported no fatal interactions with ETP species. However, it could be the case that the fishery had non fatal interactions with sharks and rays and skates. At present Norwegian vessels are obliged to throw back to the sea these species when encountered alive, but there are no records of these interactions which can be considered as indirect effects, as species may result damaged in the process. The team considers that the characteristics of the fishery (trawl fishery in small sandy fishing grounds) makes it highly likely that the fishery does not create unacceptable impacts to ETP species. SG80 is met. References Landing records OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 1-3 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 79
Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.2 – ETP species management strategy The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.
Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Management strategy in place (national and international requirements) Guidep There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a ost place that minimise the place for managing the comprehensive UoA-related mortality of UoA’s impact on ETP strategy in place for ETP species, and are species, including managing the UoA’s expected to be highly measures to minimise impact on ETP species, likely to achieve mortality, which is including measures to national and international designed to be highly minimise mortality, which requirements for the likely to achieve is designed to achieve protection of ETP species. national and international above national and requirements for the international protection of ETP species. requirements for the protection of ETP species. UoC 1-3 Y Y N Justific All UoC covered in this assessment show very small bycatch ratios (4% for UoC 1 - ation 3). Those ratios include all other species that are not the targeted sandeel, this is, it also includes ETP species when relevant. However, catches of ETP species have proven to be minimal for the UoA, and nul for this UoC. The team considers that the fishing strategy is an effective management strategy for minimizing related ETP mortality (as has proven to do so). Another measure in place to protect these species is the obligation to release alive any shark, skate or ray which is still alive when hauled or pumped on board. As these species have a high survival rate, this measure works in minimizing fatalities of these species. As regards regulations to minimize impacts on ETP species, there are different regulations and agreements in place to considers, such as: CITES Annex I and Norwegian red list for endangered species, to which Norway is a signatory party. The EU habitats Directive and the ASCOBANS agreement (to which EU is a signatory party) establish measures to protect certain ETP species in the North Sea. The OSPAR Commission also lists threatened species in the area. The sandeel fishery, at present, only takes place in Norwegian waters, so ETP species and regulations to consider for this UoC would be those listed by CITES Annex I and the Norwegian redlist. However, if in the future the fishery expands to European fishing grounds in the North Sea, the UoC should also accomplish with European regulations. The closure of the sandeel fishery in the vicinity of the Firth of Forth in Scotland also serves to prove that, when needed, specific management measures are implemented to protect ETP species. The team considers the different measures in place (fish strategy, releasement of elasmobranchs, national and international legislation) as a strategy to manage the UoA impacts on ETP species, but the lack of a comprehensive strategy specifically designed for the reduction fishery or fishing area prevent the fishery from achieving SG100. SG80 is met. Management strategy in place (alternative)
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 80
The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.
Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. b Guidep There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a ost place that are expected to place that is expected to comprehensive ensure the UoA does not ensure the UoA does not strategy in place for hinder the recovery of hinder the recovery of managing ETP species, to ETP species. ETP species. ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species UoC 1-3 Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justific Not relevant as SI -a has been evaluated. ation c Management strategy evaluation Guidep The measures are There is an objective The ost considered likely to basis for confidence strategy/comprehensive work, based on plausible that the strategy is mainly based argument (e.g. , general measures/strategy will on information directly experience, theory or work, based on about the fishery and/or comparison with similar information directly species involved, and a fisheries/species). about the fishery and/or quantitative analysis the species involved. supports high confidence that the strategy will work. UoC 1-3 Y Y N Justific The minimal fatal interactions with ETP species recorded (by other UoCs), the ation comprehensive landing and reporting system, the follow up that the Directorate of Fisheries carries out when weird data appears in landing records, the data obtained by the reference fleet (which, since 2012, reported 3 fatal interactions per vessel per year with different elasmobranchs, of which only spurdog is an ETP species, and no fatal interactions with other species in Table 25 ), the enforcement carried out by the Directorate of Fisheries, the information on the fisheries general compliance with regulations, and IMR comments on the low probability of interactions of the fishery with marine mammals, serve together to give confidence that this strategy is working on the management of ETP species. The lack of specific knowledge on the status of some ETP species, and the ignorance on specific measures taken by the fishery to avoid these encounters, prevent the fishery from achieving SG100. SG80 is met. d Management strategy implementation Guidep There is some evidence There is clear evidence ost that the that the measures/strategy is strategy/comprehensive being implemented strategy is being successfully. implemented successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a) or (b). UoC 1-3 Y N
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 81
The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.
Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. Justific The landing obligation, as well as the obligation to release elasmobranchs if alive, ation has been in place for decades now. The habitats Directive (in place in EU waters) was established in 1992, protecting several ETP species. Evidence of implementation could also be provided by small (or nul, for UoC 1-3) records of fatal interactions with ETP species. SG80 is granted. The lack of known specific measures taken by the fishery to prevent these interactions and the lack of information on updated status of ETP species prevent the UoC from achieving SG100. e Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species Guidep There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial ost potential effectiveness of the potential review of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative measures to practicality of alternative practicality of alternative minimise UoA-related measures to minimise measures to minimise mortality of ETP species. UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality ETP ETP species and they are species, and they are implemented as implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. UoC 1-3 Y Y N Justific Sampling of landings serve to monitor catch composition and provide records of ation species identification and quantities landed. It also serves as a historical collection of ETP fatal interactions caused by the fishing fleet. Data on landings is reviewed by the Directorate of Fisheries which makes a comprehensive follow up of rare species in the catch. The ICES-FAO Working Group on Fishing Technology and Fish Behavior (WGFTFB) studies measurements and observations relating to scientific and commercial fishing gears and fishing behavior (including ETP species) in relation to fishing and discard reduction. The implementation of fishing closures (such as the one in the Firth of Forth, to protect kittiwake nesting sites) also serves to show that measures to protect ETP species are implemented when needed. The team considers that there is a regular review of measures to minimize the UoA related mortality of ETP species, so grants SG80. As the review is not necessarily biennial SG100 is not met. References http://www.ices.dk/community/groups/Pages/WGFTFB.aspx OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 1-3 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 82
Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.3 – ETP species information Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3 • Information for the development of the management strategy; • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and • Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Guidep Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information ost adequate to estimate information is adequate is available to assess with the UoA related mortality to assess the UoA a high degree of certainty on ETP species. related mortality and the magnitude of UoA- impact and to determine related impacts, whether the UoA may be mortalities and OR a threat to protection and injuries and the recovery of the ETP consequences for the If RBF is used to score PI species. status of ETP species. 2.3.1 for the UoA: OR Qualitative information is If RBF is used to score PI adequate to estimate 2.3.1 for the UoA: productivity and Some quantitative susceptibility attributes information is adequate for ETP species. to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species. UoC 1-3 Y Y N Justific There is accurate quantitative information on the UoA related mortality thanks to ation historical landing records (since 1984), which (at least for the past few years) show no fatal interactions with ETP marine mammals or birds (and some minimal fatal interactions with eels and spurdogs by UoC 4 and UoC 6). The DFPO and DPPO sandeel, Norway pout and sprat fisheries also showed no direct effects on ETP species for 2014. This information is considered sufficient to determine whether the UoA may (or not) be a threat to the recovery of ETP species. SG80 is met. But the lack of information on injuries of non-fatal interactions or on the consequences for the status of affected ETP species prevent the fishery from achieving SG100, as the impacts and consequences to the status of ETP species due to non-fatal interactions cannot be defined with a high degree of certainty. b Information adequacy for management strategy Guidep Information is adequate Information is adequate Information is adequate ost to support measures to to measure trends and to support a manage the impacts on support a strategy to comprehensive ETP species. manage impacts on ETP strategy to manage species. impacts, minimize mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives. UoC 1-3 Y Y N
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 83
Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3 • Information for the development of the management strategy; • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and • Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Justific Landing records (since 1984) would show fatal interaction with protected ETP ation species should this occur. There are also monitoring programs on marine mammals and bird populations. Historical records of landings, together with information from monitoring programs, are considered adequate to measure trends and support strategies to manage impacts on ETP species. However, information on injuries on elasmobranchs or recovery of these after releasement is still missing. The team considers that a better reporting of non-fatal interactions with all ETP species and research conducted to estimate survival rate of released elasmobranchians would benefit the fishery in order to achieve SG100. SG80 is met. Landing records. References
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 1-3 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 84
Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the PI 2.4.1 governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Commonly encountered habitat status Guidep The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that ost reduce structure and unlikely to reduce the UoA is highly unlikely function of the commonly structure and function of to reduce structure and encountered habitats to a the commonly function of the commonly point where there would encountered habitats to a encountered habitats to a be serious or irreversible point where there would point where there would harm. be serious or irreversible be serious or irreversible harm. harm. UoC 1-3 y Y N Justific At present the sandeel fishery takes place in small sandy bottom grounds in ation Norwegian EEZ. It is a seasonal fishery that does not overlap with any or OSPAR threatened habitats. Common encountered habitats for the sprat and Norway pout fisheries are sandy and muddy bottoms. UoC 1-3 refers to bottom trawlers targeting sandeel. Kaiser et al. (2006) concluded that otter trawling produces a significant, negative, short-term effect on muddy habitats, but interestingly there was also a longer-term positive effect on the response variables to this impact. Impacts on sandy bottoms are considered lighter and the areas easier to recover. According to Meenakumari et al (2008), and Gordon et al (2002) sandy habitats can recover after trawling disturbance in less than 5 years. The foot rope used by Norges Fiskarlager bottom trawlers is relatively light, and without heavy bobbins on it, which gives confidence that the gear is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to the point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. SG80 is met. b VME habitat status Guidep The UoA is unlikely The UoA is highly There is evidence that ost (<40%) to reduce unlikely (<30%) to the UoA is highly unlikely structure and function of reduce structure and to reduce structure and the VME habitats to a function of the VME function of the VME point where there would be serious or irreversible habitats to a point where habitats to a point where harm. there would be serious or there would be serious or irreversible harm. irreversible harm. UoC 1-3 Y Y Y Justific All Norwegian vessels have a VMS on board regardless the vessel’s size. This ation serves the Directorate of Fisheries to verify that vessels do not enter Marine Protected Areas. VMS maps provide reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction and on the timing and location of use of the fishing gears. Information provided by the maps detailed under PI 2.4.3 SI -a serve to identify the UoA’s footprint, and which are the habitats affected by the fishing gears, which for this UoA are mainly muddy and sandy bottoms. Position of closed VMEs is also identified in the bridge’s plotter. The position of closed areas established by other UoAs such as the SFSAG cod fishery is now also known. Precautionary trigger levels of interactions with VME are not set in the North Sea.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 85
The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the PI 2.4.1 governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. The sandeel fishery takes place in the Norwegian trench, in the Norwegian EEZ. According to
Figure 21 on MPA protected by the Habitats Directive, there are no MPA in the vicinity of these fishing grounds. Conversations with the Directorate of Fisheries support that there are no infringements as regards MPAs. When comparing VMS maps (Figure 17) and OSPAR declining habitats (
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 86
The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the PI 2.4.1 governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates.
Figure 22: OSPAR map for threatened or declining habitats. Source: OSPAR Commission.
), it can be seen that the sandeel fishing grounds do not overlap with any VME. There is only one small patch of seapens present in the area, over muddy sediments, which are avoided by the fleet seekeing for sandeel in sandy grounds. SG100 is met for UoC 1-3. c Minor habitat status Guidep There is evidence that ost the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the minor habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. UoC 1-3 N Justific According to Figure 20 on major substrates in the North Sea seafloor, fishing ation grounds are mainly formed by sandy and muddy bottoms. However, there might be some minor coarse sediments habitats overlapping with the UoA fishing grounds. As the team can’t provide evidence that the bottom trawl gear (UoC 1- 3) is highly unlikely to reduce the structure and function of these other habitats, SG100 is not met for UoC 1-3.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 87
The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the PI 2.4.1 governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. VMS maps. OSPAR threatened habitats map. EMODnet map of substrates in the North Sea. Meenakumari, B., Bhagirathan, U. and Pravin, P. Impact of Bottom Trawling on References Benthic Communities: A Review. Fishery Technology 2008, Vol. 45(1) pp: 1 – 22. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259979122_Impact_of_bottom_trawli ng_on_benthic_communities_a_review Gordon et al, 2002. Kaiser et al, 2006. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 1-3 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 88
Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.2 – Habitats management strategy There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not PI 2.4.2 pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Management strategy in place Guidep There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in ost place, if necessary, that strategy in place, if place for managing the are expected to achieve necessary, that is impact of all MSC the Habitat Outcome 80 expected to achieve the UoAs/non-MSC fisheries level of performance. Habitat Outcome 80 level on habitats. of performance or above. UoC 1-3 Y Y N Justific At present, the UoC 1-3 catches sandeel only in waters of the Norwegian EEZ. ation However, this may change in the future if quota swaps are established between Norway and the EU. The Norwegian MAREANO program, which maps depth, topography, sediment composition, contaminants, biotopes and habitats in Norwegian waters, serves as a valuable tool to manage habitat types in Norwegian waters, and has help to establish no fishing zones in Norwegian waters, which has been designed mainly to protect cold corals which are mostly located near the shore line, with the exception of two protected areas in more open waters. The mandatory VMS in place serves to verify that these regulations are followed. As regards fishing grounds which do not fall under the Norwegian jurisdictions, these are studied by the European’s Union Natura Directive (http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/# ), the OSPAR Commission ( www.ospar.org ) and the Mapping European Seabed Habitats portal ( www.searchmesh.net ). These areas are protected by the Habitats and Nature 2000 Directives in waters which fall under the EU jurisdiction (see
Figure 21 ).
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 89
There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not PI 2.4.2 pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. Both the Norwegian and the European Union management tools have designated protected areas for the protection of sensitive habitats in their respective waters. Norwegian and EU enforcement systems, along with the mandatory use of VMS in the fishing fleet, serve to assure the accomplishment of these regulations. The research undertaken in the status of benthic habitats along with the establishment of protected areas serves to support that there is a partial strategy in place that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above. However, some of the MPAs in the UoA (such as the central area of the Fladen Ground and the Dogger Bank) are not yet fully well managed, as there are no site-specific fisheries management measures to protect burrowing megafauna in the area. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee has designed a “ Fisheries Management Options Paper ” for the central Fladen Ground. The team considers that the different management measures in place are sufficient for UoC 1-3 to achieve SG80. However, the lack of management measures in place for specific important habitat areas prevent the fishery from achieving SG100. b Management strategy evaluation Guidep The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high ost considered likely to basis for confidence confidence that the work, based on plausible that the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g. general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on information directly information directly comparison with similar about the UoA and/or about the UoA and/or UoAs/habitats). habitats involved. habitats involved. UoC 1-3 Y Y N Justific All vessels in the UoA carry VMS which serve to monitor their position and ation accomplishment of regulation measures as regards Marine Protected Areas. There is also direct information as regards fishing closures of certain sandeel fishing areas, which were carried out to protect juveniles of sandeels, but not to protect habitats specifically. However, the team considers that there is some objective basis for confidence that the different measures implemented to protect habitats will work for all gears, including bottom trawls which at present use lighter gears with no bobbins. This is based on the research already undergoing in the North Sea by different research institutions (OSPAR Commission, MAREANO program, JNCC, ..) but also on the strong enforcement system in the area and the lack of infringements related to MPAs by the Norwegian fleet. UoC 1-3 meets SG80. c Management strategy implementation Guidep There is some There is clear ost quantitative evidence quantitative evidence that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully successfully. and is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a). UoC 1-3 Y N Justific There is evidence of the establishment of protected areas to protect vulnerable ation benthic species both in Norwegian and European waters. There is also evidence on the enforcement systems taking place in both these jurisdictions, through each European nation enforcement system. The Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries has been consulted in order to know the range of infractions by the Norwegian fleet, and this resulted in an infraction ratio below 5% (for any type of infraction, not only those related to MPAs).
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 90
There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not PI 2.4.2 pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. There are however still some concerns about management measures/strategy in some vulnerable habitats, such as sea pens and burrowing megafauna abundant in the Fladen Ground. The fact that some vulnerable areas are not protected yet imply that the different measures are only considered as a partial strategy, and not a full strategy under SG100. The team considers that the establishment of MPAs and the enforcement system in the place serve as some quantitative evidence that the partial strategy on protecting main habitat types of the North Sea fishing grounds is successfully implemented. However, as yet there is not clear quantitative evidence that it is being implemented successfully for all habitat types e.g. that closures have led to the recovery of habitats and thus fails to reach SG100. d Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs Guidep There is qualitative There is some There is clear ost evidence that the UoA quantitative evidence quantitative evidence complies with its that the UoA complies that the UoA complies with both its with both its management management management requirements to protect requirements and with requirements and with VMEs. protection measures protection measures afforded to VMEs by afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non- other MSC UoAs/non- MSC fisheries, where MSC fisheries, where relevant. relevant. UoC 1-3 Y N N Justific There is evidence of the establishment of protected areas to protect vulnerable ation benthic species both in Norwegian and European waters. There is also evidence on the enforcement systems taking place in both these jurisdictions, through each European nation enforcement system, and on the Norwegian fleet accomplishing management measures in the area. The Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries has been consulted in order to know the range of infractions by the Norwegian fleet entering MPAs, and these resulted in an infraction ratio below 5% for 2016. There are however some concerns about some other vulnerable habitats, such as sea pens, which are not fully protected in certain areas. The Scottish Fisheries Sustainable Accreditation Group (SFSAG) has voluntary closed an area in the Fladen Ground to bottom trawl fishing for its vessels. This measure is taken to protect seapens (Funiculla spp). This closure will apply until approved at European level. The closure was announced to all vessels in the UoA in May 2017, and will be monitored by Marine Scotland using VMS data. Although the sandeel fishery at present does not overlap with the mentioned closed area, potentially, this area could be fished by Norsk Fiskerlag Vessels fishing sandeel, Norway pout and sprat, and Norsk Fiskerlag has not provided the required assurance and SG80 is not met by the Norwegian bottom trawl fleet considered in this assessment. Besides, the team has no information on management requirements that other non-MS fisheries may have implemented in the area. The mentioned voluntary closed area corresponds to one (the southern) of three areas within the Central Fladen Ground MPA which would be closed to demersal towed gear under Marine Scotland’s proposal. The coordinates of SFSAG’s closed area are as follows (this corresponds exactly to the coordinates given by Marine Scotland for their closed area 3 in the Central Fladen Ground MPA. Marine Scotland, 2017a; Section B in Annex, Table B6): • 58° 59.248' N 000° 08.373' W • 58° 58.226' N 000° 04.475' E • 58° 55.440' N 000° 05.816' E • 58° 51.311' N 000° 06.539' E • 58° 49.143' N 000° 00.170' W • 58° 49.819' N 000° 09.843' W The team considers that there isn’t sufficient quantitative evidence that the UoA complies with both its management requirements, and with protection measures
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 91
There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not PI 2.4.2 pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, therefore SG80 is not met. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page -4524 http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-6476
References http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/Fisheries%20Options%20Paper_Central%20Fladen_ 20150204.pdf http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/Central_Fladen_Site_Summary_Document_July14. pdf OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 1-3 75 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Condition 3 for UoCs 1-4 and UoC 6. 3
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 92
Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by PI 2.4.3 the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Information quality Guidep The types and distribution The nature, distribution The distribution of all ost of the main habitats are and vulnerability of the habitats is known over broadly understood . main habitats in the UoA their range, with area are known at a level particular attention to the of detail relevant to the occurrence of vulnerable OR scale and intensity of the habitats. UoA. If CSA is used to score PI OR 2.4.1 for the UoA: If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is Some quantitative adequate to estimate the information is available types and distribution of and is adequate to the main habitats. estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats. UoC 1-3 Y Y Y Justific The location of all fishing activities can be known thanks to VMS in place. ation There is broad information as regards the distribution of habitat types in the North Sea. This information has been collected through the MAREANO Program, the EU Natura Directive ( http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/# ), the OSPAR Commission (www.ospar.org ) and the European Marine Observation and Data Network (http://www.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/ ) with its mapping European Seabed Habitats program. These maps provide information on the type of substrate, the seafloor topography, the biota present in the area, the location of vulnerable habitat types and the physical variables in the area. According to Kaiser et al (2006), Gordon et al (2002) and Meenakumari et al (2008), soft grounds such as muddy and sandy bottoms are expected to recover quickly, and in a timeframe smaller than 5 years once the disturbance is stopped. It is akcnkowledged that the composition of the benthic communities may swift favouring more resilient species, but the overall structure and function of the habitats remains. SG100 is met. b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Guidep Information is adequate Information is adequate The physical impacts of ost to broadly understand to allow for identification the gear on all habitats the nature of the main of the main impacts of have been quantified impacts of gear use on the UoA on the main fully. the main habitats, habitats, and there is including spatial overlap reliable information on of habitat with fishing the spatial extent of gear. interaction and on the timing and location of OR use of the fishing gear. OR If CSA is used to score If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: PI 2.4.1 for the UoA:
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 93
Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by PI 2.4.3 the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. Some quantitative Qualitative information is information is available adequate to estimate the and is adequate to consequence and spatial estimate the attributes of the main consequence and spatial habitats. attributes of the main habitats. UoC 1-3 Y Y N Justific VMS maps provide reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction and on ation the timing and location of use of the fishing gears. Information provided by the maps detailed under PI 2.4.3 SI -a serve to identify which are the habitats affected by the fishing gears, which for this UoA are mainly muddy and sandy bottoms, and for this UoC specifically sandy bottoms. As regards specific impacts that each gear type has, it is known that trawling activity generates disturbance on any type of sediments. Effects such as bottom damage, seabed relief, sediment sorting and species survival, abundance and recovery have been studied in different research programs. According to Kaiser et al (2006), Gordon et al (2002) and Meenakumari et al (2008), soft grounds such as muddy and sandy bottoms are expected to recover quickly, and in a timeframe smaller than 5 years once the disturbance is stopped. It is akcnkowledged that the composition of the benthic communities may swift favouring more resilient species, but the overall structure and function of the habitats remains. Effects or hard substrate have also been studied and are considered far more harmful. It is therefore considered that sufficient data are available to allow the nature of the impacts of the fishery on habitat types to be identified, and that there is reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction, and the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. SG 80 is met. Although effects of the bottom trawl gears have been studied in different research papers, its effects in the affected fishing grounds have not been quantified fully yet, although information available should be sufficient to do so. c Monitoring Guidep Adequate information Changes in habitat ost continues to be collected distributions over time to detect any increase in are measured. risk to the main habitats. UoC 1-3 Y N Justific Information on habitats continues to be collected through the MAREANO Program, ation the EU Natura Directive ( http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/# ), the OSPAR Commission ( www.ospar.org ), the European Marine Observation and Data Network ( http://www.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/ ) with its mapping European Seabed Habitats program and other research institutions such as the Joint Nature Conservation Committee . The combination of VMS maps and habitat maps serve to determine the risk that a fishery may have for the habitat of a certain area. SG80 is met. However, the measure of changes in habitat distributions over time would require of habitat maps on the same area that date back time enough to measure trends. SG100 is not met. References VMS maps.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 94
Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by PI 2.4.3 the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page -1586 MAREANO Program EU Natura Directive ( http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/# ) OSPAR Commission ( www.ospar.org ) European Marine Observation and Data Network ( http://www.emodnet- seabedhabitats.eu/ ) Joint Nature Conservation Committee . Meenakumari, B., Bhagirathan, U. and Pravin, P. Impact of Bottom Trawling on Benthic Communities: A Review. Fishery Technology 2008, Vol. 45(1) pp: 1 – 22. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259979122_Impact_of_bottom_trawli ng_on_benthic_communities_a_review Gordon et al, 2002. Kaiser et al, 2006. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 1-3 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 95
Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements PI 2.5.1 of ecosystem structure and function. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Ecosystem status Guidep The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that ost disrupt the key elements unlikely to disrupt the the UoA is highly unlikely underlying ecosystem key elements underlying to disrupt the key structure and function to ecosystem structure and elements underlying a point where there would function to a point where ecosystem structure and be a serious or there would be a serious function to a point where irreversible harm. or irreversible harm. there would be a serious or irreversible harm. UoC 1-3 Y Y N Justific The relationships of forage species such as sandeel, Norway pout and sprat with ation predators of the North Sea have been studied through different models, such as the Mackinson, S. and Daskalov, G., (2007) Ecopath with Ecosim model, the model for trophic interactions in the North Sea for 1981 ( Christensen, V., 1995), the larval transport models for the North Sea (https://odnature.naturalsciences.be/remsem/ecosystem-modelling), and others. These models show that there are other species, such as herring and small gadoids, which also hold the same position in the North Sea trophic chain and share the energy flux of energy through them from the low trophic levels to the high trophic levels. Even though it is recognised that the fishery outputs of these forage species are big, studies show that there is at least the same biomass available for predators in the area (see
Figure 28 , Figure 29, and Figure 30, comparing fisheries output with predators needs). Norway pout and sprat receive biennial ICES advice on fishing opportunities, while sandeel receives annual ICES advice on fishing opportunities. The 3 fisheries under assessment follow these advices. The fact that ICES advices are released taken into account the results of the Stochastic Multispecies Model (SMS Model; Lewy and Vinther, 2004), which take into account the predation needs of other fish species, birds, seals and harbour porpoises, gives confidence that the future needs of these predators will be assured, but would benefit from including marine mammals in its estimations. The model provides predation mortalities estimates, which are updated every 3 years. The team considers that this will leave sufficient
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 96
The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements PI 2.5.1 of ecosystem structure and function. time for stocks of predators to recover (or not became fully depleted), as changes in the forage fish species availability would lead to changes in ICES recommended fishing advice. The prey needs of marine mammals have been taken into account under PI 2.3.1. The North Sea is characterized by episodic changes in the productivity of key components of the ecosystem, described as regime shifts. There have been reports of a shift from pelagic to benthic production. Phytoplankton, zooplankton, and demersal and pelagic fish have all exhibited such cycles in variability, which are also expected for the future (Mackinson, S. and Daskalov, G., 2007). According to (Beaugrand, G., 2004), the cause for the ecosystem regime shift which took place in the North Sea during the period 1982–1988 was likely to be related to pronounced changes in large-scale hydro-meteorological forcing. This serves to justify that the system responds well to ecosystem changes. Besides, catch of all UoCs is very clean, ranging from 72% of targeted Norway pout for the less selective UoC to 99% of targeted sprat for the most selective UoC. Selectivity of the sandeel fishery is 96% of targeted sandeel in the total catch. Given this, the team considers that the UoA 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. The lack of evidence on the minimum impact of the UoA on the ecosystem, and the uncertainties related to the SMS multispecies modelling in which fishing advice is based prevent the fishery from obtaining SG100. SG80 is granted. Beaugrand, G. 2004. The North Sea regime shift: Evidence, causes, mechanisms and consequences. Progress in Oceanography 60. 245-262. http://dx.doi.org.bibezproxy.uca.es:2048/10.1016/j.pocean.2004.02.018 http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2013/2013/mult- References NS.pdf Christensen, V., 1995 Lewy and Vinther, 2004 Mackinson, S. and Daskalov, G., 2007 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 1-3 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 97
Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management strategy There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Management strategy in place Guidep There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy that ost place, if necessary which strategy in place, if consists of a plan , in take into account the necessary, which takes place which contains potential impacts of the into account available measures to address all fishery on key elements information and is main impacts of the of the ecosystem. expected to restrain UoA on the ecosystem, impacts of the UoA on and at least some of the ecosystem so as to these measures are in achieve the Ecosystem place. Outcome 80 level of performance. UoC 1-3 Y Y N Justific Both Norwegian waters and European waters are subject to management ation measures which seek both profit from the fishery and the protection of the fishing resources. This is done by the establishment of fishing quotas, mesh limitations, closed areas, enforcement effort, landing obligation, and continue monitoring of many species present in the ecosystem. Both the Norwegian Marine Resources Act and the European Common Fisheries Policy are established strategies which should address all main impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem. Both strategies base their measures on data gathered through different research institutions (including IMR), ICES advice on fish stocks (which is based on SMS modelling, which includes prey-predator relationships), ICES Advisory Committee on Ecosystems (ACE) and habitat mapping programs (MAREANO Programme ), OSPAR Commission ( www.ospar.org ), EU Natura Directive ( http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/#) and the Mapping European Seabed Habitats portal ( www.searchmesh.net .)), inter alia. There are fishery biological and technical conservation measures for safeguarding stocks and managing fisheries and the interactions with other animals, such as the “Firth of Forth” closure for the sandeel fishery in order to protect kittiwake predators, the “sprat box” closure to protect juveniles of herring, or the “Norway pout box”, introduced in 1977 in north-east Scotland where fisheries with small-meshed trawls were banned. In the Norwegian economic zone, the Patch Bank was closed permanently in 2002, and in 2008 the fishing season was restricted. Furthermore, legislation is in place to protect species and habitats under the Habitats and Birds Directives, OSPAR, BONN Convention, BERN Convention and CITES as well as various EC fisheries regulations and Norway ‐EU agreements. All management measures are backed up by a rigorous enforcement regime. The team considers that all these management measures conform a partial strategy for the North Sea, however, as there is no specific management plan for the entire North Sea ecosystem with a clear formulated objective, the team considers that SG100 is not met. SG80 is met. b Management strategy evaluation Guidep The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high ost considered likely to work, basis for confidence confidence that the based on plausible that the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g., general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on some information information directly about comparison with similar directly about the UoA the UoA and/or fisheries/ ecosystems). ecosystem involved
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 98
There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. and/or the ecosystem involved UoC 1-3 Y Y N Justific The comprehensive collection of information of fish stocks, fishing removals, the ation research undertaken by different research institutions, ICES annual or biennial advice of fishing options, the information obtained from the different North Sea ecosystem models, along with an effective enforcement system, and the fishing closures of certain areas to prevent depletion of other stocks, serve as an objective basis that the partial strategy will work. The lack of testing on this strategy, the lack of protection on vulnerable ecosystems such as sea pens and burrowing megafauna associated to the Norway pout fishery, and the number of predators of the forage species prevent the fishery from gaining SG100. SG80 is met. c Management strategy implementation Guidep There is some evidence There is clear evidence ost that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully successfully . and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). UoC 1-3 Y N Justific The different measures have been implemented through different means, for a ation considerable period so far. These means include banning bycatch, the obligation of the use of VMS, regulating closed areas both for the protection of juveniles and for the protection of vulnerable habitats, establishing procedures for the weighing and sampling of landings, promoting marine research, establishing quotas for different marine stocks in accordance with marine research, and establishment a strong enforcement system through the Directorate of Fisheries and the EU fisheries inspections bodies that assure the accomplishment of the different measures. Infringements are reported to be negligible. However, the team considers that this partial strategy is not addressing all main impacts of the fishery on the UoA, as at present there are large areas with identified OSPAR threatened species which at present are not protected. SG80 is met. https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/multi_annual_plans_en Norwegian Marine Resources Act European Common Fisheries Policy Birds and Habitats Directives Marine Strategy Framework Directive, ICES advice ICES Advisory Committee on Ecosystems (ACE) References MAREANO Programme OSPAR Commission ( www.ospar.org ), EU Natura Directive ( http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/#) Mapping European Seabed Habitats portal ( www.searchmesh.net .) Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals ( Bonn Convention ). Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats ( Bern Convention ). CITES OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 99
Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.3 – Ecosystem information There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the PI 2.5.3 ecosystem. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Information quality Guidep Information is adequate Information is adequate ost to identify the key to broadly understand elements of the the key elements of the ecosystem. ecosystem. UoC 1-3 Y Y Justific Key elements of the ecosystem, such as primary and secondary productivity, and ation predator-prey relationships, have been studied through different ecosystem models in the North Sea, such as the Ecopath and Ecosim model by Mackinson, S. and Daskalov, G., (2007), a model for trophic interactions in the North Sea for 1981 ( Christensen, V., 1995), larval transport models for the North Sea or the North Sea Stochastic Multispecies Model (SMS Model; Lewy and Vinther, 2004), in which ICES species advice is based. The North Sea ecosystem, where the fishery takes place, is studied by ICES on a continuous basis. Birds and marine mammals populations are monitored by different research institutions of the surrounding countries. The Norwegian Institute for Nature Research ( NINA ) monitors birds populations in the coast of Norway while the IMR Institute studies the Norwegian Sea ecosystem through the Norwecom.E2E project. Information from all these studies is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem in the North Sea. SG80 is met. b Investigation of UoA impacts Guidep Main impacts of the UoA Main impacts of the UoA Main interactions ost on these key ecosystem on these key ecosystem between the UoA and elements can be inferred elements can be inferred these ecosystem from existing information, from existing information, elements can be inferred but have not been and some have been from existing information, investigated in detail. investigated in detail . and have been investigated in detail . UoC 1-3 Y Y N Justific The different models and projects mentioned in SIa serve to describe main impacts ation and interactions between the UoCs and the different ecosystem elements, such as fishery biomass removal, trophic interactions and prey relationships or impacts on the seabed. But there is still little information as regards the impact the fishery may have in some minor secondary species or in not protected vulnerable habitats. The team also agrees that main predator-prey interactions between the forage fish and the dependent predators have been studied, however, it also considers that the stomach content data in which predators preferences and predation mortalities are based, might be dated. An update on stomach content research would make ICES advices more robust. SG80 is met. c Understanding of component functions Guidep The main functions of the The impacts of the UoA on ost components (i.e., P1 P1 target species, target species, primary, primary, secondary and secondary and ETP ETP species and Habitats species and Habitats) in are identified and the
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 100
There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the PI 2.5.3 ecosystem. the ecosystem are main functions of these known . components in the ecosystem are understood . UoC 1-3 Y Y Justific Impacts of the fishery on target, primary, secondary and ETP species are ation quantified and monitored. Moreover, the catch of all fishing vessels (regardless to which UoC they belong) is always pumped on board and loaded inside fish tanks. The crew has no access to these fish tanks and all the catch is landed, weighed and sampled at the authorized landing ports. Different ecosystem models (mentioned in SIa) provide a broad knowledge of the impacts that the fishery has on the targeted species and dependent pre dators. Although not all interactions have been investigated in detailed, there is sufficient information to understand the main functions of these components in the ecosystem. SG100 is met. d Information relevance Guidep Adequate information is Adequate information is ost available on the impacts available on the impacts of the UoA on these of the UoA on the components to allow components and some of the main elements to allow the consequences for the main consequences for ecosystem to be inferred. the ecosystem to be inferred. UoC 1-3 Y N Justific Available information gathered by landing records and sampling, research ation investigation and ecosystem modelling is considered adequate to allow some of the main consequences for the ecosystem. For the pelagic gears, there are less components and elements to consider, as no impacts on benthic habitats are expected. The main consequences of pelagic fishing for the ecosystem can be inferred from existing trophic models. However, the impact of bottom trawlers on certain habitats (such as sea pens in the Norway pout fishery) are at present not fully identified nor quantified. The team considers that present information on bottom trawl impacts on components and elements is not sufficient to grant SG100. SG80 is met. e Monitoring Guidep Adequate data continue Information is adequate ost to be collected to detect to support the any increase in risk level. development of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. UoC 1-3 Y N Justific Detailed information is obtained through landing obligation, landing records and ation sampling, VMS tracks on fishing grounds, ICES advice on different fishing stocks, IMR research trips, monitoring of marine mammals and bird populations, studies on climate change impacts, sampling on benthic communities and mapping of the North Sea seabed, along with the enforcement system and monitoring of protected areas, are considered to provide adequate information to detect any increase in risk levels. SG80 is met.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 101
There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the PI 2.5.3 ecosystem. However, the f act that ICES advices rely on the SMS Model, and that the stomach content used to calculate the different inter-species interaction coefficients is becoming dated, rests credibility to the results obtained. It is considered that these coefficients should be re-evaluated with new stomach samplings in order to support the development of strategies to manage the ecosystem impacts of the reduction fisheries. SG100 is not met. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research ( NINA ) References IMR Institute for Marine Research Norwecom.E2E project. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 1-3 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 102
Principle 2 UoC 4, 5 - – Evaluation tables UoC 4: Norway Pout in the North Sea and Skagerrak. Bottom trawl. UoC 5: Norway Pout in the North Sea and Skagerrak. Midwater trawl including sporadic catches with purse seine. Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not PI 2.1.1 hinder recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Main primary species stock status Guidepo Main primary species are Main primary species are There is a high degree st likely to be above the PRI highly likely to be above of certainty that main OR the PRI primary species are above the PRI and are If the species is below the OR fluctuating around a level PRI, the UoA has If the species is below the consistent with MSY. measures in place that PRI, there is either are expected to ensure evidence of recovery or that the UoA does not a demonstrably effective hinder recovery and strategy in place rebuilding. between all MSC UoAs which categorise this species as main , to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. UoC 4 Y Y Y UoC 5 Y Y Y Justifica Main primary species for both UoC 4 and UoC 5 is blue whiting: In 2016 UoC 4 tion landed 4337 tonnes (11%), while UoC 5 landed 311 tonnes (5%). According to ICES 2016 advice for blue whiting, the spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has increased since 2010 and is above MSY Btrigger. Fishing mortality (F) has also increased from a historical low in 2011 to above FMSY since 2014, but still below Fpa and certainly below F lim. The good status of the stock, in which SSB at present doubles the B MSY, serves to support SG 100 for both UoC.
b Minor primary species stock status Guidepo Minor primary species are st highly likely to be above the PRI OR If below the PRI, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of minor primary species UoC 4 N UoC 5 N Justifica Minor primary species for UoC 4 are: Cod, Haddock, Hake, Horse mackerel, tion Mackerel, North Sea herring, Northern prawn, Norway lobster, Plaice, Saithe, Whiting and Witch. Minor primary species for UoC 5 are: Hake, Horse mackerel,
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 103
The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not PI 2.1.1 hinder recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. Mackerel, North Sea herring, Saithe, Whiting and Witch. The targeted Norway pout comprises 78% of the catch of UoC 4 and 90% of the catch of UoC 5. Of all those species, and according to ICES 2016 advice, the stocks of haddock, horse mackerel, Northern prawn, Norway lobster and witch are below MSY Btrigger. Some concerns on the reliability of catch composition of the Norway pout fishery were brought to the attention of the assessment team during the site visit. Two different stakeholders mentioned the possibility of sporadic slippage of an entire haul due to North Sea herring or mackerel acting as choke species, due to the quota set on them. Both species have been considered as minor primary species according to official landing records, as they represent less than 5% of the total catch. The team considers that the bad stock status of the above mentioned species, and the possibility of slippage occurring in the catch, prevent both UoC from gaining SG100. ICES gives catch advice for all minor primary species, and a summary of the stock status for each species: Cod: Fishing mortality (F) has been declining since 2000 and is estimated to be above FMSY. Spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has increased from the historical low in 2006 and is close to MSY Btrigger. UoC 4 caught 3.7 tonnes of cod in 2016. UoC 5 didn’t catch any cod. Haddock: Fishing mortality (F) is above FMSY and spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has fallen below MSY Btrigger. UoC 5 landed 28 tonnes and UoC 5 landed 80 kg of haddock in 2016. Hake: The spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has increased significantly since 2006 and is well above MSY Btrigger. Fishing mortality (F) has decreased significantly over the last decade and has been below FMSY since 2011. UoC 4 landed 163 tonnes and UoC 5 landed 29 tonnes during 2016. Horse mackerel: In recent years, SSB has been declining and is currently below MSY Btrigger. Fishing mortality has increased since 2007 and is currently just below FMSY. UoC 4 caught 1595 tonnes (4% of the total catch) during 2016, while UoC 5 caught 102 tonnes. Mackerel: The spawning-stock biomass (SSB) is estimated to have increased since the early 2000s and has been above MSY Btrigger since 2009. The fishing mortality (F) has been declining from high levels in the mid-2000s but remains above FMSY. UoC 4 landed 16 tonnes and UoC 5 landed 328 kg in 2016. North Sea herring: The spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has been above MSY Btrigger since 2009. Fishing mortality (F) has been below FMSY since 1996. UoC 4 landed 291 tonnes and UoC 5 landed 14 tonnes of North Sea herring during 2016. Northern prawn in the Norwegian Deep: The stock size has been above MSY Btrigger for most of the time-series, except for the period 2011–2014, and fishing mortality has been above FMSY in the last three years, 2012–2014.The state of the stock in the Fladen ground is unknown. UoC 4 landed 10 tonnes of Norther prawn during 2016. There were no catches by UoC 5. Norway lobster in the Norwegian Deep: Functional Unit 32. The state of this stock is unknown. Catches have been decreasing since 2006. Norway lobster in the Fladen ground: Functional Unit 7: The stock size has declined from the highest observed value in 2008 and is just below the MSY Btrigger. The 2015 abundance estimate is the lowest of the time-series. The harvest rate has declined in recent years and remains well below FMSY. There have been 186 kg of Norway lobster landed in 2016 by UoC 4. There were no catches by UoC 5.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 104
The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not PI 2.1.1 hinder recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. Plaice: The combined North Sea and Skagerrak stock is well above MSY Btrigger, and has increased in the past ten years. In recent years, fishing mortality (F) has been estimated at around FMSY. UoC 4 landed 886 kg of plaice during 2016. There were no catches by UoC 5. Saithe: Fishing mortality (F) has been below FMSY since 2013. Spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has fluctuated without trend, remaining above MSY Btrigger since 1997. There were 127 tonnes landed by UoC 4 and 550 kg landed by UoC 5 during 2016. Whiting: Spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has fluctuated around MSY Btrigger. And is now just above Btrigger. Fishing mortality (F) has been above FMSY throughout the time-series, but below Fpa since 2002. UoC 4 landed 469 tonnes of whiting during 2016 while UoC 5 landed 2 tonnes in 2016. Witch: Reference points are not defined for witch. The abundance index shows a declining trend after 2000, but the index is much higher in 2014– 2015. UoC 4 landed 124 tonnes and UoC 5 landed 774 kg during 2016. Landing records. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/whb-comb.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/cod-347d.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/had-346a.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/hke-nrtn.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/her-47d3.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/mac-nea.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/nop-34-oct.pdf References http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/sai-3a46.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/spr-nsea.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/whg-47d.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2015/2015/wit-nsea.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/ple-nsea.pdf http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/hom-west.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/nep-32.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/nep-7.pdf OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 4 90 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 5 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 105
Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.2 – Primary species management strategy There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and PI 2.1.2 implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Management strategy in place Guidep There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in ost place for the UoA, if strategy in place for the place for the UoA for necessary, that are UoA, if necessary, that is managing main and expected to maintain or expected to maintain or minor primary species. to not hinder rebuilding of to not hinder rebuilding of the main primary species the main primary species at/to levels which are at/to levels which are likely to above the point highly likely to be above where recruitment would the point where be impaired. recruitment would be impaired. UoC 4 Y Y Y UoC 5 Y Y Y Justific The different measures in place, such as gear and mesh size regulations (such as ation the use of 40 mm grids in Norway pout fishery, which was introduced in 2012), along with the establishment of fishing seasons, move on rules and protected areas are sufficient to be considered as a partial strategy in place which is expected not to hinder the recovery or rebuilding of these species, if necessary. Besides, monitoring of landings serves to monitor any potential increase in the risk for the stock status of primary species. The Norway pout fishery takes place from June to November. The area where the fishery takes place includes the Fladen ground and the Norwegian deep, as shown in Figure 18, and includes both EU and Norwegian waters. Of all primary species affected by the UoC, blue whiting, horse mackerel, mackerel, and North Sea herring are subject to Norwegian quota. All primary species (apart from witch) are subject to quota when taken in EU waters. All Norwegian vessels are subject to the landing obligation since 1984. The only main primary species to consider is blue whiting. Blue whiting is targeted by a directed blue whiting fishery by different countries in the North Atlantic, including Norwegian, Icelandic, Faroese and French vessels among others. Catches in 2016 reached 1,342,330 tonnes. Is subject to a Coastal Agreement on catches by different countries (EU, Norway; Iceland and Faroe Islands), but the agreement is at present withdrawn. However, the spawning stock biomass of blue whiting is at present well above MSY Btrigger, and the team considers that the 4337 tonnes taken by UoC 4 and 311tonnes taken by UoC 5 do not contribute much to the total catch. The team considers that the different measures in place, along with the selectivity of the catches (where nearly 80% of the catch for UoC 4 and 90% of the catch for UoC 5 are the targeted Norway pout) serve as a strategy for managing all primary species and minimize the associated mortality. SG100 is reached by both UoCs. b Management strategy evaluation Guidep The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high ost considered likely to basis for confidence confidence that the
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 106
There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and PI 2.1.2 implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. work, based on plausible that the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g., general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on some information information directly about comparison with similar directly about the fishery the fishery and/or species fisheries/species). and/or species involved. involved. UoC 4 Y Y Y UoC 5 Y Y Y Justific There is reliable information both on the landings and on the stock status state of ation all primary species, as they are regularly monitored by ICES which issues a fishing advice for each of them. The monitoring of the different species and the advice given serve to give confidence to the fishing strategy, as any drop of the stock will easily be noticed, and the advice would result in lower quotas, area closures or specifically designed management plans. The team considers that both these measures along with the fishing strategy, which reaches high degrees of selectivity catching the targeted specie (78% for UoC 4 and 90% for UoC 5), and hence minimizing the mortality of other species, serve as evidence to support with a high degree of confidence that this strategy will work. c Management strategy implementation Guidep There is some evidence There is clear evidence ost that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully successfully . and is achieving its overall objective as set out in scoring issue (a). UoC 4 Y N UoC 5 Y N Justific All measures mentioned in SGa and SGb (landing obligation, ICES fishing advice, ation establishment of quotas, and gear, areal and temporary restrictions) have been successfully implemented for more than 2 decades now. Besides, the fact that the catch goes is pumped into catch tanks without being sorted on board also serves to give confidence on the verifiability of the sampling of the catch, which is done at the landing ports by registered operators. Sampling information can serve to implement fishing restrictions should these be considered needed. The low proportion of non-target species in the catch, along with the good stock status of most primary species, should serve to conclude that the strategy is achieving its objective of minimizing the mortality of unwanted catch, but the bad status of certain stocks, and the possibility of slippage taking place in the Norway pout fishery would prevent the fishery from achieving SG100, as it is difficult to determine if the fishing strategy is achieving its objective of not hindering the recovery of these species (mackerel and North Sea herring). Both UoCs reach SG80. d Shark finning Guidep It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree ost finning is not taking shark finning is not taking of certainty that shark place. place.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 107
There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and PI 2.1.2 implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. finning is not taking place. UoC 4 Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant UoC 5 Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justific ation e Review of alternative measures Guidep There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial ost potential effectiveness of the potential review of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative measures to practicality of alternative practicality of alternative minimise UoA-related measures to minimise measures to minimise mortality of unwanted UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of catch of main primary unwanted catch of main unwanted catch of all species. primary species and they primary species, and they are implemented as are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. UoC 4 Y Y N UoC 5 Y Y N Justific The Norway pout fishery is a reduction fishery where all the catch is sold and used ation for producing fish meal and fish oil. Norway pout comprises 78 and 90% of the catch of UoC 4 and UoC 5. The only main primary species for both UoC is blue whiting. Blue whiting is subject to regular review by ICES, last one held in 2016 (ICES Inter-Benchmark Protocol for Blue Whiting (IBPBLW)). Besides, the Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries conducts a regular review of the different fisheries, which includes a review of the measures and regulation in force to minimize bycatch of unwanted species. However, as the review taken by the Ministry is not biennial, and there is no evidence of other biennial review by the client, SG100 can’t be granted. SG80 is met. Landing records. http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/aco m/2016/IBPBLW/ibpblw_2016.pdf http://www.fiskeridir.no/ (with management measures) References https://www.sildelaget.no/ (with allocated quotas) http://www.fisheries.no/ (with fishing regulations) http://www.fiskeridir.no/English/Fisheries/Real-Time-Closure-RTC J-266-2016 regulation regarding sorting grid in trawl fishing for blue whiting and Norway pout: http://www.fiskeridir.no/Yrkesfiske/Regelverk-og-reguleringer/J- meldinger/Gjeldende-J-meldinger/J-266-2016 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 4 90 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 5 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 108
Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.3 – Primary species information Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main primary species Guidep Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information ost adequate to estimate information is available is available and is the impact of the UoA on and is adequate to adequate to assess the main primary species assess the impact of the with a high degree of with respect to status. UoA on the main primary certainty the impact of OR species with respect to the UoA on main primary status. species with respect to If RBF is used to score PI status. 2.1.1 for the UoA: OR Qualitative information is If RBF is used to score PI adeqaute to estimate 2.1.1 for the UoA: productivity and Some quantitative susceptibility attributes information is adequate for main primary species. to assess productivity and susceptiblity attributes for main primary species. UoC 4 Y Y Y UoC 5 Y Y Y Justific The only main primary species to consider for both UoC is Blue whiting. ation There is quantitative information both on the tonnes taken by the Norway pout fishery as well as on the quantities taken by blue whiting directed fisheries. Information on stock status and fishing pressure is very well known through ICES advice and ICES reports such as the 2016 Report of the Inter-Benchmark Protocol for Blue Whiting (IBPBLW). All these information is considered adequate to assess with a high degree of certainty the impact of the UoA on the stock of blue whiting. b Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor primary species Guidep Some quantitative ost information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor primary species with respect to status. UoC 4 Y UoC 5 Y Justific The landing obligation, which was implemented in 198 4, serves to provide ation quantitative information on the impacts of the fishery in all affected species. The status of all minor species is evaluated by ICES on an annual basis, so the impact of the UoA on minor primary species with respect to status can be easily evaluated. The ICES International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) in the North Sea, undertaken since the 70’s, contributes to increase the knowledge on the different species in the area. Both UoC reach SG100. Information adequacy for management strategy
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 109
Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species c Guidep Information is adequate Information is adequate Information is adequate ost to support measures to to support a partial to support a strategy to manage main primary strategy to manage manage all primary species. main Primary species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. UoC 4 Y Y Y UoC 5 Y Y Y Justific The only main primary species to consider for both UoC is blue whiting. Information ation collected through landing records (of this and other fisheries) and through the ICES annual International bottom trawl survey, along with information on stock status serve to support a strategy to manage this species. Blue whiting was subject to a Coastal Agreement on catches among different countries which was recently withdrawn. However, catches taken by the UoCs are considered minimal when compared with the size of the directed fishery. As regards all minor primary species, the good level of information provided by ICES on all minor primary species is considered sufficient to evaluate, with a high degree of certainty, whether the strategy is achieving its objective of not hindering the status of these species. SG100 is achieved for both UoCs. http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2016/I BPBLW/ibpblw_2016.pdf http://ocean.ices.dk/Project/IBTS/ Landing records. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/whb-comb.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/cod-347d.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/had-346a.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/hke-nrtn.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/her-47d3.pdf References http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/mac-nea.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/nop-34-oct.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/sai-3a46.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/spr-nsea.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/whg-47d.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2015/2015/wit-nsea.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/ple-nsea.pdf http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/hom-west.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/nep-32.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/nep-7.pdf OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 4 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 5 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 110
Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.1 – Secondary species outcome The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based PI 2.2.1 limit and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Main secondary species stock status Guidep Main Secondary species Main secondary species There is a high degree ost are likely to be within are highly likely to be of certainty that main biologically based limits. above biologically based secondary species are limits within biologically based limits. OR OR If below biologically based limits, there is If below biologically either evidence of based limits, there are recovery or a measures in place demonstrably effective expected to ensure that partial strategy in place the UoA does not hinder such that the UoA does recovery and rebuilding. not hinder recovery and rebuilding. AND Where catches of a main secondary species outside of biological limits are considerable, there is either evidence of recovery or a, demonstrably effective strategy in place between those MSC UoAs that also have considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. UoC 4 Y Y Y UoC 5 Y Y Y Justific According to MSC CRv2 SA3.1.4, secondary species are those species in the catch ation that are within scope of the MSC program but are not covered under P1 nor P3. Main secondary species would be those comprising 5% or more of the total catch (per gear), or those less resilient species comprising more than 2% of the catch (MSC CR v2 SA 3.4.2.2). According to catch data shown in Table 21, there are no main secondary species to consider for this UoC. According to FCR SA 3.2.1, if a team determines that a UoA has no impact on a particular component, it shall receive a score of 100 under the Outcome PI. SG100 is granted. b Minor secondary species stock status Guidep Minor secondary species ost are highly likely to be above biologically based limits. OR
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 111
The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based PI 2.2.1 limit and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. If below biologically based limits’, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of secondary species UoC 4 N UoC 5 N Justific Minor secondary species to consider are: ation • UoC 4: squid (447 kg), jellyfish and molluscs (9 tonnes), long rough dab (45 tonnes / 0.11% catch), grey gunard (10 tonnes), eel pout (2 tonnes), argentine (1156 tonnes / 3% catch), velvet belly lanternshark (6 tonnes) and silver pout (237 tonnes / 0.6 % catch). • UoC 5: squid (341 kg), jellyfish and molluscs (266 kg), grey gunard (3.9 tonnes), argentine (61 tonnes), velvet belly lanternshark (294 kg) and silver pout (50 tonnes). The catch of each one of these minor secondary species comprises less than 1% of the total catch, except for the catch of argentine, which comprises nearly 3% of the total catch for UoC 4. Of all minor species, ICES provides advice only on grey gunard. According to grey gunard ICES advice, reference points are not defined for the stock of grey gunard ( Eutrigla gunardus ). The time-series of mature biomass index shows a strong increase from the beginning of 1990s and has since fluctuated on a high level. Species misidentification and reporting of gurnard groups continues to be a problem in estimating the landings and discards of grey gurnard. In addition, discarding is estimated to be high. ICES advices that landings should be no more than 1763 tonnes for 2017. The team considers that, regardless that the small quantities taken by the fishery would support that the fishery is not expected to hinder the recovery of these species, there is no evidence to assure that the UoA is not hindering the recovery or rebuilding of these species, as at present is not possible to evaluate if the catch of minor secondary species taken by the UoA represents a big or a small proportion of each stock. SG100 is not met for any UoC. Landing records References http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/gug- 347d.pdf OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 4 90 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 5 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 112
Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.2 – Secondary species management strategy There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species PI 2.2.2 and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Management strategy in place Guidep There are measures in There is a part ial There is a strategy in ost place, if necessary, which strategy in place, if place for the UoA for are expected to maintain necessary, for the UoA managing main and minor secondary species. or not hinder rebuilding of that is expected to
main secondary species maintain or not hinder at/to levels which are rebuilding of main highly likely to be within secondary species at/to biologically based limits levels which are highly or to ensure that the UoA likely to be within does not hinder their biologically based limits recovery. or to ensure that the UoA does not hinder their recovery. UoC 4 Y Y N UoC 5 Y Y N Justific There are no main second ary species to consider for these UoC s. SG80 is achieved. ation The Norway pout fishery is a clean one where 78% and 90% of the catch (for UoC 4 and UoC 5) is comprised by the targeted species. The different measures in place, such as gear and mesh size regulations (such as the use of 40 mm grids in the Norway pout fishery, which was introduced in 2012), along with the establishment of fishing seasons, move on rules and protected areas are sufficient to be considered as a partial strategy in place which is expected not to hinder the recovery or rebuilding of these species, if necessary. The Norway pout fishery takes place from June to November. The area where the fishery takes place includes the Fladen ground and the Norwegian deep, as shown in Figure 18, and includes both EU and Norwegian waters. All Norwegian vessels are subject to the landing obligation since 1984, even outside Norwegian waters. Monitoring of landings could serve to detect any increase of the catch of these species, but the lack of reliable information on stock status would make it difficult to determine if the UoA hinders the recovery of these species. The lack of specific measures to manage these species, along with the lack of reliable information on their stock status, prevent the fishery from achieving SG100. b Management strategy evaluation Guidep The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high ost considered likely to basis for confidence confidence that the work, based on plausible that the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g. general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on some information information directly about comparison with similar directly about the UoA the UoA and/or species UoAs/species). and/or species involved. involved. UoC 4 Y Y N UoC 5 Y Y N
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 113
There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species PI 2.2.2 and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Justific There are no main secondary species to consider. As regards minor secondary ation species, there is reliable information on landings, and ICES advice for grey gunard. The team considers that the monitoring of landings serves to give some objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, but the lack of information on the status of all minor species prevent the fishery from achieving SG100. c Management strategy implementation Guidep There is some evidence There is clear evidence ost that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully successfully . and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). UoC 4 Y N UoC 5 Y N Justific The Norway pout fishery is a clean one. Catches of secondary species generally ation remain low (but not for argentine in UoC 4), but there are no regional specific measures to manage none of the minor secondary species encountered by the UoCs. ICES advice on grey gunard specifically mentions that discarding of grey gunard in the North Sea is estimated to be high, and that species misidentification and reporting of gurnard groups continues to be a problem in estimating the landings and discards of grey gurnard in the North Sea. Notwithstanding this, landing obligation was implemented in Norway in 1984 and there is reliable information on the quantities of this and all other species taken by the UoC. The team considers that measures such as the landing obligation and gear, areal and temporary restrictions are successfully implemented, but the lack of reliable information on the status of the stocks of secondary species prevent the fishery from achieving SG100, as it is not possible to determine if the strategy is achieving the objective of not hindering the recovery of these species. SG80 is met by both UoCs. d Shark finning Guidep It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree ost finning is not taking shark finning is not taking of certainty that shark place. place. finning is not taking place. UoC 4 Y Y Y UoC 5 Y Y Y Justific One of the minor secondary species in both UoC is the velvet belly lanternshark ation (Etmopterus spinax ). According to MSC FCR v2.0 SA 3.8.2, this guidepost shall be scored. Shark finning is normally not an issue on European fisheries, where sharks are either treated as bycatch or used for human consumption (shark meat). The Norway pout fishery is a reduction fishery where all the catch is used to produce fish oil or fish meal. The catch is always pumped on board through pumping systems, and goes into the fish tanks without being processed by the crew. Therefore, the catch reaches landing ports without being treated in any way,
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 114
There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species PI 2.2.2 and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. so there is no opportunity for shark finning to take place. Landing records serve to monitor landing of shark species through the years. Both UoC reach SG100. Etmopterus spinax is classified as Least Concern in the IUCN red list of threatened species. e Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch Justific There is a review of the There is a regular review Ther e is a biennial ation potential effectiveness of the potential review of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative measures to practicality of alternative practicality of alternative minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted measures to minimise measures to minimise catch of main secondary UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of species. unwanted catch of main unwanted catch of all secondary species and secondary species, and they are implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. UoC 4 Y Y N UoC 5 Y Y N Guidep The Norway pout fishery is a reduction fishery where all the catch is sold and used ost for producing fish meal and fish oil. Norway pout comprises 78% and 90% of the catch of UoC 4 and UoC 5. There are no main secondary species to consider in these UoCs. SG80 is achieved. Norway pout is subject to regular review by ICES (WKPOUT), but there is no specific review of measures to minimize unwanted catch of the fishery. The Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries regularly reviews Norwegian Fisheries, catch data, bycatch levels and associated regulation. The team hasn’t found any evidence of biennial review (either from the Government or from the client) of measures to minimize the catch of all other species, therefore SG100 is not met. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/gug - 347d.pdf Landing records. http://www.fiskeridir.no/ (with management measures)
References http://www.fisheries.no/ (with fishing regulations) ICES 2016 WKPOUT: Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Norway Pout (Trisopterus esmarkii ) in Subarea 4 and Division 3a (North Sea, Skagerrak, and Kattegat). http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/aco m/2016/WKPOUT/wkpout_2016.pdf OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 4 85 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 5 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 115
Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.3 – Secondary species information Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is PI 2.2.3 adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on main secondary species Guidep Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information ost adequate to estimate information is available is available and the impact of the UoA on and adequate to adequate to assess the main secondary assess the impact of the with a high degree of species with respect to UoA on main secondary certainty the impact of status. species with respect to OR status. the UoA on main If RBF is used to score OR secondary species with PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score respect to status. Qualitative information is PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: adequate to estimate Some quantitative productivity and information is adequate susceptibility attributes to assess productivity and for main secondary susceptibility attributes species. for main secondary species. UoC 4 Y Y Y UoC 5 Y Y Y Justific The landing obligation, which was implemented in 1984, serves to provide ation quantitative information on the impacts of the fishery in all affected species. According to accurate quantitative information there are no main secondary species to consider in these UoCs. Norway pout comprises 78% and 90% of the total catch for UoC 4 and UoC 5. Minor secondary species are evaluated in SGb. The impact of the UoA on main secondary species can be consider nul. SG100 is granted. b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species Guidep Some quantitative ost information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor secondary species with respect to status.
UoC 4 N UoC 5 N Justific The landing obligation, which was implemented in 1984 , serves to provide ation quantitative information on the impacts of the fishery in all affected species. ICES provides advice for grey gunard, but recognizes misidentification of records and discarding of the species in the fishing area. There is no ICES advice for any other secondary species. The team considers that at present is not possible to determine the impact of the UoA on minor secondary species with respect to status. Therefore SG100 is not met. Information adequacy for management strategy
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 116
Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is PI 2.2.3 adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. c Guidep Information is adequate Information is adequate Information is adequate ost to support measures to to support a partial to support a strategy to manage main secondary strategy to manage manage all secondary species. main secondary species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective . UoC 4 Y Y N UoC 5 Y Y N Justific There are no main secondary species to consider for this UoC. SG 80 is granted. ation Information is collected through landing records and with the ICES annual International bottom trawl survey. However, the team considers that are present there isn’t information enough to support a strategy to manage all secondary species, as there is no information on the biological status of many secondary species. Besides, the possibility of occasional slippage taking place in the Norway pout fishery would negatively affect all species in the catch composition, making it difficult to determine if the fishing strategy is achieving its objective of not hindering the recovery of these species. SG 100 is not met. Landing records. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/gug- References 347d.pdf http://ocean.ices.dk/Project/IBTS/ OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 4 85 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 5 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 117
Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome The UoA meets national and international requirements for the PI 2.3.1 protection of ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Effects of the UoA on population/stock within national or international limits, where applicable Guidep Where national and/or Where national and/or Where national and/or ost international international international requirements set limits requirements set limits requirements set limits for ETP species, the for ETP species, the for ETP species, there is a effects of the UoA on the combined effects of high degree of population/stock are the MSC UoAs on the certainty that the known and likely to be population/stock are combined effects of within these limits. known and highly likely the MSC UoAs are within to be within these limits. these limits. UoC 4 Y Y Y UoC 5 Y Y Y Justific Landing obligation requires vessels to land any dead animal, regardless it being ation ETP species or not. Landing records show that the Norway pout fishery has some, but limited, effect on ETP species such as eels. UoC 4 landed 780 kg of eels during 2016 (which accounts for 0.002% of the UoC total catch). There were no ETP landings by UoC 5. Other UoC under assessment, such as UoC 6, landed 50 kg of spurdog during 2016 (accounting for 0.0004% of the UoC total catch). According to Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007 of 18 September 2007 establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of European eel, all directed fishing for eel is prohibited and catches should be kept as close to zero as possible in all European waters. As regards spurdog, the allocated quota by all EU countries is zero. Directed fisheries are prohibited and catches should be kept to minimum. This is in corcondance with ICES 2016 for each one of these species. The DFPO and DPPO sandeel, Norway pout and sprat fisheries also showed no direct effects on ETP species for 2014. According to these data, the team considers that there is a high degree of certainty that the combined effects of the different UoCs on ETP populations are within national and international limits. SG 100 is granted for both UoCs. b Direct effects Guidep Known direct effects of Known direct effects of There is a high degree of ost the UoA are likely to not the UoA are highly likely confidence that there are hinder recovery of ETP to not hinder recovery no significant detrimental species. of ETP species. direct effects of the UoA on ETP species. UoC 4 Y Y N UoC 5 Y Y N Justific Landing obligation, which was implemented in Norway in 1984, require s vessels ation to land any dead animal, regardless it being ETP species or not. Landing records show 780 kg of eels landed by UoC 4 and 49 kg of spurdog landed by UoC 6, all of which accounts for a negligible proportion of catch for each UoC. The DFPO and DPPO sandeel, Norway pout and sprat fisheries also showed no direct effects on ETP species for 2014. Interactions with marine mammals are normally avoided by fishermen, as this would result in damage to the nets. Interviews with different stakeholders (fishermen, the Coast Guard and the Marine Research Institute) all concluded that direct interactions with birds or marine mammals only occur very rarely.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 118
The UoA meets national and international requirements for the PI 2.3.1 protection of ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species The team considers that, according to landing records by the fleet, it is highly likely that the UoA is not hindering the recovery of ETP species, therefore SG80 is met. However, the team considers that the eel catch taken by UoC 4 (780 kg, which can range from over 150 adults to over 1.5 million alevins), the uncertainty on the stage of those individuals at the moment of the catch, and the poor condition of the stock, would prevent all UoCs in the UoA from achieving SG100. c Indirect effects Guidep Indirect effects have been There is a high degree of ost considered and are confidence that there are thought to be highly no significant detrimental likely to not create indirect effects of the unacceptable impacts. fishery on ETP species. UoC 4 Y N UoC 5 Y N Justific Indirect effects on ETP populations would be those caused as results of interactions ation with the fishing gear (such as injuries, which are difficult to quantify) or those related to the reduction of prey availability for prey species. Such indirect effects are normally taken into account in the management plans by increasing the natural mortality in the assessment to account for the needs of higher trophic levels. Personal comments by the Institute of Marine Research in Bergen reported that marine mammals are normally taken into account on catch advice, but they could not asseverate the same for bird species. There are, however, examples of fishing closures due to indirect effects on bird populations (such as the closure of the fishing grounds by the Firth of Forth to protect kittiwake colonies). The Norway pout fishery reported some fatal interactions with ETP species (eels). As regards non-fatal interactions, Norwegian vessels are obliged to throw back to the sea ETP elasmobranchians when encountered alive, but there are no records of these interactions. The team considers that the characteristics of the fishery make it highly likely that the fishery does not create unacceptable impacts to ETP species. SG80 is met for both UoCs. Landing records. References
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 4 85 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 5 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 119
Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.2 – ETP species management strategy The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.
Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Management strategy in place (national and international requirements) Guidep There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a ost place that minimise the place for managing the comprehensive UoA-related mortality of UoA’s impact on ETP strategy in place for ETP species, and are species, including managing the UoA’s expected to be highly measures to minimise impact on ETP species, likely to achieve mortality, which is including measures to national and international designed to be highly minimise mortality, which requirements for the likely to achieve is designed to achieve protection of ETP species. national and international above national and requirements for the international protection of ETP species. requirements for the protection of ETP species. UoC 4 Y Y N UoC 5 Y Y N Justific All UoC covered in this assessment show very small bycatch ratios, with the ation Norway pout fishery showing the highest ratios when compared with the other UoC s under assessment (22% for UoC 4 and 10% for UoC 5). Those ratios include all other species that are not the targeted Norway pout, this is, it also includes ETP species when relevant. However, catches of ETP species have proven to be minimal for the UoA (780 kg of eel for UoC 4 and 49 kg of spurdog for UoC 6). The DFPO and DPPO sandeel, Norway pout and sprat fisheries also showed no direct effects on ETP species for 2014. The team considers that the fishing strategy is an effective management strategy for minimizing related ETP mortality (as has proven to do so). Another measure in place to protect these species is the obligation to release alive any ETP shark, skate or ray which is still alive when hauled or pumped on board. As these species have a high survival rate, this measure works in minimizing fatalities of these species. As regards regulations to minimize impacts on ETP species, there are different regulations and agreements in place to considers, such as: CITES Annex I and Norwegian red list for endangered species, to which Norway is a signatory party. The EU habitats Directive and the ASCOBANS agreement (to which EU is a signatory party) establish measures to protect certain ETP species in the North Sea. The OSPAR Commission also lists threatened species in the area. The Norway pout fishery takes place in Norwegian and EU waters, so all ETP regulations mentioned above should be implemented. The closure of the sandeel fishery in the vicinity of the Firth of Forth in Scotland serves to prove that, when needed, specific management measures are implemented to protect ETP species. The team considers the different measures in place (fish strategy, releasement of elasmobranchs, national and international legislation) as a strategy to manage the UoA impacts on ETP species, but the lack of a comprehensive strategy specifically
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 120
The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.
Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. designed for the reduction fishery or fishing area prevent the fishery from achieving SG100. SG80 is met for both UoCs. b Management strategy in place (alternative) Guidep There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a ost place that are expected to place that is expected to comprehensive ensure the UoA does not ensure the UoA does not strategy in place for hinder the recovery of hinder the recovery of managing ETP species, to ETP species. ETP species. ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species UoC 4 Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant UoC 5 Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justific Not relevant as SI -a has been evaluated. ation c Management strategy evaluation Guidep The measures are There is an objective The strategy/ ost considered likely to basis for confidence comprehensive strategy work, based on plausible that the is mainly based on argument (e.g. , general measures/strategy will information directly about experience, theory or work, based on the fishery and/or species comparison with similar information directly involved, and a fisheries/species). about the fishery and/or quantitative analysis the species involved. supports high confidence that the strategy will work. UoC 4 Y Y N UoC 5 Y Y N Justific The minimal fatal interactions with ETP species recorded by the different UoCs, the ation comprehensive landing and reporting system, the follow up that the Directorate of Fisheries carries out when weird data appears in landing records, the data obtained by the reference fleet (which, since 2012, reported 3 fatal interactions per vessel per year with different elasmobranchs, of which only spurdog is an ETP species, and no fatal interactions with other species in Table 25 , the enforcement carried out by the Directorate of Fisheries, the information on the fisheries general compliance with regulations, and IMR comments on the low probability of interactions of the fishery with marine mammals, serve together to give confidence that this strategy is working on the management of ETP species. The lack of specific knowledge on the status of some ETP species, and the ignorance on specific measures taken by the fishery to avoid these encounters, prevent the fishery from achieving SG100. SG80 is met for both UoCs. d Management strategy implementation Guidep There is some evidence There is clear evidence ost that the that the strategy/ measures/strategy is comprehensive strategy is being implemented
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 121
The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.
Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. being implemented successfully and is successfully. achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a) or (b). UoC 4 Y N UoC 5 Y N Justific The landing obligation, as well as the obligation to release elasmobranchs if alive, ation has been in place for decades now. The habitats Directive (in place in EU waters) was established in 1992, protecting several ETP species. Evidence of implementation could also be provided by small (or nul, for UoC 5) records of fatal interactions with ETP species. SG80 is granted for both UoC. The lack of known specific measures taken by the fishery to prevent these interactions and the lack of information on updated status of ETP species prevent the UoCs from achieving SG100. e Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species Guidep There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial ost potential effectiveness of the potential review of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative measures to practicality of alternative practicality of alternative minimise UoA-related measures to minimise measures to minimise mortality of ETP species. UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality ETP ETP species and they are species, and they are implemented as implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. UoC 4 Y Y N UoC 5 Y Y N Justific Sampling of landings serve to monitor catch composition and provide records of ation species identification and quantities landed. It also serves as a historical collection of ETP fatal interactions caused by the fishing fleet. Data on landings is reviewed by the Directorate of Fisheries which makes a comprehensive follow up of rare species in the catch. The ICES-FAO Working Group on Fishing Technology and Fish Behavior (WGFTFB) studies measurements and observations relating to scientific and commercial fishing gears and fishing behavior (including ETP species) in relation to fishing and discard reduction. The implementation of fishing closures (such as the one in the Firth of Forth, to protect kittiwake nesting sites) also serves to show that measures to protect ETP species are implemented when needed. The team considers that there is a regular review of measures to minimize the UoA related mortality of ETP species, so grants SG80 to both UoCs. As the review is not necessarily biennial SG100 is not met. References http://www.ices.dk/community/groups/Pages/WGFTFB.aspx OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 4 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 5 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 122
Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.3 – ETP species information Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3 • Information for the development of the management strategy; • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and • Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Guidep Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information ost adequate to estimate information is adequate is available to assess with the UoA related mortality to assess the UoA a high degree of certainty on ETP species. related mortality and the magnitude of UoA- impact and to determine related impacts, whether the UoA may be mortalities and OR a threat to protection and injuries and the recovery of the ETP consequences for the If RBF is used to score PI species. status of ETP species. 2.3.1 for the UoA: OR If RBF is used to score PI Qualitative information is 2.3.1 for the UoA: adequate to estimate Some quantitative productivity and information is adequate susceptibility attributes to assess productivity and for ETP species. susceptibility attributes for ETP species. UoC 4 Y Y N UoC 5 Y Y N Justific There is accurate quantitative information on the UoA related mortality thanks to ation historical landing records (since 1984), which (at least for the past few years) show no fatal interactions with ETP marine mammals or birds (and some minimal fatal interactions with eels and spurdogs by UoC 4 and UoC 6). The DFPO and DPPO sandeel, Norway pout and sprat fisheries also showed no direct effects on ETP species for 2014. This information is considered sufficient to determine whether the UoA may (or not) be a threat to the recovery of ETP species. SG80 is met for both UoCs. But the lack of information on injuries of non-fatal interactions or on the consequences for the status of affected ETP species prevent the fishery from achieving SG100, as the impacts and consequences to the status of ETP species due to non-fatal interactions cannot be defined with a high degree of certainty. b Information adequacy for management strategy Guidep Information is adequate Information is adequate Information is adequate ost to support measures to to measure trends and to support a manage the impacts on support a strategy to comprehensive ETP species. manage impacts on ETP strategy to manage species. impacts, minimize mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 123
Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3 • Information for the development of the management strategy; • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and • Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. strategy is achieving its objectives. UoC 4 Y Y N UoC 5 Y Y N Justific Landing records (since 1984) would show fatal interaction with protected ETP ation species should this occur. There are also monitoring programs on marine mammals and bird populations. Historical records of landings, together with information from monitoring programs, are considered adequate to measure trends and support strategies to manage impacts on ETP species. However, information on injuries on elasmobranchs or recovery of these after releasement is still missing. The team considers that a better reporting of non-fatal interactions with all ETP species and research conducted to estimate survival rate of released elasmobranchians would benefit the fishery in order to achieve SG100. SG80 is met for both UoCs. Landing records. References
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 4 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 5 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 124
Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the PI 2.4.1 governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Commonly encountered habitat status Guidep The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that ost reduce structure and unlikely to reduce the UoA is highly unlikely function of the commonly structure and function of to reduce structure and encountered habitats to a the commonly function of the commonly point where there would encountered habitats to a encountered habitats to a be serious or irreversible point where there would point where there would harm. be serious or irreversible be serious or irreversible harm. harm. UoC 4 Y Y N UoC 5 Y Y Y Justific Common encountered habitats in the Norway pout fishery are sandy and muddy ation bottoms, but also some small rocky and reef areas. The Norway pout fishery is a seasonal fishery (from June to November) that takes place in a broader area (when compared to the sandeel and sprat fisheries) from Scotland to the Norwegian coast. UoC 4 refers to bottom trawlers targeting Norway pout. Kaiser et al. (2006) concluded that otter trawling produces a significant, negative, short-term effect on muddy habitats, but interestingly there was also a longer-term positive effect on the response variables to this impact. Impacts on muddy and sandy bottoms are considered lighter than on harder bottoms, and the areas easier to recover. According to Meenakumari et al (2008), and Gordon et al (2002) sandy habitats can recover after trawling disturbance in less than 5 years. The foot rope used by Norges Fiskarlager bottom trawlers is relatively light, and without heavy bobbins on it, which gives confidence that the gear is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to the point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. SG80 is granted for UoC 4. UoC 5 refers to midwater trawls used in the Norway pout fishery. It is highly unlikely that pelagic gears have any impact on the seafloor, as this would only happen in case of gear loss, which is un rare event which is avoided when possible by the crew by choosing smooth fishing grounds. If a gear is lost efforts will be made to recover it. Impacts on sedimentary bottoms, if any, would have a minimum effect on habitat structure and function, far from being serious or irreversible. The evidence to support the statement that pelagic gears do not reduce the structure and function of habitats encountered (if any), would be the design and testing of pelagic gears on testing pools, which show that interactions with the seafloor are not expected. UoC 5 meets SG100. b VME habitat status Guidep The UoA is unlikely The UoA is highly There is evidence that ost (<40%) to reduce unlikely (<30%) to the UoA is highly unlikely structure and function of reduce structure and to reduce structure and the VME habitats to a function of the VME function of the VME point where there would habitats to a point where habitats to a point where be serious or irreversible harm. there would be serious or there would be serious or irreversible harm. irreversible harm.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 125
The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the PI 2.4.1 governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates.
UoC 4 Y N N UoC 5 Y Y Y Justific All Norwegian vessels have a VMS on board regardless the vessel’s size. This ation serves the Directorate of Fisheries to verify that vessels do not enter Marine Protected Areas. The Norway pout fishery takes place in the muddy and sandy grounds of the Fladen Ground. According to
Figure 21 on MPA protected by the Habitats Directive, the Central Fladen Nature Conservation MPA overlaps with the Norway pout fishery fishing grounds. This MPA was established to protect sea pens and burrowing megafauna, and at present is not possible for the team to determine which UoC overlaps with this MPA, if any. The Central Fladen area is also protected as an OSPAR MPA. The Directorate of Fisheries reported no infringements as regards the Norwegian fleet accomplishment of management measures in MPAs. Again
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 126
The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the PI 2.4.1 governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates.
Figure 22: OSPAR map for threatened or declining habitats. Source: OSPAR Commission.
shows that the Norway pout fishery overlaps with OSPAR threatened habitats with sea pens and burrowing megafauna. An overlapped map of fishing activities by UoC and MPA and OSPAR VME would help the team in scoring this SI. Gordon et al. (2002) studied the effects of otter trawling on benthic habitat and communities on Western Bank (where the bottom is mostly sandy with patches of gravel and pebbles). Although not specific to this UoC, results indicated very limited immediate impacts on the benthic community. The structure of the colonial epifaunal assemblage was not affected by repeated trawling over three years. However, the total biomass of colonial epifauna was significantly reduced. As regards muddy habitats, Kaiser et al. (2006) concluded that otter trawling produces a significant, negative, short-term effect, but interestingly there was also a longer-term positive effect on the response variables to this impact. Notwithstanding this, it should also be highlighted that the North Sea has been intensively fished over the last century with heavier fishing gears, and its habitat has been altered completely. Even if all fisheries in the area were to cease, fully recovery to its pre-existing state would not be expected. It is highly likely that some VME have been destroyed in the past, however there is no evidence of any
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 127
The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the PI 2.4.1 governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. significant loss in terms of productivity, nutrients cycling or fisheries productivity. In any case, recovery of seapens is expected to take less than 20 years. The team considers that it is unlikely that the seasonal bottom trawl Norway pout fishery (UoC 4), which fulfills the management measures in place, reduces structure and function of the VME habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. SG60 is granted. The high area of overlap prevent the UoC from achieving a higher score. As regards pelagic gears (UoC 5), this UoC would achieve SG100 as interactions with the seafloor are not expected. c Minor habitat status Guidep There is evidence that ost the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the minor habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. UoC 4 N UoC 5 Y Justific According to ation Figure 20 on major substrates in the North Sea seafloor, fishing grounds are mainly formed by sandy and muddy bottoms. However, there are also some minor coarse sediments habitats and rocky areas overlapping with the UoCs. As the team can’t provide evidence that the bottom trawl gear (UoC 4) is highly unlikely to reduce the structure and function of these habitats, SG100 is not met for UoC 4. On the contrary, pelagic gears would achieve SG100 as the evidence would be based on the lack of interactions with the seafloor. UoC 5 meets SG100. VMS maps OSPAR threatened habitats maps Meenakumari, B., Bhagirathan, U. and Pravin, P. Impact of Bottom Trawling on Benthic Communities: A Review. Fishery Technology 2008, Vol. 45(1) pp: 1 – 22. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259979122_Impact_of_bottom_trawli References ng_on_benthic_communities_a_review Kaiser et al, 2006. Gordon et al, 2002. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/336797.pdf Hiddink J.G., Jennings S., and Kaiser M.J (2006). Indicators of the Ecological Impact of Bottom-Trawl Disturbance on Seabed Communities. Ecosystems (2006) 9: 1190– 1199. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10021-005- 0164-9.pdf OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 4 70 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 5 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): for UoC 4 and UoC 6. 2
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 128
Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.2 – Habitats management strategy There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not PI 2.4.2 pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Management strategy in place Guidep There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in ost place, if necessary, that strategy in place, if place for managing the are expected to achieve necessary, that is impact of all MSC the Habitat Outcome 80 expected to achieve the UoAs/non-MSC fisheries level of performance. Habitat Outcome 80 level on habitats. of performance or above. UoC 4 Y N N UoC 5 Y Y N Justific The Norwegian MAREANO program, which maps depth, topography, sediment ation composition, contaminants, biotopes and habitats in Norwegian waters, serves as a valuable tool to manage habitat types in Norwegian waters, and has helped to establish no fishing zones in Norwegian waters, which were designed mainly to protect cold corals which are mostly located near the shore line, with the exception of two protected areas in more open waters. The mandatory VMS in place serves to verify that these regulations are followed. As regards fishing grounds which do not fall under the Norwegian jurisdictions, these are studied by the European’s Union Natura Directive (http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/# ), the OSPAR Commission ( www.ospar.org ) and the Mapping European Seabed Habitats portal ( www.searchmesh.net ). These areas are protected by the Habitats and Nature 2000 Directives in waters which fall under the EU jurisdiction (see
Figure 21 ). Both the Norwegian and the European Union management tools have designated protected areas for the protection of sensitive habitats in their respective waters.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 129
There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not PI 2.4.2 pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. Norwegian and EU enforcement systems, along with the mandatory use of VMS in the fishing fleet, serve to assure the accomplishment of these regulations. The research undertaken in the status of benthic habitats along with the establishment of protected areas, some of which are specifically designated to protect burrowed mud and seapens, such as the Central Fladen MPA in UK waters (designated by Central Fladen MPA Order 2014(b); in force from 7 Aug. 2014, but without enforced management measures as yet), could serve to support that there is a partial strategy in place (that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above) if management and enforcement measures were already implemented. But as mentioned, some of the MPAs in the area (such as the central area of the Fladen Ground and the Dogger Bank) are not yet fully well managed, as there are no site-specific fisheries management measures to protect seapens and burrowing megafauna in the area. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee has designed a “ Fisheries Management Options Paper ” for the central Fladen Ground. As bottom trawl gears are expected to have an impact on the seafloor (although the design of these gears is now lighter than it was, with no bottom bobbins and the use of heavy rope instead of bottom chain), the team considers that the different management measures in place are sufficient to meet SG60, but the lack of enforced measures in designated protected areas (to protect seapens) prevent the Norway pout (and sprat) bottom trawl fishery from achieving SG80. As mentioned under PI 2.4.1, pelagic gears (UoC 5) are not expected to have an impact on the seafloor, therefore the fishing operation could be considered as a strategy itself to avoid irreversible harm to the seafloor. SG80 is met for pelagic gears. The lack of management measures for specific important habitat areas prevent the UoC from achieving SG100. b Management strategy evaluation Guidep The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high ost considered likely to basis for confidence confidence that the work, based on plausible that the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g. general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on information directly information directly comparison with similar about the UoA and/or about the UoA and/or UoAs/habitats). habitats involved. habitats involved. UoC 4 Y Y N UoC 5 Y Y N Justific All vessels in the UoA carry VMS which serve to monitor their position and ation accomplishment of mandatory regulation measures as regards Marine Protected Areas. There is also direct information as regards fishing closures of certain sandeel fishing areas, which were carried out to protect juveniles of sandeels, but not to protect habitats specifically. However, the team considers that there is some objective basis for confidence that the different measures implemented to protect habitats will work for all gears, including bottom trawls which at present use lighter gears with no bobbins. This is based on the research already undergoing in the North Sea by different research institutions (OSPAR Commission, MAREANO program, JNCC,. ..) but also on the strong enforcement system in the area and the lack of infringements related to MPAs by the Norwegian fleet. All UoC meet SG80. c Management strategy implementation Guidep There is some There is clear ost quantitative evidence quantitative evidence that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented successfully
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 130
There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not PI 2.4.2 pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. implemented and is achieving its successfully. objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a). UoC 4 Y N UoC 5 Y N Justific There is evidence of the establishment of protected areas to protect vulnerable ation benthic species both in Norwegian and European waters. There is also evidence on the enforcement systems taking place in both these jurisdictions, through each European nation enforcement system. The Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries has been consulted in order to know the range of infractions by the Norwegian fleet, and this resulted in an infraction ratio below 5% (for any type of infraction, not only those related to MPAs). There are however still some concerns about management measures/strategy in some vulnerable habitats, such as sea pens and burrowing megafauna abundant in the Fladen Ground. The fact that some vulnerable areas are not protected yet imply that the different measures are only considered as a partial strategy, and not a full strategy under SG100. The team considers that the establishment of MPAs and the enforcement system in the place serve as some quantitative evidence that the partial strategy on protecting main habitat types of the North Sea fishing grounds is successfully implemented. However, as yet there is not clear quantitative evidence that it is being implemented successfully for all habitat types e.g. that closures have led to the recovery of habitats and thus fails to reach SG100. Both UoCs meet SG80. d Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs Guidep There is qualitative There is some There is clear ost evidence that the UoA quantitative evidence quantitative evidence complies with its that the UoA complies that the UoA complies with both its with both its management management management requirements to protect requirements and with requirements and with VMEs. protection measures protection measures afforded to VMEs by afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non- other MSC UoAs/non- MSC fisheries, where MSC fisheries, where relevant. relevant. UoC 4 Y N N UoC 5 Y Y N Justific There is evidence of the establishment of protected areas to protect vulnerable ation benthic species both in Norwegian and European waters. There is also evidence on the enforcement systems taking place in both these jurisdictions, through each European nation enforcement system, and on the Norwegian fleet accomplishing management measures in the area. The Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries has been consulted in order to know the range of infractions by the Norwegian fleet entering MPAs, and these resulted in an infraction ratio below 5% for 2016. There are however some concerns about some other vulnerable habitats, such as sea pens, which are not fully protected in certain areas. The Scottish Fisheries Sustainable Accreditation Group (SFSAG) has voluntary closed an area in the Fladen Ground to bottom trawl fishing for its vessels. This measure is taken to protect seapens (Funiculla spp). This closure will apply until approved at European level. The closure was announced to all vessels in the UoA in May 2017, and will be monitored by Marine Scotland using VMS data. The area could potentially be fished by Norsk Fiskerlag Vessels fishing sandeel, Norway pout and sprat, and Norsk Fiskerlag has not provided the required assurance and SG80 is not met by the Norwegian bottom trawl fleet considered in this assessment. Besides, the team has no information on management requirements that other non-MS fisheries may have implemented in the area.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 131
There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not PI 2.4.2 pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. The mentioned voluntary closed area corresponds to one (the southern) of three areas within the Central Fladen Ground MPA which would be closed to demersal towed gear under Marine Scotland’s proposal. The coordinates of SFSAG’s closed area are as follows (this corresponds exactly to the coordinates given by Marine Scotland for their closed area 3 in the Central Fladen Ground MPA. Marine Scotland, 2017a; Section B in Annex, Table B6): • 58° 59.248' N 000° 08.373' W • 58° 58.226' N 000° 04.475' E • 58° 55.440' N 000° 05.816' E • 58° 51.311' N 000° 06.539' E • 58° 49.143' N 000° 00.170' W • 58° 49.819' N 000° 09.843' W The team considers that there isn’t sufficient quantitative evidence that the UoA complies with both its management requirements, and with protection measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, therefore SG80 is not met by the bottom trawl UoCs. The quantitative evidence given by the lack of infringements in relation to MPA by the bottom trawl fleet serves to justify that the UoC complies with mandatory management requirements to protect VME, therefore SG60 is met for UoC 4. The lack of evidence regarding the impact that UoC4 may have on this voluntary closed area prevents the UoC from achieving SG80. SG80 is not met for UoC 4. The fact that the pelagic gear does not touch the seafloor serves to justify that SG80 is met for UoC 5. The lack of established and enforced management measures in designated MPA prevent the fishery from achieving SG100. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page -4524 http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-6476 http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/Fisheries%20Options%20Paper_Central%20Fladen_ 20150204.pdf References http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/Central_Fladen_Site_Summary_Document_July14. pdf https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/scottish-fisheries-sustainable- accreditation-group-sfsag-north-sea-cod/@@assessments (page 54). OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 4 70 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 5 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Condition 3 for UoCs 1-4 and UoC 6. 3
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 132
Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by PI 2.4.3 the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Information quality Guidep The types and distribution The nature, distribution The distribution of all ost of the main habitats are and vulnerability of the habitats is known over broadly understood . main habitats in the UoA their range, with area are known at a level particular attention to the of detail relevant to the occurrence of vulnerable OR scale and intensity of the habitats. UoA. If CSA is used to score PI OR 2.4.1 for the UoA: If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is Some quantitative adequate to estimate the information is available types and distribution of and is adequate to the main habitats. estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats. UoC 4 Y Y Y UoC 5 Y Y Y Justific The location of all fishing activities can be known thanks to VMS in place. ation There is broad information as regards the distribution of habitat types in the North Sea. This information has been collected through the MAREANO Program, the EU Natura Directive (http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/# ), the OSPAR Commission (www.ospar.org ) and the European Marine Observation and Data Network (http://www.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/ ) with its mapping European Seabed Habitats program. These maps provide information on the type of substrate, the seafloor topography, the biota present in the area, the location of vulnerable habitat types and the physical variables in the area. According to Kaiser et al (2006), Gordon et al (2002) and Meenakumari et al (2008), soft grounds such as muddy and sandy bottoms are expected to recover quickly, and in a timeframe smaller than 5 years once the disturbance is stopped. It is akcnkowledged that the composition of the benthic communities may swift favouring more resilient species, but the overall structure and function of the habitats remains. All UoCs achieve SG100. b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Guidep Information is adequate Information is adequate The physical impacts of ost to broadly understand to allow for identification the gear on all habitats the nature of the main of the main impacts of have been quantified impacts of gear use on the UoA on the main fully. the main habitats, habitats, and there is including spatial overlap reliable information on of habitat with fishing the spatial extent of gear. interaction and on the timing and location of OR use of the fishing gear.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 133
Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by PI 2.4.3 the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. OR If CSA is used to score If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: Some quantitative Qualitative information is information is available adequate to estimate the and is adequate to consequence and spatial estimate the attributes of the main consequence and spatial habitats. attributes of the main habitats. UoC 4 Y Y N UoC 5 Y Y Y Justific VMS maps provide reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction and on ation the timing and location of use of the fishing gears. Information provided by the maps detailed under PI 2.4.3 SI -a serve to identify the UoA’s footprint, and which are the habitats affected by the fishing gears, which for this UoA are mainly muddy and sandy bottoms. Position of closed VMEs is also identified in the bridge’s plotter. The position of closed areas established by other UoAs such as the SFSAG cod fishery is now also known. Precautionary trigger levels of interactions with VME are not set in the North Sea. As regards specific impacts that each gear type has, it is known that trawling activity generates disturbance on any type of sediments. Effects such as bottom damage, seabed relief, sediment sorting and species survival, abundance and recovery have been studied in different research programs. According to Kaiser et al (2006), Gordon et al (2002) and Meenakumari et al (2008), soft grounds such as muddy and sandy bottoms are expected to recover quickly, and in a timeframe smaller than 5 years once the disturbance is stopped. It is akcnkowledged that the composition of the benthic communities may swift favouring more resilient species, but the overall structure and function of the habitats remains. Effects or hard substrate have also been studied and are considered far more harmful. The effect of pelagic gears on sensitive habitats has not been quantified other than by the general observation that such physical impact is avoided by the fishermen as it could generally damage the net, and also by trials of pelagic gears on trial pools showing no interactions with the seafloor. It is therefore considered that sufficient data are available to allow the nature of the impacts of the fishery on habitat types to be identified, and that there is reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction, and the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. Although effects of the bottom trawl gears have been studied in different research papers, its effects in the affected fishing grounds have not been quantified fully yet, although information available should be sufficient to do so. Bottom trawls achieve SG80. The confidence on the lack of interactions between the pelagic trawls and the seafloor serve to quantify these interactions as null. Pelagic trawls achieve SG 100. c Monitoring Guidep Adequate information Changes in habitat ost continues to be collected distributions over time to detect any increase in are measured. risk to the main habitats. UoC 4 Y N
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 134
Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by PI 2.4.3 the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. UoC 5 Y N Justific Information on habitats continues to be collected through the MAREANO Program, ation the EU Natura Directive ( http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/# ), the OSPAR Commission ( www.ospar.org ), the European Marine Observation and Data Network ( http://www.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/ ) with its mapping European Seabed Habitats program and other research institutions such as the Joint Nature Conservation Committee . The combination of VMS maps and habitat maps serve to determine the risk that a fishery may have for the habitat of a certain area. SG80 is met. However, the measure of changes in habitat distributions over time would require of habitat maps on the same area that date back time enough to measure trends. SG100 is not met. VMS maps. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-1586 MAREANO Program EU Natura Directive ( http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/# ) References OSPAR Commission ( www.ospar.org ) European Marine Observation and Data Network ( http://www.emodnet- seabedhabitats.eu/ ) Joint Nature Conservation Committee . OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 4 85 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 5 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 135
Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements PI 2.5.1 of ecosystem structure and function. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Ecosystem status Guidep The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that ost disrupt the key elements unlikely to disrupt the the UoA is highly unlikely underlying ecosystem key elements underlying to disrupt the key structure and function to ecosystem structure and elements underlying a point where there would function to a point where ecosystem structure and be a serious or there would be a serious function to a point where irreversible harm. or irreversible harm. there would be a serious or irreversible harm. UoC 4 Y Y N UoC 5 Y Y N Justific The relationships of forage species such as sandeel, Norway pout and sprat with ation predators of the North Sea have been studied through different models, such as the Mackinson, S. and Daskalov, G., (2007) Ecopath with Ecosim model, the model for trophic interactions in the North Sea for 1981 ( Christensen, V., 1995), the larval transport models for the North Sea (https://odnature.naturalsciences.be/remsem/ecosystem-modelling), and others. These models show that there are other species, such as herring and small gadoids, which also hold the same position in the North Sea trophic chain and share the energy flux of energy through them from the low trophic levels to the high trophic levels. Even though it is recognised that the fishery outputs of these forage species are big, studies show that there is at least the same biomass available for predators in the area (see
Figure 28 , Figure 29 and Figure 30, comparing fisheries output with predators needs). Norway pout and sprat receive biennial ICES advice on fishing opportunities, while sandeel receives annual ICES advice on fishing opportunities. The 3 fisheries under assessment follow these advices. The fact that ICES advices are released taken into account the results of the Stochastic Multispecies Model (SMS Model; Lewy and Vinther, 2004), which take into account the predation needs of other fish species, birds, seals and harbour porpoises, gives confidence that the future needs of these predators will be assured, but would benefit from including marine
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 136
The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements PI 2.5.1 of ecosystem structure and function. mammals in its estimations. The model provides predation mortalities estimates, which are updated every 3 years. The team considers that this will leave sufficient time for stocks of predators to recover (or not became fully depleted), as changes in the forage fish species availability would lead to changes in ICES recommended fishing advice. The prey needs of marine mammals have been taken into account under PI 2.3.1. The North Sea is characterized by episodic changes in the productivity of key components of the ecosystem, described as regime shifts. There have been reports of a shift from pelagic to benthic production. Phytoplankton, zooplankton, and demersal and pelagic fish have all exhibited such cycles in variability, which are also expected for the future (Mackinson, S. and Daskalov, G., 2007). According to (Beaugrand, G., 2004), the cause for the ecosystem regime shift which took place in the North Sea during the period 1982–1988 was likely to be related to pronounced changes in large-scale hydro-meteorological forcing. This serves to justify that the system responds well to ecosystem changes. Besides, catch of all UoCs is very clean, ranging from 72% of targeted Norway pout for the less selective UoC to 99% of targeted sprat for the most selective UoC. Selectivity of the sandeel fishery is 96% of targeted sandeel in the total catch. Given this, the team considers that the UoA 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. The lack of evidence on the minimum impact of the UoA on the ecosystem, and the uncertainties related to the SMS multispecies modelling in which fishing advice is based prevent the fishery from obtaining SG100. SG80 is granted. Beaugrand, G. 2004. The North Sea regime shift: Evidence, causes, mechanisms and consequences. Progress in Oceanography 60. 245-262. http://dx.doi.org.bibezproxy.uca.es:2048/10.1016/j.pocean.2004.02.018 http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2013/2013/mult- References NS.pdf Christensen, V., 1995 Lewy and Vinther, 2004 Mackinson, S. and Daskalov, G., 2007 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 4 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 5 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 137
Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management strategy There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Management strategy in place Guidep There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy that ost place, if necessary which strategy in place, if consists of a plan , in take into account the necessary, which takes place which contains potential impacts of the into account available measures to address all fishery on key elements information and is main impacts of the of the ecosystem. expected to restrain UoA on the ecosystem, impacts of the UoA on and at least some of the ecosystem so as to these measures are in achieve the Ecosystem place. Outcome 80 level of performance. UoC 4 Y Y N UoC 5 Y Y N Justific Both Norwegian waters and European waters are subject to management ation measures which seek both profit from the fishery and the protection of the fishing resources. This is done by the establishment of fishing quotas, mesh limitations, closed areas, enforcement effort, landing obligation, and continue monitoring of many species present in the ecosystem. Both the Norwegian Marine Resources Act and the European Common Fisheries Policy are established strategies which should address all main impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem. Both strategies base their measures on data gathered through different research institutions (including IMR), ICES advice on fish stocks (which is based on SMS modelling, which includes prey-predator relationships), ICES Advisory Committee on Ecosystems (ACE) and habitat mapping programs (MAREANO Programme ), OSPAR Commission ( www.ospar.org ), EU Natura Directive ( http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/#) and the Mapping European Seabed Habitats portal ( www.searchmesh.net .)), inter alia. There are fishery biological and technical conservation measures for safeguarding stocks and managing fisheries and the interactions with other animals, such as the “Firth of Forth” closure for the sandeel fishery in order to protect kittiwake predators, the “sprat box” closure to protect juveniles of herring, or the “Norway pout box”, introduced in 1977 in north-east Scotland where fisheries with small-meshed trawls were banned. In the Norwegian economic zone, the Patch Bank was closed permanently in 2002, and in 2008 the fishing season was restricted. Furthermore, legislation is in place to protect species and habitats under the Habitats and Birds Directives, OSPAR, BONN Convention, BERN Convention and CITES as well as various EC fisheries regulations and Norway ‐EU agreements. All management measures are backed up by a rigorous enforcement regime. The team considers that all these management measures conform a partial strategy for the North Sea, however, as there is no specific management plan for the entire North Sea ecosystem with a clear formulated objective, the team considers that SG100 is not met. SG80 is met. b Management strategy evaluation Guidep The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high ost considered likely to work, basis for confidence confidence that the based on plausible that the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g., general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on some information information directly about directly about the UoA
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 138
There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. comparison with similar and/or the ecosystem the UoA and/or fisheries/ ecosystems). involved ecosystem involved UoC 4 Y Y N UoC 5 Y Y N Justific The comprehensive collection of information of fish stocks, fishing removals, the ation research undertaken by different research institutions, ICES annual or biennial advice of fishing options, the information obtained from the different North Sea ecosystem models, along with an effective enforcement system, and the fishing closures of certain areas to prevent depletion of other stocks, serve as an objective basis that the partial strategy will work. The lack of testing on this strategy, the lack of protection on vulnerable ecosystems such as sea pens and burrowing megafauna associated to the Norway pout fishery, and the number of predators of the forage species prevent the fishery from gaining SG100. SG80 is met. c Management strategy implementation Guidep There is some evidence There is clear evidence ost that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully successfully . and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). UoC 4 Y N UoC 5 Y N Justific The different measures have been implemented through different means, for a ation considerable period so far. These means include banning bycatch, the obligation of the use of VMS, regulating closed areas both for the protection of juveniles and for the protection of vulnerable habitats, establishing procedures for the weighing and sampling of landings, promoting marine research, establishing quotas for different marine stocks in accordance with marine research, and establishment a strong enforcement system through the Directorate of Fisheries and the EU fisheries inspections bodies that assure the accomplishment of the different measures. Infringements are reported to be negligible. However, the team considers that this partial strategy is not addressing all main impacts of the fishery on the UoA, as at present there are large areas with identified OSPAR threatened species which at present are not protected. SG80 is met. https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/multi_annual_plans_en Norwegian Marine Resources Act European Common Fisheries Policy Birds and Habitats Directives Marine Strategy Framework Directive, ICES advice References ICES Advisory Committee on Ecosystems (ACE) MAREANO Programme OSPAR Commission ( www.ospar.org ), EU Natura Directive ( http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/#) Mapping European Seabed Habitats portal ( www.searchmesh.net .) Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals ( Bonn Convention ).
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 139
There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats ( Bern Convention ). CITES OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 4 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 5 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 140
Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.3 – Ecosystem information There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the PI 2.5.3 ecosystem. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Information quality Guidep Information is adequate Information is adequate ost to identify the key to broadly understand elements of the the key elements of the ecosystem. ecosystem. UoC 4 Y Y UoC 5 Y Y Justific Key elements of the ecosystem, such as primary and secondary productivity, and ation predator-prey relationships, have been studied through different ecosystem models in the North Sea, such as the Ecopath and Ecosim model by Mackinson, S. and Daskalov, G., (2007), a model for trophic interactions in the North Sea for 1981 ( Christensen, V., 1995), larval transport models for the North Sea or the North Sea Stochastic Multispecies Model (SMS Model; Lewy and Vinther, 2004), in which ICES species advice is based. The North Sea ecosystem, where the fishery takes place, is studied by ICES on a continuous basis and described in the 2016 Greater North Sea Ecosystem overview. The status of ETP species, seabirds and marine mammals is also described in this ecosystem overview. Information from all these studies is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem in the North Sea. SG80 is met. b Investigation of UoA impacts Guidep Main impacts of the UoA Main impacts of the UoA Main interactions ost on these key ecosystem on these key ecosystem between the UoA and elements can be inferred elements can be inferred these ecosystem from existing information, from existing information, elements can be inferred but have not been and some have been from existing information, investigated in detail. investigated in detail . and have been investigated in detail . UoC 4 Y Y N UoC 5 Y Y N Justific The different models and projects mentioned in SIa serve to describe main impacts ation and interactions between the UoCs and the different ecosystem elements, such as fishery biomass removal, trophic interactions and prey relationships or impacts on the seabed. But there is still little information as regards the impact the fishery may have in some minor secondary species or in not protected vulnerable habitats. The team also agrees that main predator-prey interactions between the forage fish and the dependent predators have been studied, however, it also considers that the stomach content data in which predators preferences and predation mortalities are based, might be dated. An update on stomach content research would make ICES advices more robust. SG80 is met. c Understanding of component functions Guidep The main functions of the The impacts of the UoA on ost components (i.e., P1 P1 target species, target species, primary, primary, secondary and secondary and ETP ETP species and Habitats species and Habitats) in are identified and the
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 141
There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the PI 2.5.3 ecosystem. the ecosystem are main functions of these known . components in the ecosystem are understood . UoC 4 Y Y UoC 5 Y Y Justific Impacts of the fishery on target, primary, secondary and ETP species are ation quantified and monitored. Moreover, the catch of all fishing vessels (regardless to which UoC they belong) is always pumped on board and loaded inside fish tanks. The crew has no access to these fish tanks and all the catch is landed, weighed and sampled at the authorized landing ports. Different ecosystem models (mentioned in SIa) provide a broad knowledge of the impacts that the fishery has on the targeted species and dependent pre dators. Although not all interactions have been investigated in detailed, there is sufficient information to understand the main functions of these components in the ecosystem. SG100 is met. d Information relevance Guidep Adequate information is Adequate information is ost available on the impacts available on the impacts of the UoA on these of the UoA on the components to allow components and some of the main elements to allow the consequences for the main consequences for ecosystem to be inferred. the ecosystem to be inferred. UoC 4 Y N UoC 5 Y N Justific Available information gathered by landing records and sampling, research ation investigation and ecosystem modelling is considered adequate to allow some of the main consequences for the ecosystem. For the pelagic gears, there are less components and elements to consider, as no impacts on benthic habitats are expected. The main consequences of pelagic fishing for the ecosystem can be inferred from existing trophic models. However, the impact of bottom trawlers on certain habitats (such as sea pens in the Norway pout fishery) are at present not fully identified nor quantified. The team considers that present information on bottom trawl impacts on components and elements is not sufficient to grant SG100. SG80 is met. e Monitoring Guidep Adequate data continue Information is adequate ost to be collected to detect to support the any increase in risk level. development of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. UoC 4 Y N UoC 5 Y N Justific Detailed information is obtained through landing obligation, landing records and ation sampling, VMS tracks on fishing grounds, ICES advice on different fishing stocks, IMR research trips, monitoring of marine mammals and bird populations, studies
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 142
There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the PI 2.5.3 ecosystem. on climate cha nge impacts , sampling on benthic communities and mapping of the North Sea seabed, along with the enforcement system and monitoring of protected areas, are considered to provide adequate information to detect any increase in risk levels. SG80 is met. However, the fact that ICES advices rely on the SMS Model, and that the stomach content used to calculate the different inter-species interaction coefficients is becoming dated, rests credibility to the results obtained. It is considered that these coefficients should be re-evaluated with new stomach samplings in order to support the development of strategies to manage the ecosystem impacts of the reduction fisheries. SG100 is not met. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research ( NINA ) IMR Institute for Marine Research
References Norwecom.E2E project. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/Greater _North_Sea_Ecoregion-Ecosystem_overview.pdf ICES 2016 Ecosystem overview of the Greater North Sea Ecoregion. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 4 85 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 5 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 143
Principle 2 UoC 6-8 UoC 6: Sprat in the North Sea (IV), with bottom trawl. UoC 7: Sprat in the North Sea (IV), with midwater trawl. UoC 8: Sprat in the North Sea (IV), with purse seine. Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not PI 2.1.1 hinder recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Main primary species stock status Guidep Main primary species are Main primary species are There is a high degree ost likely to be above the PRI highly likely to be above of certainty that main the PRI primary species are above the PRI and are OR OR fluctuating around a level If the species is below the consistent with MSY. PRI, there is either If the species is below the evidence of recovery or PRI, the UoA has a demonstrably effective measures in place that strategy in place are expected to ensure between all MSC UoAs that the UoA does not which categorise this hinder recovery and species as main , to rebuilding. ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. UoC 6 Y Y Y UoC 7 Y Y Y UoC 8 Y Y Y Justific According to MSC CRv2 SA3.1.3.3, primary species are those where management ation tools and measures are in place, intended to achieve stock management objectives reflected in either limit or target reference points. Main primary species would be those comprising 5% or more of the total catch (per gear), or those less resilient species comprising more than 2% of the catch (MSC CR v2 SA 3.4.2.2). The sprat fishery is a very clean one, regardless the gear used, and more than 99% of the catch in any of these three UoC is the targeted sprat. Therefore, and according to catch data shown in Table 22, there are no main primary species to consider for these UoCs. According to FCR SA 3.2.1, if a team determines that a UoA has no impact on a particular component, it shall receive a score of 100 under the Outcome PI. SG100 is granted. b Minor primary species stock status Guidep Minor primary species are ost highly likely to be above the PRI OR If below the PRI, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of minor primary species UoC 6 N UoC 7 N UoC 8 N
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 144
The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not PI 2.1.1 hinder recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. Justific The targeted sprat comprises more than 99% of the total catch in each UoC. The ation pending 1% is comprised by different minor primary species, which are:
- for UoC 6: blue whiting, cod, haddock, horse mackerel, mackerel, North Sea herring, Norway pout, plaice, whiting and witch.
- for UoC 7: horse mackerel, mackerel, North Sea herring, Norway pout, whiting and witch.
- for UoC 8: Mackerel and North Sea herring. Of all those species, and according to ICES 2016 advice, the stocks of haddock, horse mackerel, and witch are below MSY Btrigger, but the low quantities of these species taken by the different UoCs should serve to asseverate that the UoA does not hinder the recovery of these species. However, some concerns on the possibility of slippage of the catch taking place in the sprat fishery were brought to the attention of the assessment team during the site visit. Two different stakeholders mentioned the possibility of sporadic slippage of an entire haul due to North Sea herring or mackerel acting as choke species, due to the quota set on them. Both species have been considered as minor primary species according to official landing records, as they represent less than 5% of the total catch. Besides, it was also mentioned that the difficulty in distinguish small herring from sprat could difficult the reliability on landing records. The team considers that the possibility of slippage occurring in the catch should prevent the sprat fishery from achieving SG100 at this guidepost.
ICES gives catch advice for all minor primary species. Here is a summary of the stock status for each species: Blue whiting: the spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has increased since 2010 and is above MSY Btrigger. Fishing mortality (F) has also increased from a historical low in 2011 to above FMSY since 2014. Blue whiting was only taken by UoC 6, which landed 50 kg during 2016. UoC 7 and 8 did not land any blue whiting. Cod: Fishing mortality (F) has been declining since 2000 and is estimated to be above FMSY. Spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has increased from the historical low in 2006 and is close to MSY Btrigger. UoC 6 caught 49 kg of cod in 2016. UoC 7 and 8 didn’t catch any cod. Haddock: Fishing mortality (F) is above FMSY and spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has fallen below MSY Btrigger. UoC 6 landed 50 kg in 2016. UoC 7 and 8 did not catch any haddock in 2016. Horse mackerel: In recent years, SSB has been declining and is currently below MSY Btrigger. Fishing mortality has increased since 2007 and is currently just below FMSY. UoC 6 caught 5 tonnes during 2016, UoC 7 caught 8 tonnes, and UoC 8 did not catch any horse mackerel during 2016. Mackerel: The spawning-stock biomass (SSB) is estimated to have increased since the early 2000s and has been above MSY Btrigger since 2009. The fishing mortality (F) has been declining from high levels in the mid-2000s but remains above FMSY. UoC 6 landed 10 tonnes, UoC 7 landed 9 tonnes and UoC 8 landed 0.5 tonnes in 2016. North Sea herring: The spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has been above MSY Btrigger since 2009. Fishing mortality (F) has been below FMSY since 1996. UoC 6 landed 39 tonnes, UoC 7 landed 21 toones and UoC 8 landed 1 ton during 2016. Norway pout: The stock size is highly variable from year to year. In 2016, stock size has increased and is above Bpa. Fishing mortality has been below the long-
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 145
The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not PI 2.1.1 hinder recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. term average F since 1995. UoC 7 landed 0,8 tonnes in 2016. There were no landings by UoC 6 and 8. Plaice: The combined North Sea and Skagerrak stock is well above MSY Btrigger, and has increased in the past ten years. In recent years, fishing mortality (F) has been estimated at around FMSY. UoC 6 landed 100 kg of plaice during 2016. There were no catches by UoC 7 and 8. Whiting: Spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has fluctuated around MSY Btrigger. And is now just above Btrigger. Fishing mortality (F) has been above FMSY throughout the time-series, but below Fpa since 2002. UoC 6 landed 14 tonnes of whiting during 2016 while UoC 7 landed 13 tonnes in 2016. There were no landings by UoC 8. Witch: Reference points are not defined for witch. The abundance index shows a declining trend after 2000, but the index is much higher in 2014– 2015. UoC 6 landed 1,5 tonnes and UoC 7 landed 3 tonnes during 2016. There were no landings by UoC 8. Landing records http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/whb-comb.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/cod-347d.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/had-346a.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/her-47d3.pdf References http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/hom-west.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/mac-nea.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/nop-34-oct.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/ple-nsea.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/whg-47d.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2015/2015/wit-nsea.pdf OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 6 90 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 7 90 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 8 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 146
Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.2 – Primary species management strategy There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and PI 2.1.2 implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Management strategy in place Guidep There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in ost place for the UoA, if strategy in place for the place for the UoA for necessary, that are UoA, if necessary, that is managing main and expected to maintain or expected to maintain or minor primary species. to not hinder rebuilding of to not hinder rebuilding of the main primary species the main primary species at/to levels which are at/to levels which are likely to above the point highly likely to be above where recruitment would the point where be impaired. recruitment would be impaired. UoC 6 Y Y Y UoC 7 Y Y Y UoC 8 Y Y Y Justific The different measures in place, such as gear and mesh size regulations, along ation with the establishment of fishing seasons, move on rules and protected areas are sufficient to be considered as a partial strategy in place which is expected not to hinder the recovery or rebuilding of these species, if necessary. Besides, monitoring of landings serves to monitor any potential increase in the risk for the stock status of primary species. The sprat fishery begins in January, and its length vary depending on different factors. Most catches occur in the Botney gut area, in EU waters. Of all primary species affected by the UoC, blue whiting, horse mackerel, mackerel, and North Sea herring are subject to Norwegian quota. All primary species (apart from witch) are subject to quota when taken in EU waters. All Norwegian vessels are subject to the landing obligation since 1984. As mentioned before, there are no main species to consider in this PI. As regards all other minor primary species, the team considers that the different measures in place, along with the selectivity of the catches (where 99% of the catch for each UoC is the targeted sprat) serve as a strategy for managing all primary species and minimize the associated mortality. SG100 is reached by all UoCs. b Management strategy evaluation Guidep The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high ost considered likely to basis for confidence confidence that the work, based on plausible that the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g., general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on some information information directly about comparison with similar directly about the fishery the fishery and/or species fisheries/species). and/or species involved. involved. UoC 6 Y Y Y UoC 7 Y Y Y UoC 8 Y Y Y
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 147
There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and PI 2.1.2 implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Justific There is reliable information both on the landings and on the stock status state of ation all primary species, as they are regularly monitored by ICES which issues a fishing advice for each of them. The monitoring of the different species and the advice given serve to give confidence to the fishing strategy, as any drop of the stock will easily be noticed, and the advice would result in lower quotas, area closures or specifically designed management plans. The team considers that both these measures along with the fishing strategy, which reaches a high degree of selectivity, with 99% of the catch being the targeted sprat, and hence minimizing the mortality of other species, serve as evidence to support with a high degree of confidence that this strategy will work. c Management strategy implementation Guidep There is some evidence There is clear evidence ost that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully successfully . and is achieving its overall objective as set out in scoring issue (a). UoC 6 Y N UoC 7 Y N UoC 8 Y N Justific All measures mentioned in SGa and SGb (landing obligation, ICES fishing advice, ation establishment of quotas, and gear, areal and temporary restrictions) have been successfully implemented for more than 2 decades now. Besides, the fact that the catch goes is pumped into catch tanks without being sorted on board also serves to give confidence on the verifiability of the sampling of the catch, which is done at the landing ports by registered operators. Sampling information can serve to implement fishing restrictions should these be considered needed. The low proportion of non-target species in the catch, along with the good stock status of most primary species, should serve to conclude that the strategy is achieving its objective of minimizing the mortality of unwanted catch, but the bad status of certain stocks, and the possibility of slippage taking place in the sprat fishery would prevent the fishery from achieving SG100, as it is difficult to determine if the fishing strategy is achieving its objective of not hindering the recovery of these species (mackerel and North Sea herring). All UoCs reach SG80. d Shark finning Guidep It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree ost finning is not taking shark finning is not taking of certainty that shark place. place. finning is not taking place. UoC 6 Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant UoC 7 Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant UoC 8 Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 148
There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and PI 2.1.2 implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Justific ation
e Review of alternative measures Guidep There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial ost potential effectiveness of the potential review of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative measures to practicality of alternative practicality of alternative minimise UoA-related measures to minimise measures to minimise mortality of unwanted UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of catch of main primary unwanted catch of main unwanted catch of all species. primary species and they primary species, and they are implemented as are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. UoC 6 Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant UoC 7 Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant UoC 8 Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justific The sprat fishery is a reduction fishery where all the catch is sold and used for ation producing fish meal and fish oil. Sprat comprises more 99% of the total catch, and the resting 1% is comprised by the different species mentioned in PI 2.1.1. Of those, the highest catch was 39 tonnes of North Sea herring taken by UoC 7, which represents 0.32 % of the total catch for UoC 7. Besides, the stock of North Sea herring is in a good condition. The team considers that the catch of unwanted species of these 3 UoCs can be considered as negligible, and according to SA 3.5.3 decides not to score this PI. Landing records. http://www.fiskeridir.no/ (with management measures) https://www.sildelaget.no/ (with allocated quotas) References http://www.fisheries.no/ (with fishing regulations) https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/tacs_en http://www.fiskeridir.no/English/Fisheries/Real-Time-Closure-RTC OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 1 95 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 2 95 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 3 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 149
Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.3 – Primary species information Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main primary species Guidep Qualitative information is Some quantita tive Quantitative information ost adequate to estimate information is available is available and is the impact of the UoA on and is adequate to adequate to assess the main primary species assess the impact of the with a high degree of with respect to status. UoA on the main primary certainty the impact of species with respect to the UoA on main primary status. species with respect to OR OR status.
If RBF is used to score PI If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: 2.1.1 for the UoA: Some quantitative Qualitative information is information is adequate adeqaute to estimate to assess productivity and productivity and susceptiblity attributes susceptibility attributes for main primary species. for main primary species. UoC 6 Y Y Y UoC 7 Y Y Y UoC 8 Y Y Y Justific The landing obligation, which was implemented in 1984, serves to provide ation quantitative information on the impacts of the fishery in all affected species. The status of many species is evaluated by ICES on an annual basis, so the impact of the UoA on these species with respect to status can be easily evaluated. The ICES International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) in the North Sea, undertaken since the 70’s, contributes to increase the knowledge on the different species in the area. There are no main primary species in the catch composition of these UoCs. Sprat comprises 99% of the total catch of each UoC. It is therefore expected that the impact of the UoA on (non-existing) main primary species is nul. SG100 is granted. b Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor primary species Guidep Some quantitative ost information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor primary species with respect to status. UoC 6 Y UoC 7 Y UoC 8 Y Justific The landing obligation, which was implemented in 1984, serves to provide ation quantitative information on the impacts of the fishery in all affected species. The status of all minor species is evaluated by ICES on an annual basis, so the impact of the UoA on minor primary species with respect to status can be easily evaluated.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 150
Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species The ICES International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) in the North Sea, undertaken since the 70’s, contributes to increase the knowledge on the different species in the area. All UoCs reach SG100. c Information adequacy for management strategy Guidep Information is adequate Information is adequate Information is adequate ost to support measures to to support a partial to support a strategy to manage main primary strategy to manage manage all primary species. main Primary species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. UoC 6 Y Y Y UoC 7 Y Y Y UoC 8 Y Y Y Justific There are no main prim ary species to consider for these UoC s. SG 80 is granted. ation Minor primary species to consider are: blue whiting, cod, haddock, horse mackerel, mackerel, North Sea herring, Norway pout, plaice, whiting and witch. Information collected through landing records along with information on stock status serve to support a strategy to manage main primary species. The good level of information provided by ICES on all minor primary species is considered sufficient to evaluate, with a high degree of certainty, whether the strategy is achieving its objective of not hindering the status of these species. SG100 is achieved. Landing records. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/whb- comb.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/cod- 347d.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/had- 346a.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/her- 47d3.pdf http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/hom- west.pdf References http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/mac- nea.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/nop-34- oct.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/ple- nsea.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/whg- 47d.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2015/2015/wit- nsea.pdf http://ocean.ices.dk/Project/IBTS/
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 151
Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 6 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 7 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 8 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 152
Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.1 – Secondary species outcome The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based PI 2.2.1 limit and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Main secondary species stock status Guidep Main Secondary species Main secondary species There is a high degree ost are likely to be within are highly likely to be of certainty that main biologically based limits. above biologically based secondary species are limits within biologically based limits. OR OR If below biologically based limits, there is If below biologically either evidence of based limits, there are recovery or a measures in place demonstrably effective expected to ensure that partial strategy in place the UoA does not hinder such that the UoA does recovery and rebuilding. not hinder recovery and rebuilding. AND Where catches of a main secondary species outside of biological limits are considerable, there is either evidence of recovery or a, demonstrably effective strategy in place between those MSC UoAs that also have considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. UoC 6 Y Y Y UoC 7 Y Y Y UoC 8 Y Y Y Justific According to MSC CRv2 SA3.1.4, secondary species are those species in the catch ation that are within scope of the MSC program but are not covered under P1 nor P3. Main secondary species would be those comprising 5% or more of the total catch (per gear), or those less resilient species comprising more than 2% of the catch (MSC CR v2 SA 3.4.2.2). According to catch data shown in Table 22, there are no main secondary species to consider for this UoC. FCR SA 3.2.1 states that if a team determines that a UoA has no impact on a particular component, it shall receive a score of 100 under the Outcome PI. SG100 is granted. b Minor secondary species stock status Guidep Minor secondary species ost are highly likely to be above biologically based limits.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 153
The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based PI 2.2.1 limit and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. OR If below biologically based limits’, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of secondary species UoC 6 Y UoC 7 Y UoC 8 Y Justific Minor secondary species to consider are: grey gu rnard for both UoC 6 (21 tonnes) ation and UoC 7 (4.1 tonnes), and squid for UoC 7 (70 kg). There are no minor secondary species for UoC 8. The catch of each one of these species comprises far less than 1% of the total catch of UoCs 6 and 7. There is no ICES advice on squid. As regards ICES advice for grey gurnard, the time-series of mature biomass index shows a strong increase from the beginning of 1990s and has since fluctuated on a high level. There are no reference points defined for the stock. Species misidentification and reporting of gurnard groups continues to be a problem in estimating the landings and discards of grey gurnard. In addition, discarding is estimated to be high. ICES advises that landings should be no more than 1763 tonnes for 2017. The team considers that the small catches taken by UoC 6 and UoC 7 can be considered low enough not to hinder the recovery of grey gunard and squid. All UoCs achieve SG100. Landing records References http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/gug- 347d.pdf OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 6 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 7 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 8 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 154
Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.2 – Secondary species management strategy There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species PI 2.2.2 and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Management strategy in place Guidep There are measures in There is a part ial There is a strategy in ost place, if necessary, which strategy in place, if place for the UoA for are expected to maintain necessary, for the UoA managing main and minor secondary species. or not hinder rebuilding of that is expected to
main secondary species maintain or not hinder at/to levels which are rebuilding of main highly likely to be within secondary species at/to biologically based limits levels which are highly or to ensure that the UoA likely to be within does not hinder their biologically based limits recovery. or to ensure that the UoA does not hinder their recovery. UoC 6 Y Y Y UoC 7 Y Y Y UoC 8 Y Y Y Justific There are no main secondary species to consider. SG80 is reached. There aren’t ation either any minor species to consider for UoC 8, which reaches SG100. As regards minor secondary species for UoC 6 and UoC 7, the team considers that the different measures in place (such as landing obligation, gear and mesh size regulations, along with the establishment of fishing seasons, move on rules and protected areas), along with the selectivity of the catches (where 99% of the catch for each UoC is the targeted sprat) serve as a strategy for managing all secondary species and minimize the associated mortality. SG100 is reached by all UoCs. b Management strategy evaluation Guidep The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high ost considered likely to basis for confidence confidence that the work, based on plausible that the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g. general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on some information information directly about comparison with similar directly about the UoA the UoA and/or species UoAs/species). and/or species involved. involved. UoC 6 Y Y Y UoC 7 Y Y Y UoC 8 Y Y Y Justific There is reliable information on the landings thanks to the landing obligation. ation Besides, ICES provides advice for grey gunard, which is nearly the only minor secondary species to consider (there were also 70 kg of squid landed by UoC 6 during 2016). The monitoring of catch composition and the advice given serve to give confidence to the fishing strategy, as any drop of the stock will easily be noticed, and the advice would result in lower quotas, area closures or specifically designed management plans.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 155
There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species PI 2.2.2 and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Th e team considers that both these measures along with the fishing strategy, which reaches a high degree of selectivity, with 99% of the catch being the targeted sprat, and hence minimizing the mortality of other species, serve as evidence to support with a high degree of confidence that this strategy will work. c Management strategy implementation Guidep There is some evidence There is clear evidence ost that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully successfully . and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). UoC 6 Y Y Y UoC 7 Y Y Y UoC 8 Y Y Y Justific All measures mentioned in SGa and SGb (landing obligation, ICES fishing advice ation and gear, areal and temporary restrictions) have been successfully implemented for more than 2 decades now. Besides, the fact that the catch goes is pumped into catch tanks without being sorted on board also serves to give confidence on the verifiability of the sampling of the catch, which is done at the landing ports by registered operators. Sampling information can serve to implement fishing restrictions should these be considered needed. The sprat fishery is so clean that 99% of the catch is the targeted species. Catches of secondary species (grey gunard and squid) remain very low, but there are no regional specific measures to manage any of them. ICES advice on grey gunard specifically mentions that discarding of grey gunard in the North Sea is estimated to be high, and that species misidentification and reporting of gurnard groups continues to be a problem in estimating the landings and discards of grey gurnard in the North Sea. Notwithstanding this, landing obligation was implemented in Norway in 1984 and there is reliable information on the quantities of the species taken by the UoCs. The team considers that measures such as the landing obligation and gear, areal and temporary restrictions are successfully implemented, and the evidence that is achieving its objective of minimizing mortality of unwanted catch is given by the fact that 99% of the catch is the targeted species, leaving less than 1% being unwanted catch. All UoCs reach SG100. d Shark finning Guidep It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree ost finning is not taking shark finning is not taking of certainty that shark place. place. finning is not taking place. UoC 6 Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant UoC 7 Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant UoC 8 Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 156
There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species PI 2.2.2 and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Justific [Scoring issue need not be scored if no secondary species are sharks]. ation There are no sharks in the catch composition. e Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch Justific There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial ation potential effectiveness of the potential review of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative measures to practicality of alternative practicality of alternative minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted measures to minimise measures to minimise catch of main secondary UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of species. unwanted catch of main unwanted catch of all secondary species and secondary species, and they are implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. UoC 6 Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant UoC 7 Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant UoC 8 Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Guidep The sprat fishery is a reduction fishery where all the catch is sold and used for ost producing fish meal and fish oil. Sprat comprises more 99% of the total catch, and the resting 1% is comprised by different minor primary and secondary species. The highest catch of a secondary species was 21 tonnes of grey gunard taken by UoC 6, which represents 0.17% of the total catch for that UoC. The team considers that the catch of unwanted species of these 3 UoCs can be considered as negligible, and according to SA 3.5.3 decides not to score this PI. Landing recods. References ICES advice for grey gunard. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 6 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 7 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 8 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 157
Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.3 – Secondary species information Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is PI 2.2.3 adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on main secondary species Guidep Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information ost adequate to estimate information is available is available and the impact of the UoA on and adequate to adequate to assess the main secondary assess the impact of the with a high degree of species with respect to UoA on main secondary status. species with respect to certainty the impact of OR status. the UoA on main If RBF is used to score OR secondary species with PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score respect to status. Qualitative information is PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: adequate to estimate Some quantitative productivity and information is adequate susceptibility attributes to assess productivity and for main secondary susceptibility attributes species. for main secondary species. UoC 6 Y Y Y UoC 7 Y Y Y UoC 8 Y Y Y Justific The landing obligation, which was implemented in 1984, serves to provide ation quantitative information on the impacts of the fishery in most affected species. The ICES International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) in the North Sea, undertaken since the 70’s, also contributes to increase the knowledge on the different species in the area. Accurate quantitative information on the landings by the UoCs, showing that there are no main secondary species in the catch composition of these UoCs as sprat comprises 99% of the total catch of each UoC, serves to assess with a high degree of certainty that the impact of the UoA on (non-existing) main secondary species is nul. SG100 is granted. b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species Guidep Some quantitative ost information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor secondary species with respect to status. UoC 6 Y UoC 7 Y UoC 8 Y Justific The minor species to consider are grey gunard (for UoC 6 and UoC 7) and squid ation (for UoC 6). The landing obligation, which was implemented in 1984, serves to provide quantitative information on the impacts of the fishery in all affected species. The status of grey gunard is evaluated by ICES, so the impact of the UoA on the stock could be easily evaluated. Landings of squid by UoC 6 were 70 kg during 2016, and the impact of the UOC on the stock is not considered relevant.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 158
Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is PI 2.2.3 adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. The ICES International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) in the North Sea, undertaken since the 70’s, also contributes to increase the knowledge on the different species in the area. All UoCs reach SG100. c Information adequacy for management strategy Guidep Information is adequate Information is adequate Information is adequate ost to support measures to to support a partial to support a strategy to manage main secondary strategy to manage manage all secondary species. main secondary species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective . UoC 6 Y Y Y UoC 7 Y Y Y UoC 8 Y Y Y Justific There are no main second ary species to consider for these UoC s. SG 80 is granted. ation There are no minor secondary species for UoC 8, which reaches SG100. Minor secondary species to consider are grey gunard and squid. Information collected through landing records along with information on grey gunard stock status serves to support a strategy to manage these species. The good level of information and the low catches of secondary species serve as evidence that the strategy is already achieving its objective. SG 100 is granted for all UoC. Landing records. References ICES advice on grey gunard. http://ocean.ices.dk/Project/IBTS/ OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 6 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 7 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 8 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 159
Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome The UoA meets national and international requirements for the PI 2.3.1 protection of ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Effects of the UoA on population/stock within national or international limits, where applicable Guidep Where national and/or Where national and/or Where national and/or ost international international international requirements set limits requirements set limits requirements set limits for ETP species, the for ETP species, the for ETP species, there is a effects of the UoA on the combined effects of high degree of population/stock are the MSC UoAs on the certainty that the known and likely to be population/stock are combined effects of within these limits. known and highly likely the MSC UoAs are within to be within these limits. these limits. UoC 6 Y Y Y UoC 7 Y Y Y UoC 8 Y Y Y Justific Landing obligation would require vessels to land any dead animal, regardless it ation being ETP species or not. Landing records show that the sprat fishery has some, but very limited, effect on ETP species such as spurdogs. UoC 6 landed 49 kg of spurdogs during 2016 (which accounts for 0.0004% of the UoC total catch). There were no ETP landings by UoC 7 and UoC 8. Other UoC under assessment, such as UoC 4, landed 780 kg of eels during 2016 (accounting for 0.002% of the UoC total catch). According to Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007 of 18 September 2007 establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of European eel, all directed fishing for eel is prohibited and catches should be kept as close to zero as possible in all European waters. As regards spurdog, the allocated quota by all EU countries is zero. Directed fisheries are prohibited and catches should be kept to minimum. This is in corcondance with ICES 2016 for each one of these species. The DFPO and DPPO sandeel, Norway pout and sprat fisheries also showed no direct effects on ETP species for 2014. According to these data, the team considers that there is a high degree of certainty that the combined effects of the different UoCs on ETP populations are within national and international limits. SG 100 is granted for both UoCs. b Direct effects Guidep Known direct effects of Known direct effects of There is a high degree of ost the UoA are likely to not the UoA are highly likely confidence that there are hinder recovery of ETP to not hinder recovery no significant detrimental species. of ETP species. direct effects of the UoA on ETP species. UoC 6 Y Y N UoC 7 Y Y N UoC 8 Y Y N Justific Landing obligation, which was implemented in Norway in 1984, would require ation vessels to land any dead animal, regardless it being ETP species or not. Landing records show 780 kg of eels landed by UoC 4 and 49 kg of spurdog landed by UoC 6, all of which accounts for a negligible proportion of catch for each UoC. The DFPO and DPPO sandeel, Norway pout and sprat fisheries also showed no direct effects on ETP species for 2014. Interactions with marine mammals are normally avoided by fishermen, as this would result in damage to the nets. Interviews with different stakeholders (fishermen, the Coast Guard and the Marine Research Institute) all
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 160
The UoA meets national and international requirements for the PI 2.3.1 protection of ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species concluded that direct interactions with birds or marine mammals only occur very rarely. The team considers that, according to landing records by the fleet, it is highly likely that the UoA is not hindering the recovery of ETP species, therefore SG80 is met. However, the team considers that the eel catch taken by UoC 4 (780 kg, which can range from over 150 adults to over 1.5 million alevins), the uncertainty on the stage of those individuals at the moment of the catch, and the poor condition of the stock, would prevent all UoCs in the UoA from achieving SG100. c Indirect effects Guidep Indirect effects have been There is a high degree of ost considered and are confidence that there are thought to be highly no significant detrimental likely to not create indirect effects of the unacceptable impacts. fishery on ETP species. UoC 6 Y N UoC 7 Y N UoC 8 Y N Justific Indirect effects on ETP populations would be those caused as results of interactions ation with the fishing gear (such as injuries, which are difficult to quantify) or those related to the reduction of prey availability for prey species. Such indirect effects are normally taken into account in the management plans by increasing the natural mortality in the assessment to account for the needs of higher trophic levels. Personal comments by the Institute of Marine Research in Bergen reported that marine mammals are normally taken into account on catch advice, but they could not asseverate the same for bird species. There are, however, examples of fishing closures due to indirect effects on bird populations (such as the closure of the fishing grounds by the Firth of Forth to protect kittiwake colonies). The sprat fishery reported some anecdotical fatal interactions with ETP species (spurdogs). As regards non-fatal interactions, Norwegian vessels are obliged to throw back to the sea ETP elasmobranchians when encountered alive, but there are no records of these interactions. The team considers that the characteristics of the fishery make it highly likely that the fishery does not create unacceptable impacts to ETP species. SG80 is met for all UoCs. ICES 201 6 advice on European eel References ICES 2016 advice on spurdog Landing records. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 6 85 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 7 85 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 8 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 161
Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.2 – ETP species management strategy The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.
Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Management strategy in place (national and international requirements) Guidep There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a ost place that minimise the place for managing the comprehensive UoA-related mortality of UoA’s impact on ETP strategy in place for ETP species, and are species, including managing the UoA’s expected to be highly measures to minimise impact on ETP species, likely to achieve mortality, which is including measures to national and international designed to be highly minimise mortality, which requirements for the likely to achieve is designed to achieve protection of ETP species. national and international above national and requirements for the international protection of ETP species. requirements for the protection of ETP species. UoC 6 Y Y N UoC 7 Y Y N UoC 8 Y Y N Justific All UoC covered in this assessment show very small bycatch ratios, with the sprat ation fishery showing the smallest possible bycatch ratios (less than 1% of bycatch for all UoCs). That ratio includes all other species that are not the targeted sprat, this is, it also includes ETP species when relevant. However, catches of ETP species have proven to be minimal for the UoA (780 kg of eel for UoC 4 and 49 kg of spurdog for UoC 6). The DFPO and DPPO sandeel, Norway pout and sprat fisheries also showed no direct effects on ETP species for 2014. The team considers that the fishing strategy is an effective management strategy for minimizing related ETP mortality (as has proven to do so). Another measure in place to protect these species is the obligation to release alive any ETP shark, skate or ray which is still alive when hauled or pumped on board. As these species have a high survival rate, this measure works in minimizing fatalities of these species. As regards regulations to minimize impacts on ETP species, there are different regulations and agreements in place to considers, such as: CITES Annex I and Norwegian red list for endangered species, to which Norway is a signatory party. The EU habitats Directive and the ASCOBANS agreement (to which EU is a signatory party) establish measures to protect certain ETP species in the North Sea. The OSPAR Commission also lists threatened species in the area. The sprat fishery takes place in EU waters, therefore Norwegian vessels are obliged to accomplish both with Norwegian and European regulations. The closure of the sandeel fishery in the vicinity of the Firth of Forth in Scotland serves to prove that, when needed, specific management measures are implemented to protect ETP species. The team considers the different measures in place (fish strategy, releasement of elasmobranchs, national and international legislation) as a strategy to manage the UoA impacts on ETP species, but the lack of a comprehensive strategy specifically
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 162
The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.
Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. designed for the reduction fishery or fishing ar ea prevent the fishery from achieving SG100. SG80 is met for all UoCs. b Management strategy in place (alternative) Guidep There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a ost place that are expected to place that is expected to comprehensive ensure the UoA does not ensure the UoA does not strategy in place for hinder the recovery of hinder the recovery of managing ETP species, to ETP species. ETP species. ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species UoC 6 Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant UoC 7 Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant UoC 8 Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justific Not relevant as SI -a has been evaluated. ation c Management strategy evaluation Guidep The measures are There is an objective The ost considered likely to basis for confidence strategy/comprehensive work, based on plausible that the strategy is mainly based argument (e.g. , general measures/strategy will on information directly experience, theory or work, based on about the fishery and/or comparison with similar information directly species involved, and a fisheries/species). about the fishery and/or quantitative analysis the species involved. supports high confidence that the strategy will work. UoC 6 Y Y N UoC 7 Y Y N UoC 8 Y Y N Justific The minimal fatal interactions with ETP species recorded by the different UoCs, the ation comprehensive landing and reporting system, the follow up that the Directorate of Fisheries carries out when weird data appears in landing records, the data obtained by the reference fleet (which, since 2012, reported 3 fatal interactions per vessel per year with different elasmobranchs, of which only spurdog is an ETP species, and no fatal interactions with other species in Table 25 ), the enforcement carried out by the Directorate of Fisheries, the information on the fisheries general compliance with regulations, and IMR comments on the low probability of interactions of the fishery with marine mammals, serve together to give confidence that this strategy is working on the management of ETP species. The lack of specific knowledge on the status of some ETP species, and the ignorance on specific measures taken by the fishery to avoid these encounters, prevent the fishery from achieving SG100. SG80 is met for all UoCs. Management strategy implementation
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 163
The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.
Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. d Guidep There is some evidence There is clear evidence ost that the that the measures/strategy is strategy/comprehensive being implemented strategy is being successfully. implemented successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a) or (b). UoC 6 Y Y N UoC 7 Y Y N UoC 8 Y Y N Justific The landing obligation, as well as the obligation to release elasmobranchs if alive, ation has been in place for decades now. The habitats Directive (in place in EU waters) was established in 1992, protecting several ETP species. Evidence of implementation could also be provided by small (or nul, for UoC 7 and 8) records of fatal interactions with ETP species. SG80 is granted for all UoC. The lack of known specific measures taken by the fishery to prevent these interactions and the lack of information on updated status of ETP species prevent the UoCs from achieving SG100. e Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species Guidep There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial ost potential effectiveness of the potential review of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative measures to practicality of alternative practicality of alternative minimise UoA-related measures to minimise measures to minimise mortality of ETP species. UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality ETP ETP species and they are species, and they are implemented as implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. UoC 6 Y Y N UoC 7 Y Y N UoC 8 Y Y N Justific Sampling of landings serve to monitor catch composition and provide records of ation species identification and quantities landed. It also serves as a historical collection of ETP fatal interactions caused by the fishing fleet. Data on landings is reviewed by the Directorate of Fisheries which makes a comprehensive follow up of rare species in the catch. The ICES-FAO Working Group on Fishing Technology and Fish Behavior (WGFTFB) studies measurements and observations relating to scientific and commercial fishing gears and fishing behavior (including ETP species) in relation to fishing and discard reduction. The implementation of fishing closures (such as the one in the Firth of Forth, to protect kittiwake nesting sites) also serves to show that measures to protect ETP species are implemented when needed.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 164
The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.
Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. The team considers that there is a regular review of measures to minimize the UoA related mortality of ETP species, so grants SG80 to all UoCs. As the review is not necessarily biennial SG100 is not met. http://www.ices.dk/community/groups/Pages/WGFTFB.aspx References
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 6 l 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 7 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 8 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 165
Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.3 – ETP species information Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3 • Information for the development of the management strategy; • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and • Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Guidep Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information ost adequate to estimate information is adequate is available to assess with the UoA related mortality to assess the UoA a high degree of certainty on ETP species. related mortality and the magnitude of UoA- impact and to determine related impacts, whether the UoA may be mortalities and OR a threat to protection and injuries and the recovery of the ETP consequences for the If RBF is used to score PI species. status of ETP species. 2.3.1 for the UoA: OR If RBF is used to score PI Qualitative information is 2.3.1 for the UoA: adequate to estimate Some quantitative productivity and information is adequate susceptibility attributes to assess productivity and for ETP species. susceptibility attributes for ETP species. UoC 6 Y Y N UoC 7 Y Y N UoC 8 Y Y N Justific There is accurate quantitative information on the UoA related mortality thanks to ation historical landing records (since 1984), which (at least for the past few years) show no fatal interactions with ETP marine mammals or birds (and some minimal fatal interactions with eels and spurdogs by UoC 4 and UoC 6). This information is considered sufficient to determine whether the UoA may (or not) be a threat to the recovery of ETP species. SG80 is met for all UoCs. But the lack of information on injuries of non-fatal interactions or on the consequences for the status of affected ETP species prevent the fishery from achieving SG100, as the impacts and consequences to the status of ETP species due to non-fatal interactions cannot be defined with a high degree of certainty. b Information adequacy for management strategy Guidep Information is adequate Information is adequate Information is adequate ost to support measures to to measure trends and to support a manage the impacts on support a strategy to comprehensive ETP species. manage impacts on ETP strategy to manage species. impacts, minimize mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 166
Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3 • Information for the development of the management strategy; • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and • Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. UoC 6 Y Y N UoC 7 Y Y N UoC 8 Y Y N Justific Landing records (since 1984) would show fatal interaction with protected ETP ation species should this occur. There are also monitoring programs on marine mammals and bird populations. Historical records of landings, together with information from monitoring programs, are considered adequate to measure trends and support strategies to manage impacts on ETP species. However, information on injuries on elasmobranchs or recovery of these after releasement is still missing. The team considers that a better reporting of non-fatal interactions with all ETP species and research conducted to estimate survival rate of released elasmobranchians would benefit the fishery in order to achieve SG100. SG80 is met for all UoCs. References Landing records. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 6 l 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 7 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 8 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 167
Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the PI 2.4.1 governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Commonly encountered habitat status Guidep The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that ost reduce structure and unlikely to reduce the UoA is highly unlikely function of the commonly structure and function of to reduce structure and encountered habitats to a the commonly function of the commonly point where there would encountered habitats to a encountered habitats to a be serious or irreversible point where there would point where there would harm. be serious or irreversible be serious or irreversible harm. harm. UoC 6 Y Y N UoC 7 Y Y Y UoC 8 Y Y Y
Justific Common encountered habitats in the sprat fishery are sandy and muddy bottoms. ation UoC 6 refers to bottom trawlers targeting sprat. Kaiser et al. (2006) concluded that otter trawling produces a significant, negative, short-term effect on muddy habitats, but interestingly there was also a longer-term positive effect on the response variables to this impact. Impacts on muddy and sandy bottoms are considered lighter than on harder bottoms, and the areas easier to recover. According to Meenakumari et al (2008), and Gordon et al (2002) sandy habitats can recover after trawling disturbance in less than 5 years. The foot rope used by Norges Fiskarlager bottom trawlers is relatively light, and without heavy bobbins on it, which gives confidence that the gear is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to the point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. SG80 is granted for UoC 6. UoC 7 and UoC 8 refer to pelagic gears used in the sprat fishery (midwater trawl and purse seine, respectively). It is highly unlikely that pelagic gears have any impact on the seafloor, as this would only happen in case of gear loss, which is un rare event which is avoided when possible by the crew by choosing smooth fishing grounds. If a gear is lost efforts will be made to recover it. As for purse seiners, there is a small chance of some contact of the bottom of the gear in soft grounds such as sand banks (fishermen would avoid contact with hard bottoms as it would damage the net), as there are no limitations on minimum depth to use the purse seine. However, impacts on sedimentary bottoms would have a minimum effect on habitat structure and function, far from being serious or irreversible. The evidence to support the statement that pelagic gears do not reduce the structure and function of habitats encountered (if any), would be the design and testing of pelagic gears on testing pools, which show that interactions with the seafloor are not expected. UoC 7 and UoC 8 would achieve SG100. b VME habitat status Guidep The UoA is unlikely The UoA is highly There is evidence that ost (<40%) to reduce unlikely (<30%) to the UoA is highly unlikely structure and function of reduce structure and to reduce structure and the VME habitats to a function of the VME function of the VME point where there would habitats to a point where habitats to a point where
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 168
The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the PI 2.4.1 governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. be serious or irreversible there would be serious or there would be serious or harm. irreversible harm. irreversible harm.
UoC 6 Y N N UoC 7 Y Y Y UoC 8 Y Y Y Justific All Norwegian vessels have a VMS on board regardless the vessel’s size. This ation serves the Directorate of Fisheries to verify that vessels do not enter Marine Protected Areas. The sprat fishery mainly takes place in the muddy grounds of the Dogger bank, the Oyster ground and the German bight. According to
Figure 21 on MPA protected by the Habitats Directive, there are two MPA in the vicinity of these fishing grounds, but as mentioned above, the VMS on board all vessels should serve to verify that vessels do not enter these areas. Conversations with the Directorate of Fisheries support that there are no infringements in this regard.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 169
The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the PI 2.4.1 governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates.
Figure 22: OSPAR map for threatened or declining habitats. Source: OSPAR Commission.
shows that there are very limited OSPAR threatened areas overlapping with the fishery, mostly hosting seapens. The Central Fladen Nature conservation MPA is specifically designed to protect seapens in the North Sea. Gordon et al. (2002) studied the effects of otter trawling on benthic habitat and communities on Western Bank (where the bottom is mostly sandy with patches of gravel and pebbles). Although not specific to this UoC, results indicated very limited immediate impacts on the benthic community. The structure of the colonial epifaunal assemblage was not affected by repeated trawling over three years. However, the total biomass of colonial epifauna was significantly reduced. As regards muddy habitats, Kaiser et al. (2006) concluded that otter trawling produces a significant, negative, short-term effect, but interestingly there was also a longer-term positive effect on the response variables to this impact. Notwithstanding this, it should also be highlighted that the North Sea has been intensively fished over the last century with heavier fishing gears, and its habitat has been altered completely. Even if all fisheries in the area were to cease, fully recovery to its pre-existing state would not be expected. It is highly likely that some VME have been destroyed in the past, however there is no evidence of any significant loss in terms of productivity, nutrients cycling or fisheries productivity.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 170
The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the PI 2.4.1 governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. In any case, recovery of seapens is expected to take less than 20 years. SG60 is met for the sprat bottom trawl fishery. SG80 is not met. UoC 7 and UoC 8 would achieve SG100 as interactions with the seafloor are not expected. c Minor habitat status Guidep There is evidence that ost the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the minor habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. UoC 6 N UoC 7 Y UoC 8 Y Justific According to Figure 20 on major substrates in the North Sea seafloor, fishing ation grounds are mainly formed by sandy and muddy bottoms. However, there might be some minor coarse sediments habitats overlapping with the UoA fishing grounds. As the team can’t provide evidence that the bottom trawl gear (UoC 6) is highly unlikely to reduce the structure and function of these habitats, SG100 is not met for UoC 6. On the contrary, pelagic gears would achieve SG100 as the evidence would be based on the lack of interactions with the seafloor. UoC 7 and UoC 8 achieve SG100. VMS maps OSPAR threatened habitats maps Kaiser et al, 2006. Gordon et al, 2002. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/336797.pdf Meenakumari, B., Bhagirathan, U. and Pravin, P. Impact of Bottom Trawling on References Benthic Communities: A Review. Fishery Technology 2008, Vol. 45(1) pp: 1 – 22. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259979122_Impact_of_bottom_trawli ng_on_benthic_communities_a_review Hiddink J.G., Jennings S., and Kaiser M.J (2006). Indicators of the Ecological Impact of Bottom-Trawl Disturbance on Seabed Communities. Ecosystems (2006) 9: 1190– 1199. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10021-005- 0164-9.pdf OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 6 70 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 7 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 8 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Condition 2 applies to UoC 4 and UoC 6. 2
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 171
Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.2 – Habitats management strategy There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not PI 2.4.2 pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Management strategy in place Guidep There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in ost place, if necessary, that strategy in place, if place for managing the are expected to achieve necessary, that is impact of all MSC the Habitat Outcome 80 expected to achieve the UoAs/non-MSC fisheries level of performance. Habitat Outcome 80 level on habitats. of performance or above. UoC 6 Y N N UoC 7 Y Y N UoC 8 Y Y N Justific The Norwegian MAREANO program, which maps depth, topography, sediment ation composition, contaminants, biotopes and habitats in Norwegian waters, serves as a valuable tool to manage habitat types in Norwegian waters, and has help to establish no fishing zones in Norwegian waters, which has been designed mainly to protect cold corals which are mostly located near the shore line, with the exception of two protected areas in more open waters. The mandatory VMS in place serves to verify that these regulations are followed. As regards fishing grounds which do not fall under the Norwegian jurisdictions, these are studied by the European’s Union Natura Directive (http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/# ), the OSPAR Commission ( www.ospar.org ) and the Mapping European Seabed Habitats portal ( www.searchmesh.net ). These areas are protected by the Habitats and Nature 2000 Directives in waters which fall under the EU jurisdiction (see
Figure 21 ). Both the Norwegian and the European Union management tools have designated protected areas for the protection of sensitive habitats in their respective waters.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 172
There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not PI 2.4.2 pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. Norwegian and EU enforcement systems, along with the mandatory use of VMS in the fishing fleet, serve to assure the accomplishment of these regulations. The research undertaken in the status of benthic habitats along with the establishment of protected areas could serve to support that there is a partial strategy in place (that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above) if management and enforcement measures were already implemented. However, some of the MPAs in the area (such as the central area of the Fladen Ground and the Dogger Bank) are not yet fully well managed, as there are no site-specific fisheries management measures to protect seapens and burrowing megafauna in the sprat (and Norway pout) fishing grounds. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee has designed a “ Fisheries Management Options Paper ” for the central Fladen Ground. The team considers that although some measures directed to the protection of corals and sponges are already implemented (SG60 is met), there is still lack of management measures afforded to the protection of other VME such as seapens, which would be negatively affected by the use of bottom trawl gears. SG80 is not met by the sprat (and Norway pout) bottom trawl fleet (UoC6). As mentioned under PI 2.4.1, pelagic gears (UoC 7 and UoC 8) are not expected to have an impact on the seafloor, therefore the fishing operation could be considered as a strategy itself to avoid irreversible harm to the seafloor. SG80 is met for UoC 7 and UoC 8. However, the lack of management measures in place for specific important habitat areas prevent all UoC from achieving SG100. b Management strategy evaluation Guidep The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high ost considered likely to basis for confidence confidence that the work, based on plausible that the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g. general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on information directly information directly comparison with similar about the UoA and/or about the UoA and/or UoAs/habitats). habitats involved. habitats involved. UoC 6 Y Y N UoC 7 Y Y N UoC 8 Y Y N Justific All vessels in the UoA carry VMS which serve to monitor their position and ation accomplishment of regulation measures as regards Marine Protected Areas. There is also direct information as regards fishing closures of certain sandeel fishing areas, which were carried out to protect juveniles of sandeels, but not to protect habitats specifically. However, the team considers that there is some objective basis for confidence that the different measures implemented to protect habitats will work for all gears, including bottom trawls which at present use lighter gears with no bobbins. This is based on the research already undergoing in the North Sea by different research institutions (OSPAR Commission, MAREANO program, JNCC, ..) but also on the strong enforcement system in the area and the lack of infringements related to MPAs by the Norwegian fleet. All UoC meet SG80. c Management strategy implementation Guidep There is some There is clear ost quantitative evidence quantitative evidence that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully successfully. and is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a).
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 173
There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not PI 2.4.2 pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. UoC 6 Y N UoC 7 Y N UoC 8 Y N Justific There is evidence of the establishment of protected areas to protect vulnerable ation benthic species both in Norwegian and European waters. There is also evidence on the enforcement systems taking place in both these jurisdictions, through each European nation enforcement system. The Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries has been consulted in order to know the range of infractions by the Norwegian fleet, and this resulted in an infraction ratio below 5% (for any type of infraction, not only those related to MPAs). There are however still some concerns about management measures/strategy in some vulnerable habitats, such as sea pens and burrowing megafauna abundant in the Fladen Ground. The fact that some vulnerable areas are not protected yet imply that the different measures are only considered as a partial strategy, and not a full strategy under SG100. The team considers that the establishment of MPAs and the enforcement system in the place serve as some quantitative evidence that the partial strategy on protecting main habitat types of the North Sea fishing grounds is successfully implemented. However, as yet there is not clear quantitative evidence that it is being implemented successfully for all habitat types e.g. that closures are effectively implemented and have led to the recovery of habitats, it fails to reach SG100. d Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs Guidep There is qualitative There is some There is clear ost evidence that the UoA quantitative evidence quantitative evidence complies with its that the UoA complies that the UoA complies with both its with both its management management management requirements to protect requirements and with requirements and with VMEs. protection measures protection measures afforded to VMEs by afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non- other MSC UoAs/non- MSC fisheries, where MSC fisheries, where relevant. relevant. UoC 6 N N UoC 7 Y N UoC 8 Y N Justific There is evidence of the establishment of protected areas to protect vulnerable ation benthic species both in Norwegian and European waters. There is also evidence on the enforcement systems taking place in both these jurisdictions, through each European nation enforcement system, and on the Norwegian fleet accomplishing management measures in the area. The Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries has been consulted in order to know the range of infractions by the Norwegian fleet entering MPAs, and these resulted in an infraction ratio below 5% for 2016. There are however some concerns about some other vulnerable habitats, such as sea pens, which are not fully protected in certain areas. The Scottish Fisheries Sustainable Accreditation Group (SFSAG) has voluntary closed an area in the Fladen Ground to bottom trawl fishing for its vessels. This measure is taken to protect seapens (Funiculla spp). This closure will apply until approved at European level. The closure was announced to all vessels in the UoA in May 2017, and will be monitored by Marine Scotland using VMS data. The area could potentially be fished by Norsk Fiskerlag Vessels fishing sandeel, Norway pout and sprat, and Norsk Fiskerlag has not provided the required assurance and SG80 is not met by the Norwegian bottom trawl fleet considered in this assessment. Besides, the team has no information on management requirements that other non-MS fisheries may have implemented in the area.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 174
There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not PI 2.4.2 pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. The mentioned voluntary closed area corresponds to one (the southern) of three areas within the Central Fladen Ground MPA which would be closed to demersal towed gear under Marine Scotland’s proposal. The coordinates of SFSAG’s closed area are as follows (this corresponds exactly to the coordinates given by Marine Scotland for their closed area 3 in the Central Fladen Ground MPA. Marine Scotland, 2017a; Section B in Annex, Table B6): • 58° 59.248' N 000° 08.373' W • 58° 58.226' N 000° 04.475' E • 58° 55.440' N 000° 05.816' E • 58° 51.311' N 000° 06.539' E • 58° 49.143' N 000° 00.170' W • 58° 49.819' N 000° 09.843' W The team considers that there isn’t sufficient quantitative evidence that the UoA complies with both its management requirements, and with protection measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, therefore SG80 is not met by the bottom trawl UoCs. The quantitative evidence given by the lack of infringements in relation to MPA by the bottom trawl fleet serves to justify that the UoC complies with mandatory management requirements to protect VME, therefore SG60 is met for UoC 6. The lack of evidence regarding the impact that UoC6 may have on this voluntary closed area prevents the UoC from achieving SG80. SG80 is not met for UoC 6. The fact that the pelagic gear does not touch the seafloor serves to justify that SG80 is met for UoC 7 and UoC8. The lack of established and enforced management measures in designated MPA prevent the fishery from achieving SG100. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page -4524 http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-6476
References http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/Fisheries%20Options%20Paper_Central%20Fladen_ 20150204.pdf http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/Central_Fladen_Site_Summary_Document_July14. pdf OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 6 70 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 7 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 8 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Condition 3 applies to UoCs 1-4 and UoC 6. 3
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 175
Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by PI 2.4.3 the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Information quality Guidep The types and distribution The nature, distribution The distribution of all ost of the main habitats are and vulnerability of the habitats is known over broadly understood . main habitats in the UoA their range, with area are known at a level particular attention to the of detail relevant to the occurrence of vulnerable OR scale and intensity of the habitats. UoA. If CSA is used to score PI OR 2.4.1 for the UoA: If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is Some quantitative adequate to estimate the information is available types and distribution of and is adequate to the main habitats. estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats. UoC 6 Y Y Y UoC 7 Y Y Y UoC 8 Y Y Y Justific The location of all fishing activities can be known thanks to VMS in place. ation There is broad information as regards the distribution of habitat types in the North Sea. This information has been collected through the MAREANO Program, the EU Natura Directive ( http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/# ), the OSPAR Commission (www.ospar.org ) and the European Marine Observation and Data Network (http://www.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/ ) with its mapping European Seabed Habitats program. These maps provide information on the type of substrate, the seafloor topography, the biota present in the area, the location of vulnerable habitat types and the physical variables in the area. According to Kaiser et al (2006), Gordon et al (2002) and Meenakumari et al (2008), soft grounds such as muddy and sandy bottoms are expected to recover quickly, and in a time frame smaller than 5 years once the disturbance is stopped. It is acknkowledged that the composition of the benthic communities may swift favouring more resilient species, but the overall structure and function of the habitats remains. All UoCs achieve SG100. b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Guidep Information is adequate Information is adequate The physical impacts of ost to broadly understand to allow for identification the gear on all habitats the nature of the main of the main impacts of have been quantified impacts of gear use on the UoA on the main fully. the main habitats, habitats, and there is including spatial overlap reliable information on of habitat with fishing the spatial extent of gear. interaction and on the
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 176
Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by PI 2.4.3 the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. OR timing and location of use of the fishing gear. If CSA is used to score OR PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is Some quantitative adequate to estimate the information is available consequence and spatial and is adequate to attributes of the main estimate the habitats. consequence and spatial attributes of the main habitats. UoC 6 Y Y N UoC 7 Y Y Y UoC 8 Y Y Y Justific VMS maps provide reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction and on ation the timing and location of use of the fishing gears. Information provided by the maps detailed under PI 2.4.3 SI -a serve to identify which are the habitats affected by the fishing gears, which for this UoA are mainly muddy and sandy bottoms. Position of closed VMEs is also identified in the bridge’s plotter. The position of closed areas established by other UoAs such as the SFSAG cod fishery is now also known. Precautionary trigger levels of interactions with VME are not set in the North Sea. As regards specific impacts that each gear type has, it is known that trawling activity generates disturbance on any type of sediments. Effects such as bottom damage, seabed relief, sediment sorting and species survival, abundance and recovery have been studied in different research programs. According to Kaiser et al (2006), Gordon et al (2002) and Meenakumari et al (2008), soft grounds such as muddy and sandy bottoms are expected to recover quickly, and in a timeframe smaller than 5 years once the disturbance is stopped. It is acknowledged that the composition of the benthic communities may swift favouring more resilient species, but the overall structure and function of the habitats remains. Effects or hard substrate have also been studied and are considered far more harmful. The effect of pelagic gears on sensitive habitats has not been quantified other than by the general observation that such physical impact is avoided by the fishermen as it could generally damage the net, and also by trials of pelagic gears on trial pools showing no interactions with the seafloor. It is therefore considered that sufficient data are available to allow the nature of the impacts of the fishery on habitat types to be identified, and that there is reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction, and the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. Although effects of the bottom trawl gears have been studied in different research papers, its effects in the affected fishing grounds have not been quantified fully yet, although information available should be sufficient to do so. Bottom trawls achieve SG80. The confidence on the lack of interactions between the pelagic trawls and the seafloor serve to quantify these interactions as null. Pelagic trawls achieve SG 100. Monitoring
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 177
Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by PI 2.4.3 the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. c Guidep Adequate information Changes in habitat ost continues to be collected distributions over time to detect any increase in are measured. risk to the main habitats. UoC 6 Y N UoC 7 Y N UoC 8 Y N Justific Information on habitats continues to be collected through the MAREANO Program, ation the EU Natura Directive ( http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/# ), the OSPAR Commission ( www.ospar.org ), the European Marine Observation and Data Network ( http://www.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/ ) with its mapping European Seabed Habitats program and other research institutions such as the Joint Nature Conservation Committee . The combination of VMS maps and habitat maps serve to determine the risk that a fishery may have for the habitat of a certain area. SG80 is met. However, the measure of changes in habitat distributions over time would require of habitat maps on the same area that date back time enough to measure trends. SG100 is not met. VMS maps. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-1586 MAREANO Program EU Natura Directive ( http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/# ) References OSPAR Commission ( www.ospar.org ) European Marine Observation and Data Network ( http://www.emodnet- seabedhabitats.eu/ ) Joint Nature Conservation Committee . OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 6 85 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 7 95 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 8 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 178
Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements PI 2.5.1 of ecosystem structure and function. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Ecosystem status Guidep The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that ost disrupt the key elements unlikely to disrupt the the UoA is highly unlikely underlying ecosystem key elements underlying to disrupt the key structure and function to ecosystem structure and elements underlying a point where there would function to a point where ecosystem structure and be a serious or there would be a serious function to a point where irreversible harm. or irreversible harm. there would be a serious or irreversible harm. UoC 6 Y Y N UoC 7 Y Y N UoC 8 Y Y N Justific The relationships of forage species such as sandeel, Norway pout and sprat with ation predators of the North Sea have been studied through different models, such as the Mackinson, S. and Daskalov, G., (2007) Ecopath with Ecosim model, the model for trophic interactions in the North Sea for 1981 ( Christensen, V., 1995), the larval transport models for the North Sea (https://odnature.naturalsciences.be/remsem/ecosystem-modelling), and others. These models show that there are other species, such as herring and small gadoids, which also hold the same position in the North Sea trophic chain and share the energy flux of energy through them from the low trophic levels to the high trophic levels. Even though it is recognised that the fishery outputs of these forage species are big, studies show that there is at least the same biomass available for predators in the area (see
Figure 28 , Figure 29 and Figure 30, comparing fisheries output with predators needs). Norway pout and sprat receive biennial ICES advice on fishing opportunities, while sandeel receives annual ICES advice on fishing opportunities. The 3 fisheries under assessment follow these advices. The fact that ICES advices are released taken into account the results of the Stochastic Multispecies Model (SMS Model; Lewy and Vinther, 2004), which take into account the predation needs of other fish species, birds, seals and harbour porpoises, gives confidence that the future needs
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 179
The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements PI 2.5.1 of ecosystem structure and function. of these predators will be assured, but would benefit from including marine mammals in its estimations. The model provides predation mortalities estimates, which are updated every 3 years. The team considers that this will leave sufficient time for stocks of predators to recover (or not became fully depleted), as changes in the forage fish species availability would lead to changes in ICES recommended fishing advice. The prey needs of marine mammals have been taken into account under PI 2.3.1. The North Sea is characterized by episodic changes in the productivity of key components of the ecosystem, described as regime shifts. There have been reports of a shift from pelagic to benthic production. Phytoplankton, zooplankton, and demersal and pelagic fish have all exhibited such cycles in variability, which are also expected for the future (Mackinson, S. and Daskalov, G., 2007). According to (Beaugrand, G., 2004), the cause for the ecosystem regime shift which took place in the North Sea during the period 1982–1988 was likely to be related to pronounced changes in large-scale hydro-meteorological forcing. This serves to justify that the system responds well to ecosystem changes. Besides, catch of all UoCs is very clean, ranging from 72% of targeted Norway pout for the less selective UoC to 99% of targeted sprat for the most selective UoC. Selectivity of the sandeel fishery is 96% of targeted sandeel in the total catch. Given this, the team considers that the UoA 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. The lack of evidence on the minimum impact of the UoA on the ecosystem, and the uncertainties related to the SMS multispecies modelling in which fishing advice is based prevent the fishery from obtaining SG100. SG80 is granted. Beaugrand, G. 2004. The North Sea regime shift: Evidence, causes, mechanisms and consequences. Progress in Oceanography 60. 245-262. http://dx.doi.org.bibezproxy.uca.es:2048/10.1016/j.pocean.2004.02.018 http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2013/2013/mult- References NS.pdf Christensen, V., 1995 Lewy and Vinther, 2004 Mackinson, S. and Daskalov, G., 2007 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 6 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 7 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 8 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 180
Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management strategy There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Management strategy in place Guidep There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy that ost place, if necessary which strategy in place, if consists of a plan , in take into account the necessary, which takes place which contains potential impacts of the into account available measures to address all fishery on key elements information and is main impacts of the of the ecosystem. expected to restrain UoA on the ecosystem, impacts of the UoA on and at least some of the ecosystem so as to these measures are in achieve the Ecosystem place. Outcome 80 level of performance. UoC 6 Y Y N UoC 7 Y Y N UoC 8 Y Y N Justific Both Norwegian waters and European waters are subject to management ation measures which seek both profit from the fishery and the protection of the fishing resources. This is done by the establishment of fishing quotas, mesh limitations, closed areas, enforcement effort, landing obligation, and continue monitoring of many species present in the ecosystem. Both the Norwegian Marine Resources Act and the European Common Fisheries Policy are established strategies which should address all main impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem. Both strategies base their measures on data gathered through different research institutions (including IMR), ICES advice on fish stocks (which is based on SMS modelling, which includes prey-predator relationships), ICES Advisory Committee on Ecosystems (ACE) and habitat mapping programs (MAREANO Programme ), OSPAR Commission ( www.ospar.org ), EU Natura Directive ( http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/#) and the Mapping European Seabed Habitats portal ( www.searchmesh.net .)), inter alia. There are fishery biological and technical conservation measures for safeguarding stocks and managing fisheries and the interactions with other animals, such as the “Firth of Forth” closure for the sandeel fishery in order to protect kittiwake predators, the “sprat box” closure to protect juveniles of herring, or the “Norway pout box”, introduced in 1977 in north-east Scotland where fisheries with small-meshed trawls were banned. In the Norwegian economic zone, the Patch Bank was closed permanently in 2002, and in 2008 the fishing season was restricted. Furthermore, legislation is in place to protect species and habitats under the Habitats and Birds Directives, OSPAR, BONN Convention, BERN Convention and CITES as well as various EC fisheries regulations and Norway ‐EU agreements. All management measures are backed up by a rigorous enforcement regime. The team considers that all these management measures conform a partial strategy for the North Sea, however, as there is no specific management plan for the entire North Sea ecosystem with a clear formulated objective, the team considers that SG100 is not met. SG80 is met. b Management strategy evaluation Guidep The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high ost considered likely to work, basis for confidence confidence that the based on plausible that the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g., general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on some information information directly about
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 181
There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. comparison with similar directly about the UoA the UoA and/or fisheries/ ecosystems). and/or the ecosystem ecosystem involved involved UoC 6 Y Y N UoC 7 Y Y N UoC 8 Y Y N Justific The comprehensive collection of information of fish stocks, fishing removals, the ation research undertaken by different research institutions, ICES annual or biennial advice of fishing options, the information obtained from the different North Sea ecosystem models, along with an effective enforcement system, and the fishing closures of certain areas to prevent depletion of other stocks, serve as an objective basis that the partial strategy will work. The lack of testing on this strategy, the lack of protection on vulnerable ecosystems such as sea pens and burrowing megafauna associated to the Norway pout fishery, and the number of predators of the forage species prevent the fishery from gaining SG100. SG80 is met. c Management strategy implementation Guidep There is some evidence There is clear evidence ost that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully successfully . and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). UoC 6 Y N UoC 7 Y N UoC 8 Y N Justific The different measures have been implemented through different means, for a ation considerable period so far. These means include banning bycatch, the obligation of the use of VMS, regulating closed areas both for the protection of juveniles and for the protection of vulnerable habitats, establishing procedures for the weighing and sampling of landings, promoting marine research, establishing quotas for different marine stocks in accordance with marine research, and establishment a strong enforcement system through the Directorate of Fisheries and the EU fisheries inspections bodies that assure the accomplishment of the different measures. Infringements are reported to be negligible. However, the team considers that this partial strategy is not addressing all main impacts of the fishery on the UoA, as at present there are large areas with identified OSPAR threatened species which at present are not protected. SG80 is met. https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/multi_annual_plans_en Norwegian Marine Resources Act European Common Fisheries Policy Birds and Habitats Directives References Marine Strategy Framework Directive, ICES advice ICES Advisory Committee on Ecosystems (ACE) MAREANO Programme OSPAR Commission ( www.ospar.org ), EU Natura Directive ( http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/#) Mapping European Seabed Habitats portal ( www.searchmesh.net .)
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 182
There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function.
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Spec ies of Wild Animals ( Bonn Convention ). Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats ( Bern Convention ). CITES OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 6 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 7 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 8 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 183
Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.3 – Ecosystem information There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the PI 2.5.3 ecosystem. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Information quality Guidep Information is adequate Information is adequate ost to identify the key to broadly understand elements of the the key elements of the ecosystem. ecosystem. UoC 6 Y Y UoC 7 Y Y UoC 8 Y Y Justific Key elements of the ecosystem, such as primary and secondary productivity, and ation predator-prey relationships, have been studied through different ecosystem models in the North Sea, such as the Ecopath and Ecosim model by Mackinson, S. and Daskalov, G., (2007), a model for trophic interactions in the North Sea for 1981 (Christensen, V., 1995), larval transport models for the North Sea or the North Sea Stochastic Multispecies Model (SMS Model; Lewy and Vinther, 2004), in which ICES species advice is based. The North Sea ecosystem, where the fishery takes place, is studied by ICES on a continuous basis. Birds and marine mammals populations are monitored by different research institutions of the surrounding countries. The Norwegian Institute for Nature Research ( NINA ) monitors birds populations in the coast of Norway while the IMR Institute studies the Norwegian Sea ecosystem through the Norwecom.E2E project. Information from all these studies is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem in the North Sea. SG80 is met. b Investig ation of UoA impacts Guidep Main impacts of the UoA Main impacts of the UoA Main interactions ost on these key ecosystem on these key ecosystem between the UoA and elements can be inferred elements can be inferred these ecosystem from existing information, from existing information, elements can be inferred but have not been and some have been from existing information, investigated in detail. investigated in detail . and have been investigated in detail . UoC 6 Y Y N UoC 7 Y Y N UoC 8 Y Y N Justific The different models and projects mentioned in SIa serve to describe main impacts ation and interactions between the UoCs and the different ecosystem elements, such as fishery biomass removal, trophic interactions and prey relationships or impacts on the seabed. But there is still little information as regards the impact the fishery may have in some minor secondary species or in not protected vulnerable habitats. The team also agrees that main predator-prey interactions between the forage fish and the dependent predators have been studied, however, it also considers that the stomach content data in which predators preferences and predation mortalities are based, might be dated. An update on stomach content research would make ICES advices more robust. SG80 is met.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 184
There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the PI 2.5.3 ecosystem. c Understanding of component functions Guidep The main functions of the The impacts of the UoA on ost components (i.e., P1 P1 target species, target species, primary, primary, secondary and secondary and ETP ETP species and Habitats species and Habitats) in are identified and the the ecosystem are main functions of these known . components in the ecosystem are understood . UoC 6 Y Y UoC 7 Y Y UoC 8 Y Y Justific Impacts of the fishery on target, primary, secondary and ETP species are ation quantified and monitored. Moreover, the catch of all fishing vessels (regardless to which UoC they belong) is always pumped on board and loaded inside fish tanks. The crew has no access to these fish tanks and all the catch is landed, weighed and sampled at the authorized landing ports. Different ecosystem models (mentioned in SIa) provide a broad knowledge of the impacts that the fishery has on the targeted species and dependent pre dators. Although not all interactions have been investigated in detailed, there is sufficient information to understand the main functions of these components in the ecosystem. SG100 is met. d Information relevance Guidep Adequate information is Adequate information is ost available on the impacts available on the impacts of the UoA on these of the UoA on the components to allow components and some of the main elements to allow the consequences for the main consequences for ecosystem to be inferred. the ecosystem to be inferred. UoC 6 Y N UoC 7 Y N UoC 8 Y N Justific Available information gathered by landing records and sampling, research ation investigation and ecosystem modelling is considered adequate to allow some of the main consequences for the ecosystem. For the pelagic gears, there are less components and elements to consider, as no impacts on benthic habitats are expected. The main consequences of pelagic fishing for the ecosystem can be inferred from existing trophic models. However, the impact of bottom trawlers on certain habitats (such as sea pens in the Norway pout fishery) are at present not fully identified nor quantified. The team considers that present information on bottom trawl impacts on components and elements is not sufficient to grant SG100. SG80 is met. Monitoring
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 185
There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the PI 2.5.3 ecosystem. e Guidep Adequate data continue Information is adequate ost to be collected to detect to support the any increase in risk level. development of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. UoC 6 Y N UoC 7 Y N UoC 8 Y N Justific Detailed information is obtained through landing obligation, landing records and ation sampling, VMS tracks on fishing grounds, ICES advice on different fishing stocks, IMR research trips, monitoring of marine mammals and bird populations, studies on climate change impacts, sampling on benthic communities and mapping of the North Sea seabed, along with the enforcement system and monitoring of protected areas, are considered to provide adequate information to detect any increase in risk levels. SG80 is met. However, the fact that ICES advices rely on the SMS Model, and that the stomach content used to calculate the different inter-species interaction coefficients is becoming dated, rests credibility to the results obtained. It is considered that these coefficients should be re-evaluated with new stomach samplings in order to support the development of strategies to manage the ecosystem impacts of the reduction fisheries. SG100 is not met. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research ( NINA ) References IMR Institute for Marine Research Norwecom.E2E project. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 6 85 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 7 85 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoC 8 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 186
Principle 3 – Evaluation tables All UoCs. Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.1 – Legal and/or customary framework The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: • PI 3.1.1 Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management Guide There is an effective There is an effective There is an effective post national legal system and national legal system national legal system and a framework for and organised and binding procedures cooperation with other effective governing cooperation parties, where necessary, cooperation with with other parties to deliver management other parties, where which delivers outcomes consistent with necessary, to deliver management outcomes MSC Principles 1 and 2 management consistent with MSC outcomes consistent Principles 1 and 2. with MSC Principles 1 and 2.
Met? Y Y Y Justif Norway has a well -established system for fisheries management, which has icatio evolved over more than a century and is now codified in the 2008 Marine Resources n Act and secondary legislation. The Act applies to all catch and use of marine resources and their genetic material (§ 3) and covers issues such as bioprospecting (Chapter 2), catch levels and quotas (Chapter 3), catch and use of marine resources (Chapter 4), arrangements on the fishing fields, liability for damage and local regulations (Chapter 5) and monitoring, enforcement, sanctions and criminal liability (Chapters 6–12) (see PI 3.2.3 below). The Marine Resources Act is a framework law, which in the main authorizes the Government to issue specific regulations within designated fields. The most important rules are found in the Regulation on the Execution of Marine Fisheries, which is updated annually. The Regulation contains rules for mesh size, selection and limitations on the use of specific catch gear (Chapters II–V), seasonal restrictions (Chapter VI), bycatch (Chapters VII–VIII), minimal fish size (Chapter IX), discard ban (Chapter X), restrictions on the use of trawl in specific areas (Chapters XI–XII), protection of coral reefs (Chapter XIII), documentation on hold volumes (Chapter XIV), marking of vessels and gear (Chapters XV–XVI), loss of gear (Chapter XVII) and fish welfare (Chapter XVIII). Other important legal instruments are the 1999 Act on the Right to Participate in Fisheries, the 2015 Act on First-Hand Sales of Wild Catch of Marine Resources, the 2016 Regulation on Participation in Fisheries, the 2016 Regulation on Licencing and the 2016 Regulation on Landing and Sales Notes. All Regulations are subject to running modifications and additions through so-called J-orders, which are distributed to the fishing fleet electronically. This includes dedicated and regularly updated annual regulations for the fishery of each specific species, including separate regulations for sandeel, Norway pout and sprat.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 187
The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: • PI 3.1.1 Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. The executive body at governmental level i s the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries, while the practical regulation of fisheries is delegated to the Directorate of Fisheries. Enforcement at sea is taken care of by the Coast Guard, which is part of the Royal Norwegian Navy, but performs tasks on behalf of several ministries, including the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries. Scientific research is performed by the Institute of Marine Research. Fisheries management authorities coordinate their regulatory work with that of other bodies of governance, for instance the Ministry of Climate and Environment and the Norwegian Environmental Agency, which are responsible for the implementation of the integrated management plans for different marine areas. Management of shared stocks in the North Sea is regulated through a framework agreement on fisheries cooperation between Norway and the EU from 1980 (in force 1981). The agreement is not specific as to how shared stocks should be managed, but according to practice six stocks have been identified as ‘joint stocks’ which are jointly managed (among them cod and haddock), while four stocks are considered ‘shared stocks but not jointly managed – in the latter category we find sandeel and Norway pout. Hence, the EU–Norway forms part of the institutional context of the fishery under assessment, but not part of its management structure per se. Sprat is an exclusive EU stock, and Norway receives a share of the sprat quota in exchange for EU quota shares in Norwegian fisheries such as for Northeast Arctic cod. The fishery is managed within the context of EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), whose most important management mechanism are the multi-annual management plans for individual fisheries. The national legal documents refer to and are in compliance with relevant international agreements, such as the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention and the 1995 Fish Stocks Agreement. Hence, binding procedures for cooperation between parties involved in the management are in place, and the system is considered to be effective insofar as it constitutes a coherent set of binding rule-making practices. SG 100 is met. b Resolution of disputes Guide The management system The management system The management system post incorporates or is subject incorporates or is subject incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism by law to a transparent by law to a transparent for the resolution of legal mechanism for the mechanism for the disputes arising within resolution of legal resolution of legal the system. disputes which is disputes that is considered to be appropriate to the effective in dealing with context of the fishery and most issues and that is has been tested and appropriate to the proven to be effective . context of the UoA. Met? Y Y N Justif At the national level in Norway, there is an effective, transparent dispute resolution icatio system in place, as fishermen can take their case to court if they do not accept n the rationale behind an infringement accusation by enforcement authorities, or the fees levied against them. Verdicts at the lower court levels can be appealed to higher levels. There are instances from recent years that management authorities have lost cases against fishermen and accepted the verdict, which is a clear demonstration that the system works. At the international level, the EU–Norway
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 188
The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: • PI 3.1.1 Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. Agreement prescribes consultations between the parties in the case of dispute (Art. 8). After nearly 40 years of actual dispute resolution in the running EU– Norway negotiations, this arrangement can be considered appropriate to the context of the fisheries and by and large tested and proven to be effective. However, the system has not proven to be completely effective in resolving all disputes on the sharing of fishing opportunities, as evidenced by occasional delays in reaching mutually agreeable solutions between Norway and the EU. Additional mechanisms for dispute resolution exist through the international courts of justice, such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), or bring a dispute before the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). At the regional level, the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) in 2004 adopted a recommendation for compulsory dispute settlement. None of these mechanisms have so far been widely used as means for solving fisheries disputes, although ICJ has over many decades had a number of cases regarding fisheries jurisdiction, and ITLOS has in recent years had cases on the prompt release of detained fishing vessels and the use of provisional measures. PCA was called upon in 2013 to solve certain aspects of the dispute between the EU and Faroe Islands regarding the coastal state management regime of Atlanto- Scandian herring. The case was terminated a year later as agreement between the parties was reached, but nevertheless goes to show that appropriate and transparent dispute resolution mechanisms do exist. SG 80 is met. However, these mechanisms cannot be considered tested and proven to be effective. SG 100 is not met. c Respect for rights Guide The management system The management system The management system post has a mechanism to has a mechanism to has a mechanism to generally respect the observe the legal rights formally commit to the legal rights created created explicitly or legal rights created explicitly or established established by custom of explicitly or established by custom of people people dependent on by custom of people dependent on fishing for fishing for food or dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a livelihood in a manner food and livelihood in a manner consistent with consistent with the manner consistent with the objectives of MSC objectives of MSC the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. Met? Y Y Y Justif The Norwegian system for fisheries management includes various mechanisms icatio that generally respect and observe the rights of the coastal population along the n country’s northern, western and southern coast. For the most important species, significantly and proportionately larger quota shares are allotted to coastal fisheries than to the ocean going fleet (see, for instance, the Regulation on Participation in Fisheries for an overview), with particular attention to smaller fisheries that are particularly dependent on fishing for livelihood, including the coastal Sami population in the northernmost part of the country. At the regional level, the NEAFC Convention states as its objective to ensure the long-term conservation and optimum utilization of the fishery resources in the Convention Area, providing sustainable economic, environmental and social
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 189
The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: • PI 3.1.1 Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. benefits (Art. 2). At EU level, member states are obliged, according to the 2013 CFP, to include social and economic dimensions in their criteria for allocation of quota rights, among them the contribution to the local economy and historic catch levels (Art. 17). Protection of the interests of coastal communities dependent on fisheries is also one of the rationales for the principle of relative stability in fishing rights between the member states (Recital (35)). Among the objectives of the CFP is to foster job creation and economic development in coastal areas (Recital (12)) and to contribute to a fair standard of living for those who depend on fishing activities, bearing in mind coastal fisheries and socio-economic aspects (Art. 2 f)). Marine biological resources in the outermost parts of the Union shall be secured special protection due their importance to the local economy, and certain types of fishing activities shall be limited to fishing vessels registered in the ports of those territories (Recital (21)). Hence, mechanisms to formally commit to the rights of people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood are in place in the management system. SG 100 is met. Agreed Records of Fisheries Consultations between Norway and the European Union for 2017, 2 December 2016. Agreement on Fisheries between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway, signed 27 February 1980, in force 16 June 1981. Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in North-East Atlantic Fisheries, 2006. Deltakerloven, LOV-1999-03-26-15, 1999 (Act on the Right to Participate in Fisheries). Interview with representatives of the Directorate of Fisheries and Ministry of Trade, References Industry and Fisheries during the site visit.
J-36-2016: Forskrift om landings- og sluttseddel (landingsforskriften), 2016
(Regulation on Landing and Sales Notes). J-115-2016: Konsesjonsforskriften, 2016 (Regulation on Licencing).
J-122-2016: Deltakerforskriften, 2016 (Regulation on Participation in Fisheries).
J-125-2016: Forskrift om utøvelse av fisket i sjøen, 2016 (Regulation on the Execution of Marine Fisheries).
J-249-2016: Forskrift om regulering av fisket etter tobis i 2017 (Regulation on the
Fishery for Sandeel in 2017).
J-250-2016: Forskrift om regulering av fisket etter brisling i 2017 (Regulation on the Fishery for Sprat in 2017).
J-251-2016: Forskrift om regulering av fisket etter øyepål i 2017 (Regulation on the Fishery for Norway Pout in 2017). Lov om førstehandsomsetning av viltlevande marine ressursar (fiskesalslagslova), LOV-2015-06-19-65, 2015 (Act on First-Hand Sales of Wild Catch of Marine Resources). Lov om forvaltning av viltlevande marine ressursar (havressurslova), LOV-2008- 06-06-37, 2008 (Marine Resources Act). Meld.St. 10 (2010–2011) Oppdatering av forvaltningsplanen for det marine miljø i Barentshavet og havområdene utenfor Lofoten, 2011 (Update of the [Integrated]
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 190
The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: • PI 3.1.1 Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. Management Plan for the Marine Environment in the Barents Sea an d the Marine Area outside Lofoten). Meld. St. 37 (2012–2013) Helhetlig forvaltning av det marine miljø i Nordsjøen og Skagerrak (forvaltningsplan), 2013 (White Paper on the Integrated Management Plan for the North Sea and Skagerrak). NEAFC Dispute Resolution Mechanism, Annex K – Amendment of the Convention on Dispute Settlement, 2004. Regulation (EU) No. 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No. 1954/2003 and (EC) No. 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No. 2371/2002 and (EC) No. 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC.St. meld. nr. 37 (2008- 2009) Helhetlig forvaltning av det marine miljø i Norskehavet (forvaltningsplan), 2009 (White Paper on the Integrated Management Plan for the Norwegian Sea). Wakefield, J., Reforming the Common Fisheries Policy, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2016. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: All UoCs 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 191
Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.2 – Consultation, roles and responsibilities
The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Roles and responsibilities Guide Organisations and Organisations and Organisations and post individuals involved in the individuals involved in the individuals involved in the management process management process management process have been identified. have been identified. have been identified. Functions, roles and Functions, roles and Functions, roles and responsibilities are responsibilities are responsibilities are generally understood . explicitly defined and explicitly defined and well understood for well understood for all key areas of areas of responsibility responsibility and and interaction. interaction. Met? Y Y Y Justif The most important organizations involved in Norwegian fisheries management icatio are government bodies such as the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries, the n Directorate of Fisheries and the Coast Guard, sales organizations such as the Norwegian Fishermen’s Sales Organization, fishermen’s organizations such as the Norwegian Fishermen’s Association and environmental NGOs such as WWF, Greenpeace and the Norwegian Society for the Conservation of Nature. The Sami Parliament is consulted in the management of fisheries that are of historical importance to the Sami people. The roles, functions and responsibilities of the various actors are clearly defined in longstanding practice and are now codified in the Marine Resources Act and secondary legislation. The same holds true for the EU CFP, under whose auspices sprat is managed. The European Commission DG Mare is responsible for drafting fisheries legislation while the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) provides advice to the Commission on all aspects of fisheries science, economics and management. According to interviews at the site visit, roles, functions and responsibilities are well understood by all involved entities in all areas of responsibility and interaction. SG 100 is met. b Consultation processes Guide The management system The management system The management system post includes consultation includes consultation includes consultation processes that obtain processes that regularly processes that regularly relevant information seek and accept seek and accept from the main affected relevant information, relevant information, parties, including local including local including local knowledge, to inform the knowledge. The knowledge. The management system. management system management system demonstrates demonstrates consideration of the consideration of the information obtained. information and explains
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 192
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 how it is used or not used . Met? Y Y Y Justif Norway has a long tradition of including non -governmental organizations in icatio fisheries management, with continuous consultation and close cooperation n between governmental agencies and user-group organizations, in particular the Norwegian Fishermen’s Association, but also the more specialized organizations such as the fishermen’s sales organizations. As these organizations have regional branches, whose representatives are actively involved in policy-making, ensuring that local knowledge is also taken into consideration in the management process. So-called Regulatory Meetings are organized twice a year are open to all; user- group organizations and NGOs attend on a regular basis. In addition there is day- to-day contact by telephone and email between authorities, user groups and other interested parties. Distribution of the national quota between different gear and fishing fleets has in practice been delegated to the Norwegian Association of Fishermen, which includes all fishermen from the smallest coastal vessels to ocean-going trawlers. Hence, the inherent conflict of interest between different vessel types is handled at the level of the Fishermen’s Association, and the outcome is formalized by the Ministry or Directorate after agreement has been reached within the Association. Technical regulation measures are to a large extent decided upon in direct consultations ‘over the table’ between authorities and user groups at the Regulatory Meetings. As mentioned under PI 3.1.1 c) above, the Sami Parliament is formally consulted in the management of fisheries that are of historical importance to the Sami population. In addition to formal and informal consultation on the running regulation of the fisheries, user-group organizations and authorities work together – e.g. in designated working groups – to tackle new and emerging challenges to the fishery, such as conflicts with the petroleum sector, marine litter, ghost fishing and other threats to the marine environment. User groups such as the Norwegian Fishermen’s Association also participate in the annual negotiations conducted between Norway and other countries. Norwegian management authorities actively seek advice from user groups in preparation for all international consultations and negotiations, and user groups are included in the Norwegian delegation. Consultation processes are inclusive and transparent, and according to views expressed by user-group representatives and individual fishermen during the site visit, authorities explain how the information is used or not used. Fishers interviewed speak of their cooperation with management authorities as ‘unique’, ‘smooth’ and ‘seamless’. The situation is similar at EU level, where user groups participate in the bilateral negotiations with Norway and meetings in NEAFC and the North Sea Advisory Council (NSAC); in the two latter, NGOs are also allowed to participate as observers. The Advisory Councils are the main consultation mechanism through which industry engages with management authorities at EU level. They include European industry and NGO representatives ensuring local knowledge is considered within the management system. They actively develop policy advice to
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 193
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 the European Commission and are considered as part of the EU’s management system. SG 100 is met. c Participation Guide The consultation process The consultation process post provides opportunity provides opportunity for all interested and and encouragement for affected parties to be all interested and affected involved. parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement. Met? Y Y Justif As follows from SI 3.1.2 b), the consultation processes provide ample opportunity icatio for all interested and affected parties to be involved in discussions about fisheries n management. All interested parties are given the opportunity to participate in the Regulatory Meetings, which is the most important formal arena for interaction between fisheries management authorities and the public in Norway. Meetings are announced publicly and all relevant stakeholders are well informed about where and when the meetings take place. The fact that the distribution of quota shares between different vessels are in effect decided within the Fishermen’s Association before being formalized by the authorities, and that many technical regulations are agreed upon at the Regulatory Meetings, goes to show that authorities give user groups sufficient opportunity and encouragement and actively facilitate their effective engagement. SG 100 is met. Interview with representatives of the Directorate of Fisheries, representatives of the Norwegian Fishermen’s Association and individual fishermen during the site visit. Lov om førstehandsomsetning av viltlevande marine ressursar (fiskesalslagslova), LOV-2015-06-19-65, 2015 (Act on First-Hand Sales of Wild Catch of Marine Resources). References Lov om forvaltning av viltlevande marine ressursar (havressurslova), LOV-2008- 06-06-37, 2008 (Marine Resources Act). Lov om kystvakten (kystvaktloven), LOV-2015-06-19-65, 1997 (Coast Guard Act). Referat fra reguleringsmøtet 2. og 3. november 2016, Directorate of Fisheries, 2015 (Minutes from the Regulatory Meeting 2 and 3 November 2016). Prosedyrer for konsultasjoner med Sametinget, Kgr. res. 04/186, 2005 (Royal Decree on Procedures for Consultations with the Sami Parliament). OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: All UoCs 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 194
Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.3 – Long term objectives The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide PI 3.1.3 decision-making that are consistent with MSC fisheries standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Objectives Guide Long -term objectives to Clear long -term Clear long -term post guide decision-making, objectives that guide objectives that guide consistent with the MSC decision-making, decision-making, fisheries standard and the consistent with MSC consistent with MSC precautionary approach, fisheries standard and the fisheries standard and the are implicit within precautionary approach precautionary approach, management policy. are explicit within are explicit within and management policy. required by management policy. Met? Y Y Y Justif The 2008 Marine Resources Act requires that Norwegian fisheries management be icatio guided by the precautionary approach, in line with international treaties and n guidelines (§ 7 a)), and by an ecosystem approach that takes into account habitats and biodiversity (§ 7 b)). The same objectives are found in the most relevant policy documents, such as the integrated management plans for the Barents and Norwegian Seas, and for the North Sea and Skagerrak. The current CFP regulation requires that member states, in accordance with international treaties such as the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, the 1993 FAO Compliance Agreement and the 1995 Fish Stocks Agreement, apply the precautionary approach to fisheries management, and aim to ensure that exploitation of living marine biological resources restores and maintains populations of harvested species above levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield (Recital (6), Art. 2). It is specifically mentioned that when targets relating to the maximum sustainable yield cannot be determined, multiannual (management) plans shall provide for measures based on the precautionary approach, ensuring at least a comparable level of protection for the relevant fish stocks (Art. 9). The maximum sustainable yield exploitation rate shall be achieved by 2015 where possible and, on a progressive, incremental basis at the latest by 2020 for all stocks (Art. 2). Hence, these objectives are both explicit and required by management policy. SG 100 is met. Lov om forvaltning av viltlevande marine ressursar (havressurslova), LOV -2008 - 06-06-37, 2008 (Marine Resources Act). Meld..St. 10 (2010–2011) Oppdatering av forvaltningsplanen for det marine miljø i Barentshavet og havområdene utenfor Lofoten, 2011 (Update of the [Integrated] Management Plan for the Marine Environment in the Barents Sea and the Marine Area outside Lofoten). References Meld. St. 37 (2012–2013) Helhetlig forvaltning av det marine miljø i Nordsjøen og Skagerrak (forvaltningsplan), 2013 (White Paper on the Integrated Management Plan for the North Sea and Skagerrak). Regulation (EU) No. 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No. 1954/2003 and (EC) No. 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No. 2371/2002 and (EC) No. 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 195
The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide PI 3.1.3 decision-making that are consistent with MSC fisheries standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach. St. meld. nr. 37 (2008 -2009) Helhetlig forvaltning av det marine miljø i Norskehavet (forvaltningsplan), 2009 (White Paper on the Integrated Management Plan for the Norwegian Sea). OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: All UoCs 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 196
Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.1 Fishery-specific objectives The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific PI 3.2.1 objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Objectives Guide Objectives , which are Short and long -term Well defined and post broadly consistent with objectives , which are measurable short and achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving long-term objectives , expressed by MSC’s the outcomes expressed which are demonstrably Principles 1 and 2, are by MSC’s Principles 1 and consistent with achieving implicit within the 2, are explicit within the the outcomes expressed fishery-specific fishery-specific by MSC’s Principles 1 and management system. management system. 2, are explicit within the fishery-specific management system. Met? Y Y P Justif Short - and long -term objectives consistent with achieving the outcomes of MSC icatio Principles 1 and 2 are explicit in the Norwegian Marine Resources Act and n supporting legislation on the Norwegian sandeel, Norway pout and sprat fisheries. This includes the overarching objective to maintain stocks at sustainable levels and the specific objectives defined in management plans and regulatory documents, e.g. regarding bycatch. SG 80 is met. Objectives related to P1 issues are well-defined and measurable, but this is to a lesser extent the case for P2 objectives, e.g. related to ETP species and habitats. Hence, a partial score is achieved at SG 100. J-125 -2016: Forskrift om utøvelse av fisket i sjøen, 2016 (Regulation on the Execution of Marine Fisheries). J-249-2016: Forskrift om regulering av fisket etter tobis i 2017 (Regulation on the Fishery for Sandeel in 2017). J-250-2016: Forskrift om regulering av fisket etter brisling i 2017 (Regulation on References the Fishery for Sprat in 2017). J-251-2016: Forskrift om regulering av fisket etter øyepål i 2017 (Regulation on the Fishery for Norway Pout in 2017). Lov om forvaltning av viltlevande marine ressursar (havressurslova), LOV-2008- 06-06-37, 2008 (Marine Resources Act). OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: All UoCs 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 197
Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies PI 3.2.2 to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Decision -making processes Guide There are some decision - There are established post making processes in decision-making place that result in processes that result in measures and strategies measures and strategies to achieve the fishery- to achieve the fishery- specific objectives. specific objectives. Met? Y Y Justif Established decision -making procedures at national level in Norway – evolved over icatio several decades and now codified in the 2008 Marine Resources Act and secondary n legislation – ensure that strategies are produced and measures taken to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. This applies to sandeel, Norway pout and sprat fisheries as it does to Norwegian fisheries in general; see PIs 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 above. The Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries decides on policy and regulatory schemes, while the Directorate of Fisheries acts as a technical body with a main responsibility for secondary legislation. The Directorate and the Coast Guard perform compliance control, on shore and at sea respectively. The decision- making processes include the allocation of national quotas to different fleet groups according to an elaborate distributional scheme based on vessel groups defined by gear and length of the vessels. Further, technical regulations are defined by the Directorate of Fisheries, after consultations with user groups and other stakeholders. SG 80 is met. b Responsiveness of decision -making processes Guide Decision -making Decision -making Decision -making post processes respond to processes respond to processes respond to all serious issues identified serious and other issues identified in in relevant research, important issues relevant research, monitoring, evaluation identified in relevant monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a research, monitoring, and consultation, in a transparent, timely and evaluation and transparent, timely and adaptive manner and consultation, in a adaptive manner and take some account of the transparent, timely and take account of the wider wider implications of adaptive manner and implications of decisions. decisions. take account of the wider implications of decisions. Met? Y Y Y Justif The well -established decision -making procedures in the Norwegian system for icatio fisheries management respond to issues identified in research, monitoring, n evaluation or by groups with an interest in the fishery through the arenas for regular consultations between governmental agencies and the public. This happens first and foremost at the Regulatory Meetings, further through ad hoc consultation with the industry and other stakeholders (see PI 3.1.2 above). In addition, there is close contact between authorities and scientific research institutions, primarily between the Directorate of Fisheries and the Institute of Marine Research. Both
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 198
The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies PI 3.2.2 to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. scientists and user -group representatives claim that the relevant governmental agencies are open to any kind of input at any time. They feel that the authorities’ response is transparent and timely and that the ensuing policy options take adequate account of their advice. It is a principal challenge to claim that absolutely ‘all’ issues are responded to, which is required to achieve a 100 score on this SI, but from an opposite point of view, we cannot see that there are issues that are not responded to in this fishery. SG 100 is met. c Use of precautionary approach Guide Decision -making post processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. Met? Y Justif Decision -making processes are based on scientific recommendations from ICES icatio and the Institute for Marine Research. The Norwegian Marine Resources Act, which n applies to the capture of all marine species, requires fisheries management to be based on the precautionary approach (see PI 3.1.3 above). SG 100 is met. d Accountability and transparency of management system and decision -making process Guide Some information on the Information on the Formal reporting to all post fishery’s performance and fishery’s performance interested stakeholders management action is and management provides generally available on action is available on comprehensive request to stakeholders. request , and information on the explanations are provided fishery’s performance for any actions or lack of and management action associated with actions and describes findings and relevant how the management recommendations system responded to emerging from research, findings and relevant monitoring, evaluation recommendations and review activity. emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Met? Y Y Y Justif The Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries submits annual reports to the icatio Parliament on behalf of the entire system for fisheries management (see PI 3.2.4 n below). Other involved agencies, such as the Institute of Marine Research, the Directorate of Fisheries and the Coast Guard, produce annual reports that are available to the public on request. In these reports, actions taken or not taken by the relevant authority are accounted for, including those proposed on the basis of information from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. SG 80 is met. The website of the Directorate of Fisheries contains detailed and updated information on quotas and catches broken down to individual vessels, species and gear, among other things. In the opinion of the assessment team, this counts as formal reporting appropriate to the context of the fishery, as much as letters to stakeholders would have done. SG 100 is met.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 199
The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies PI 3.2.2 to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. e Approach to disputes Guide Although the The management system The management system post management authority or or fishery is attempting to or fishery acts proactively fishery may be subject to comply in a timely fashion to avoid legal disputes or continuing court with judicial decisions rapidly implements challenges, it is not arising from any legal judicial decisions arising indicating a disrespect or challenges. from legal challenges. defiance of the law by repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery. Met? Y Y Y Justif The Norwegian system for fisheries management is not subject to continuing court icatio challenges. When occasionally taken to court by fishing companies, the n management authority complies with the judicial decision in a timely manner. There are, for instance, recent examples of authorities losing court cases and immediately accepting the verdict. However, the management authority works proactively to avoid legal disputes. This is done partly through the tight cooperation with user groups at the regulatory level (see PI 3.1.2 above), ensuring as high legitimacy as possible for regulations and other management decisions. Regulatory and enforcement authorities offer advice to the fleet on how to avoid infringements, on request but often on their own initiative (see PI 3.2.3 below). For example, Coast Guard inspectors work in a dedicated manner to communicate with fishers on the fishing grounds, keeping them updated on changes in regulations and explaining the rationale of the rules in an attempt to increase their legitimacy. In 2012, the enforcement agencies were given the authority to issue administrative penalties for minor infringements (serious enough to be met by a reaction above a written warning), thus referring only the more serious cases to prosecution by the police and possible transfer to the court system. SG 100. Interviews with representatives of the Directorate of Fisheries, the Institute of Marine Research, the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries and the Norwegian Fishermen’s Association as well as individual fishermen during the site visit. References Lov om forvaltning av viltlevande marine ressursar (havressurslova), LOV-2008- 06-06-37, 2008 (Marine Resources Act). Referat fra reguleringsmøtet 2. og 3. november 2016, Directorate of Fisheries, 2016 (Minutes from the Regulatory Meeting 2 and 3 November 2016). OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: All UoCs. 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 200
Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the PI 3.2.3 management measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a MCS implementation Guide Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive post surveillance surveillance system has monitoring, control and mechanisms exist, and been implemented in the surveillance system has are implemented in the fishery and has been implemented in the fishery and there is a demonstrated an ability fishery and has reasonable expectation to enforce relevant demonstrated a that they are effective. management measures, consistent ability to strategies and/or rules. enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. Met? Y Y Y Justif The 2008 Marine Resources Act contains provisions in Chapter 6 on fishermen’s icatio duties to contribute to an effective control (see, e.g., § 36 and § 39 on catch log n and sales notes requirements, respectively); in Chapter 7 on authorities’ responsibilities for control and enforcement (including, in § 48, the sales organizations’ control obligations); in Chapter 8 measures to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fisheries (including § 50 on the ban to land IUU catch); and in Chapter 9 on illegally caught fish. The Marine Resources Act places the overall responsibility for monitoring, control and surveillance in Norwegian fisheries with the Directorate of Fisheries (§ 44). The 1997 Coast Guard Act provides the Coast Guard with the authority to conduct inspections in waters under Norwegian jurisdiction, within the fields covered by the Marine Resources Act and secondary legislation given with statutory authority in that Act (§ 9). Hence, MCS in Norwegian fisheries is taken care of through shared responsibility and close collaboration between the Directorate of Fisheries, the Coast Guard and the regional sales organizations. The Directorate of Fisheries keeps track of how much fish is taken of the quotas of individual vessels, different vessel groups and other states at any given time, based on reports from the fishing fleet. Norwegian vessels are required to have electronic logbooks, or more specifically Electronic Reporting Systems (ERS). This implies that real-time data are forwarded to the Directorate of Fisheries, with the possibility to make corrections of data submitted each day within 12 hours into the next day. Norway has agreements in place with a number of other countries about exchange of ERS data, including the EU. The self-reported catch data can be checked at sales operations through the sales organizations, which have monopoly on first-hand sale of fish in Norway, and through physical checks performed by the sales organizations, the Directorate of Fisheries and the Coast Guard. The sales organizations are required to record all landings of fish in Norway and keep track of how much remains of a vessel’s quota at any given time, on the basis of the landings data. This information is compared to the figures provided by the vessels to the Directorate of Fisheries through the electronic logbook. The value of any catch delivered above a vessel’s quota is retained by the sales organization and used for control purposes. The sales organizations have their own inspectors who carry out physical controls of landings. They check, among other things, weighing equipment, quantity and size distribution of the catch, the quality of the fish and documentation. The Directorate has seven regional offices along the coast, staffed
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 201
Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the PI 3.2.3 management measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. with inspectors that carry out independent physical control of the fish at the point of landing, including total volume, species and fish size. All landings have to be reported six hours in advance in order to give the inspectors the possibility to check the landed catch. The landed volumes are compared to the volumes reported to the Directorate through the logbooks. Both landing and at-sea control is conducted using a risk-based framework aimed at utilizing resources to optimize compliance at any given moment. As mentioned under PI 3.1.1 a) above, the Coast Guard is administratively part of the Norwegian Navy but performs tasks on behalf of several ministries, including the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries. Its most important field of work in practice is fishery inspections. Coast Guard inspectors board fishing vessels and control the catch (e.g. catch composition and fish size) and fishing gear (e.g. mesh size) on deck and the volume of fish in the holds. Using the established conversion factors for the relevant fish product, the inspectors calculate the volume of the fish in round weight and compare this with the catches reported to the Directorate through the logbooks. The EU system for fisheries control is laid out in the Control Regulation, which entered into force on 1 January 2010. The Regulation applies to all activities covered by the CFP carried out on the territory of member states or in EU waters, and by EU fishing vessels or nationals of a member state (Art. 2). It requires all member states to adopt appropriate measures, allocate adequate financial, human and technical resources and set up all administrative and technical structures necessary for ensuring control, inspection and enforcement of activities under the CFP (Art. 5). The Regulation contains Titles (‘sections’ above chapter level) on, among other things, access to waters and resources (Title III), control of fisheries (Title IV), control of marketing (Title V), surveillance (Title VI), inspections and proceedings (Title VII), enforcement (Title VIII) and common control programmes (Title IX). Among the substantial requirements are that member states operate a vessel monitoring system (VMS) and an automatic identification system (AIS), to be generally applied by vessels above 12 and 15 meters, respectively (Art. 9, 10), and that they make the use of fishing logbooks mandatory for all vessels above 10 meters (Art. 14) and electronic logbook for all vessels above 12 meters (Art. 15). The Regulation also introduces an obligation of member states to employ real-time closure of fisheries (Art. 51-54). Further, member states are obliged to carry out monitoring of fishing activities by inspection vessels or surveillance aircraft (Art. 71) and physical inspections of fishing vessels (Art. 74-77); in addition to national inspectors, a pool of Community inspectors shall also be set up (Art. 79). Procedures are established for situations where infringements are detected (Art. 82-88), including enhanced follow-up when infringements are serious, such as misrecording of catches of more than 500 kg or 10 % of what is reported in the logbook (Art. 84). Further, provisions are given for proceedings (Art. 85-88) and sanctions (Art. 90-93) (see PI 3.2.3 b) below). There is an extensive exchange of information (e.g. inspection data) among the North East Atlantic states, bilaterally and multilaterally through the NEAFC control and enforcement scheme. Hence, there are a number of possibilities for enforcement authorities to physically check whether the data provided by fishers through self-reporting are indeed correct. In addition, VMS data enables control of whether area restrictions are observed, among other things. Hence, a comprehensive monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery and has demonstrated a consistent ability to enforce all relevant management measures; see SI 3.2.3 c) below on compliance. SG 100 is met.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 202
Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the PI 3.2.3 management measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. b Sanctions Guide Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with post non-compliance exist and non-compliance exist, non-compliance exist, are there is some evidence are consistently consistently applied and that they are applied. applied and thought to demonstrably provide provide effective effective deterrence. deterrence. Met? Y Y Y Justif Statutory authority for the use of sanctions in the event of infringements of icatio fisheries regulations is given in Chapters 11 and 12 of the Marine Resources Act. n Intentional or negligent violations are punished with fines or prison up to one year (§§ 60–63), while infringements committed with gross intent or negligence may be punished with prison up to six years. In the judgment of the seriousness of the infringement, the economic gain of the violation, among other things, is to be taken into consideration (§ 64). Alternatively, catch, gear, vessels or other properties can be confiscated (§ 65). The Norwegian enforcement agencies use a graduated sanctioning system, with sanctions ranging from oral warnings, written warnings and administrative fines to formal prosecution. If the fishers do not accept the fines issued by the enforcement or prosecution authority, the case goes to court. The decision of a lower-level court can then be appealed to higher-level courts. In accordance with the EU Control Regulation, member States are required to ensure that appropriate measures are systematically taken when violations of fishing regulations are detected, including administrative action or criminal proceedings, in order to provide effective deterrence (Art. 89). For serious infringements, a point system is to be applied (Art. 92), whereby fishermen are given a specified number of points for different kinds of violations. When a specific number of points is reached, the fishing license shall be automatically suspended for a period of at least two months, increasing with repeated violations. In addition to the point system, a graduated system of penalties is used at national level in Scotland, ranging from oral advice to advisory letter, official written warning, various forms of statutory notices (such as revocation and suspension notices), financial administrative penalties (up to £10,000), other material enforcement measures (such as seizure and disposal of fish) and formal prosecution. Fixed penalty levels for different types of offences are publicly available; e.g. the lowest level of infringements leads to a penalty of £250 for a first-time offence and £500 the second time, while the case is referred to prosecution if the violation is repeated a second time. According to available information from both the enforcement bodies and the fishers interviewed for the assessment, sanctions are consistently applied. The comprehensive enforcement system (see SI 3.2.3 a) above) combined with the high level of compliance (see SI 3.2.3 c) below), and information from interviews at the site visit, makes it reasonable to assume with a high degree of certainty that the system provides effective deterrence. SG 100 is met. c Compliance Guide Fishers are generally Some evidence exists There is a high degree post thought to comply with to demonstrate fishers of confidence that the management system comply with the fishers comply with the for the fishery under management system management system
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 203
Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the PI 3.2.3 management measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. assessment, including, under assessment, under assessment, when required, providing including, when required, including, providing information of importance providing information of information of importance to the effective importance to the to the effective management of the effective management of management of the fishery. the fishery. fishery. Met? Y Y Y Justif Enforcement authorities report the level of compliance in the fishery to be high. In icatio 2016, the Coast Guard carried out 1569 inspections at sea. 302 inspections (19.2 n %) resulted in a warning and 74 inspections (4.7 %) in a fine or prosecution. 58 inspections were carried out in the fishery under assessment – 4 warnings (6.9 %) were issued, but no fines. The Directorate of Fisheries performed 2919 inspections in 2016. Infringements leading up to a fine or prosecution were found in 391 inspections (13.4 %). 61 inspections of the fisheries under assessment revealed 7 infringements (11.5 %), mostly related to inaccuracies in the catch log – of these, only one vessel was fined (1.6 %). Under the data exchange arrangements with other states, bilaterally and under the NEAFC control and enforcement scheme, Norwegian enforcement authorities have not been informed of any violations committed by the UoA fishers in waters outside Norwegian jurisdiction. As follows from PIs 3.2.3 a) and b) above, the fishery has in place a comprehensive system for monitoring, control and surveillance, including physical checks of fishing operations, catch and gear, as well as a fine-meshed sanctioning system. In addition to these coercive compliance mechanisms, various forms of norm-, legitimacy- and communication-related mechanisms have also proved effective to deliver compliance in Norwegian fisheries. First, there is a degree of social control in the small coastal communities from which the fishery takes place, and the high level of user-group involvement (see PI 3.1.2 above) may provide regulations with a degree of legitimacy that increases fishermen’s inclination to comply with them. The same applies to the relationship between fishermen and enforcement officers, which is reported to be good. Inspectors are trained to approach the fishermen in as forthcoming a manner as possible and perceive themselves as having a guidance-providing and not only a policing role towards the fishing fleet. The MSC Fisheries Standard does not give any specific guidance as to what level of compliance is required to conclude that fishers ‘comply with the management system under assessment’. Nor would that be reasonable since the absence of infringements in inspection statistics might as well imply that inspectors are not competent (or willing) enough to detect non-compliance, or that they focus attention on those parts of the fishery where compliance is highest; cf. the note on risk-based control above. Hence, official compliance information can only give an indication, and must be seen in relation to other factors, such as the comprehensiveness of the enforcement system, the legitimacy of the management system as such, assumptions on the reliability of data provided by the enforcement authorities and other anecdotal evidence of compliance. It is the qualitative judgment of the assessment team that the requirement that fishers ‘comply with the management system’ is met in this fishery – this does not imply that infringements never take place (which is probably not the case in any fishery), but that most rules are generally respected. The requirement that fishers provide information of importance to the effective management of the fishery is definitely met, based on interviews at the site visit. So the question remains whether fishers are ‘generally thought to comply’ (required for a 60 score), whether ‘some
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 204
Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the PI 3.2.3 management measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. evidence exists’ that they comply (required for an 80 score), or whet her there is ‘a high degree of confidence’ that they comply (required for a 100 score). The comprehensiveness of the enforcement system, the reliability and transparency of compliance information and the legitimacy of the management system taken together, makes it reasonable to conclude that there is a high degree of confidence that fishers comply. SG 100 is met. d Systematic non -compliance Guide There is no evidence of post systematic non- compliance. Met? Y Justif As demonstrated under SI 3.2.3 c) above, there is no evidence of systematic non - icatio compliance in the fishery. SG 80 is met. n COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1010/2009 of 22 October 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006. Email correspondence with representatives of the Coast Guard and the Directorate of Fisheries. Gezelius, S.S. (2003/2012), Regulation and Compliance in the Atlantic Fisheries: State/Society Relations in the Management of Natural Resources, Dordrecht: Springer.
References Hønneland, G. (2000/2012), Coercive and Discursive Compliance Mechanisms in the Management of Natural Resources: A Case Study from the Barents Sea Fisheries, Dordrecht: Springer. Hønneland, G. (2013), Making Fishery Agreements Work: Post-Agreement Bargaining in the Barents Sea, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Interview with representatives of the Directorate of Fisheries during the site visit. J-215-2015: Forskrift om posisjonsrapportering og elektronisk rapportering for norske fiske- og fangstfartøy (Regulation on Reporting of Position and Electronic Reporting for Norwegian Fishing and Catch Vessels). Lov om forvaltning av viltlevande marine ressursar (havressurslova), LOV-2008- 06-06-37, 2008 (Marine Resources Act). Lov om førstehandsomsetning av viltlevande marine ressursar (fiskesalslagslova), LOV-2015-06-19-65, 2015 (Act on First-Hand Sales of Wild Catch of Marine Resources). Lov om kystvakten (kystvaktloven), LOV-2015-06-19-65, 1997 (Coast Guard Act). NEAFC Scheme of Control and Enforcement, London: NEAFC, updated as per 9 February 2017 ( https://www.neafc.org/scheme ).
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 205
Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the PI 3.2.3 management measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. REGULATIONS COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 404/2011 of 8 April 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: All UoCs 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.4 – Monitoring and management performance evaluation There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. PI 3.2.4 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Evaluation coverage Guide There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in post place to evaluate some place to evaluate key place to evaluate all parts parts of the fishery- parts of the fishery- of the fishery-specific specific management specific management management system. system. system Met? Y Y N Justif There are various mechanisms in place to evaluate key parts of the fishery -specific icatio management system, but at varied levels of ambition and coverage. At the n Regulatory Meetings that take place twice a year (see PI 3.1.2 above), management authorities receive feedback on management practices from the industry and other interested stakeholders, including NGOs. The scientific research component of the fisheries management system is reviewed in ICES reports and advice. The enforcement component is subject to continuous evaluation at meetings between the various bodies involved in enforcement activities, where priorities are hammered out on the basis of risk-based monitoring of past experience. The international side to the Norwegian fisheries management system is reviewed by the Parliament upon submission by the Government (through the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries) of annual reports on the agreements concluded with other states for the coming year, and the previous year’s fishing in accordance with such agreements. The Office of the Auditor General conducts
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 206
There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. PI 3.2.4 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system. annual reviews of the financial performance of the fishery management system. SG 80 is met. It is a principal challenge to claim that absolutely ‘all’ parts of a fisheries management system are subject to review, but it seems reasonable to expect some sort of a holistic evaluation of the system as such. The Office of the Auditor General regularly carries out holistic reviews of different sectors of the Norwegian bureaucracy (so-called ‘management audits’, as opposed to the more traditional, annual financial audits). Such a review of the fisheries management system was undertaken in 2003–2004. At the initiative of the Russian Auditor General, a parallel audit of the Norwegian and Russian management systems for the Barents Sea fisheries was carried out in 2006–2007 and updated in 2011. While this PI, as opposed to SI 3.2.4 b) below, asks about the extent of the reviews and not their frequency , it is the opinion of the assessment team that some level of regularity and consistency in initiative, intent and approach must be present for a series of two or more reviews to qualify as reflecting a ‘mechanism’. The parallel revision in 2006–2007 came about at the initiative of the Russian Auditor General, and a decade has passed since then (with a lesser update in 2011). The last ‘management review’ proper, performed by the Office of the Auditor General at its own initiative, took place 12-13 years ago. So while holistic evaluations of the Norwegian system for fisheries management have been carried out, in the opinion of the assessment team they fall short of reflecting a ‘mechanism’. Hence, SG 100 is not met. b Internal and/or external review Guide The fishery -specific The fishery -specific The fishery -specific post management system is management system is management system is subject to occasional subject to regular subject to regular internal review. internal and occasional internal and external external review. review. Met? Y Y N Justif This PI, as opposed to S i 3.2.4 a) above, does not ask about the extent of reviews icatio (covering some/key/all parts of the management system), but rather about their n frequency and whether they are internal or external to the management system. (If that were not the case, scoring SI 3.2.4 b) would have made no sense in cases where 3.2.4 b) does not reach a 100 score, i.e. if not ‘all’ parts of the management system are subject to review.) Hence, various forms of evaluation can be taken into consideration under this PI even if they do not comprise the entire management system. But as discussed under SI 3.2.4 a) above, some level of interrelationship between these PIs must be assumed. For instance, external reviews of only peripheral components of the management system should not automatically lead to a positive score on the external review indicator (whether ‘occasional’ for SG 80 or ‘regular’ for SG 100), in the opinion of the assessment team. The fishery-specific management system is subject to various forms of internal self-evaluation within the Norwegian bodies of governance (see PI 3.2.4 a) above); these take place on a regular basis. Hence, the requirement for a 100 score is met as far as internal reviews are concerned. The system is also subject to various mechanisms for external review. The international component – Norway’s fishery agreements with other states – is
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 207
There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. PI 3.2.4 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system. annually reviewed by Parliament following the submission o f status reports by the Ministry of Trade Industry and Fisheries. None of the stocks under assessment here are subject to joint management with other states, but are managed by Norway alone. Hence, this review mechanism does not qualify as a relevant external review mechanism here (which is required to achieve an 80 score). The same applies to the financial audits performed by the Office of the Auditor General, which cover only a minor and rather peripheral aspect of the fisheries management system, seen in the context of an MSC assessment. As mentioned under SI 3.2.4 a) above, the Office of the Auditor General conducted comprehensive evaluations of the Norwegian system for fisheries management in 2003–2004 and 2006–2007, so the system is indisputably subject to external reviews, thus meeting the criterion for an 80 score. And although it can be debated how often (and at what intervals) reviews must be carried out to meet the SG 100 requirement of ‘regular’ external reviews, we conclude that it is not met here. While only three years passed between the two mentioned evaluations, none has been carried out for nearly a decade now. SG 100 is not met. Forvaltning og kontroll av fiskeressursene i Barentshavet: en parallelrevisjon mellom norsk og russisk Riksrevision, Office of the Auditor General, Oslo, 2007 (Management and Control of the Fish Resources in the Barents Sea: A Parallel Audit between the Norwegian and Russian Auditors General). Meld. St. 20 (2015–2016) Noregs fiskeriavtalar for 2016 og fisket etter avtalane i 2014 og 2015, 2016 (White Paper on Norway’s [International] Fisheries Agreements and Fishing in Accordance with the Agreements in 2014 and 2015).
References Riksrevisjonens oppfølging av parallellrevisjonen med Den russiske føderasjons riksrevisjon om forvaltningen av fiskeressursene i Barentshavet og Norskehavet, Dokument 3:8 (2010-2011), Office of the Auditor General: Oslo, 2011 (The Office of the Auditor General’s Follow-up of the Parallel Audit with the Auditor General of the Russian Federation on the Management of the Fish Resources in the Barents Sea and the Norwegian Sea). Riksrevisjonens undersøkelse av forvaltninen av fiskeressursene, Dokument nr. 3:13 (2003–2004), Office of the Auditor General, 2004 (The Office of the Auditor General’s Investigation on the Management of Fish Resources). OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: All UoCs. 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 208
APPENDIX 2 RISK BASED FRAMEWORK (RBF) Appendix 2.1 Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs
Whilst an initial RBF meeting was held to gather information on the sandeel stocks, the team finally decided to use the default assessment tree without using the RBF.
RBF meeting on sand eel PI 1 in the Norwegian fishery. The RBF was conducted on January 31 2017 14:30-16:00.
The following were present: - Tor B. Larsen, Norges Fiskarlag (Client) - Lars Ove Stenevik, Norges Fiskarlag, Fishermen - Helge O Vikshåland, Norges Fiskarlag, Fishermen - Robert Misved, Directorate of Fisheries - Modulf Overvik, Directorate of Fisheries - Snorri Palmason, Directorate of Fisheries - Espen Johnsen, Institute of Marine Research - Åge Høines, Institute of Marine Research - Cecilie Kvamme, Institute of Marine Research - Assessment team: Stefan Midteide, Hans Lassen, Lucia Revenga and Geir Honneland - ASI witness: Nick Pfeiffer
At the time of the meeting there was no information on which sandeels species appeared in the catch composition and on what proportion. Information on published and unpublished papers about the Ammodytes marinus proportion in the catch of Norwegian vessels was obtained during the meeting.
The Norwegian fishery is currently confined to the Norwegian zone. There is no exchange of sand eel quota between EU and Norway. Espen Johnsen (IMR) explained the Norwegian approach to management and noted that the overall TAC is set based on the acoustic survey accepting this as an absolute estimate of the stock size. He noted that the sand eel catches are identified to species in this survey and that A. marinus is completely dominating grounds.
The group agreed based on information from IMR that the Norwegian fishery only affected two sand eels (lesser sand eel (A. marinus) and great sand eel ( Hyperoplus lanceolatus (Le Sauvage)) This is
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 209
in conformity what was found by Nævdal and Thorkildsen (2002) using genetic methods. Also the catches and the populations are entirely dominated by A. marinus as H. lanceolatus is coastal in Norwegian waters.
Based on this information the group discussed which among the four options defined in Table PF2 were the most vulnerable in the Norwegian zone. Scoring is based on Table PF3.
The Group reached the following conclusions:
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 210
Appendix 2.2 Consequence Analysis (CA) for Principle 1
Table 38 Principle 1 CA Scoring Template - Lesser Sand eel ( A. marinus )
Scoring element Consequence subcomponents Consequence Score
Population size PRINCIPLE ONE: Stock status outcome Reproductive capacity Lesser sandeel Age/size/sex structure
Geographic range 60
The sand eel in the Norwegian zone - and elsewhere in the North Sea – have been severely depleted partly as a Rationale for most vulnerable result of heavy fishing. This is seen as local depletion including that certain grounds have been essentially wiped subcomponent free of sand eel and in these areas there has not been repopulation after the fishery was stopped .
The distribution of the lesser sand eel has been significantly affected. However, the revision of the management approach introduced in 2009/2010 has reverted the effects. There are still two grounds that formerly were the Rationale for consequence score habitat of significant sand eel populations which are no longer so. These are judged to be less than 10% of the total population.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 211
Table 39: CA Scoring - Great Sand eel ( H. lanceolatus). After the meeting it was decided that due to its low proportion in the catch composition this species would be scored as a minor secondary species under Principle 2.
Scoring element Consequence subcomponents Consequence Score
Population size 80 PRINCIPLE ONE: Stock status outcome Reproductive capacity Greater sandeel Age/size/sex structure
Geographic range
The species only occur as a small bycatch in the sand eel fishery and while there is little information on the species Rationale for most vulnerable the surveys indication that the effect on this species is a general impact on the population size while the three other subcomponent options are not specifically affected.
The information is entirely based on results from the acoustic/ survey in the Norwegian zone. This does not indicate Rationale for consequence score particular effects on the great sand eel.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 212
Table PF3: CA Scoring of subcomponents Consequence Category Subcomponent 100 80 60 Fail Population size Insignificant Possible Full exploitation Consequence is change to detectable rate but long-term higher-risk than population change in recruitment 60 level. size/growth rate size/growth rate dynamics not (r). Change is (r) but minimal adversely unlikely to be impact on damaged. detectable population size against natural and none on variability for this dynamics. population. Reproductive Insignificant Possible Detectable capacity change in detectable change in reproductive change in reproductive capacity. Unlikely reproductive capacity. Impact to be detectable capacity but on population against natural minimal impact dynamics at variability for this on population maximum population dynamics. sustainable level, long-term recruitment dynamics not adversely affected. Reproductive Insignificant Possible Detectable capacity change in detectable change in reproductive change in reproductive capacity. Unlikely reproductive capacity. Impact to be detectable capacity but on population against natural minimal impact dynamics at variability for this on population maximum population dynamics. sustainable level, long-term recruitment dynamics not adversely affected. Geographic Insignificant Possible Detectable range change in detectable change in geographic change in geographic range range. Unlikely to geographic range up to 10% of be detectable but minimal original against natural impact on distribution due to variability for this population fishing activities. population. distribution and none on dynamics.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 213
APPENDIX 3 CONDITIONS
Table 40 Condition 1 (HCR) All UoCs except “UoC3: sandeel in Norwegian waters” Performance 1.2.2a and 1.2.2b Indicator Score 1.2.2a (SG80) Well defined HCRs are in place that ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY, or for key LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. 1.2.2b (SG80) The HCRs are likely to be robust to the main uncertainties. Score Norway Pout 65 (UoC 4 and 5)
Score Sandeel EU stocks (NS-1r, NS- 65 4). UoC 1 and 3.
Score Sprat (UoC 65 6, 7 and 8)
Rationale There is no multiannual management plan for Norway pout, Sandeel stocks in the EU zone and sprat. There are Generally understood HCRs are in place that are expected to reduce the exploitation rate as the point of recruitment impairment (PRI) is approached. There is no well-defined HCR for the stock mentioned (Norway pout, sprat, and EU sand eel stocks) These plans should be investigated and shown to be robust to the main uncertainties in the input to the Harvest Control Rule. Condition The Client should work with relevant authorities and industry colleagues to develop appropriate harvest control rules and to have these evaluated (e.g. by ICES) and shown to be precautionary and robust to the main uncertainties. Milestones Year 1: The client should present evidence that he has approached relevant authorities and asked for the required HCRs. Interim score: 65. Year 2: The Client should present evidence that such HCRs are under development. Interim score 65. Year 3: The Client should present evidence that the HCRs are being developed and are evaluated by competent organisations. The Client should present evidence that the plans are discussed with a view for adoption at the relevant levels. Interim score 65. Year 4: The Client should present evidence that the HCRs are being implemented. Interim score: 80 Client action plan Action 1.1 NFA (Client) will engage with the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries (hereby referred to as “the Ministry”) to evaluate the current status and progress towards implementing a HCR in the fishery. Action 1.2 In year 2 NFA will provide an evaluation of options for potential HCRs Action 1.3 In year four, NFA will cooperate with stakeholders and management authorities and urge them to implement HCRs. Consultation on None. The relevant party here is primarily the Ministry, secondarily the IMR condition and Directorate of Fisheries. As all scoring under principle 3 for these fisheries confirms, these three parties have close cooperation with NFA, as well as the larger Norwegian seafood industry. Through both formal and informal channels during the year, NFA provides input on management priorities, research projects. Although successful outcomes cannot be guaranteed, NFA input has heavy emphasis, and there is vast empirical evidence of this. This
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 214
standing practice in Norwegian management gives the largest degree of credibility to the action plan possible. Also, the absence of HCRs and reference points was thoroughly discussed at site visits and pre-assessments, and all parties were well aware in advance that this condition would be placed on the fishery.
Table 41: Condition 2 Applies to UoC 4 (Norway pout with bottom trawl) and UoC 6 (Sprat with bottom trawl). PI 2.4.1 The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat Performance structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the Indicator governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. Score 70
Sib: VME habitats status SG80: The UoA is highly unlikely (<30%) to reduce structure and function of the VME habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.
Finding: All Norwegian vessels have a VMS on board regardless the vessel’s size. This serves the Directorate of Fisheries to verify that vessels do not enter Marine Protected Areas. The Norway pout fishery takes place in the muddy and sandy grounds of the Fladen Ground, while the sprat fishery mainly takes place in the muddy grounds of the Dogger bank, the Oyster ground and the German bight. According to Rationale OSPAR maps, there are seapens (VME) in these fishing grounds which may be
affected by the bottom trawl fleet targeting Norway pout or sprat. The Central Fladen Nature Conservation MPA has been designed to protect seapens and burrowing megafauna. The Directorate of Fisheries does not report any infringements regarding the fleet entering MPA. An overlapped map of fishing activities by the bottm trawl UoCs and MPA and OSPAR VME would help the team in scoring this SI. Given the present information is not possible to determine that the UoA is highly unlikely (<30%) to reduce structure and function of the VME habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. SG80 is not met. The SG80 requirements for SIb must be met.
By the fourth surveillance audit necessary conservation and management measures for all vulnerable marine habitats in the UoC fishing grounds shall be Condition in place and implemented, such that the UoC does not cause serious or
irreversible harm to structure and function of VME habitats (as described by OSPAR). The fishery will also need to provide overlapped maps of bottom trawling activity and OSPAR threatened or declining habitats. Year 1 : There shall be evidence of the Client’s plan to evaluate potential damage to seapens, deep-sea sponge aggregations or corals, appropriate to this UoC. There shall be evidence of engagement with research institutions with the goal of evaluating potential damage to all vulnerable habitats by fishing Milestones activities of this UoC. If research institutions are unable to provide support for
the implementation of the plan, the fishery shall prepare the plan on the basis of other means (e.g. independent consultants or scientists or other means as appropriate). The plan may include an Environmental Impact Assessment or other similar analysis. Score 75.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 215
Year 2 : By the end of Year 2 there shall be evidence of ongoing work towards the implementation of the plan; i.e. developing options for conservation and management measures to all VME habitats affected by the UoC, such that the fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, on a regional or bioregional basis, and function. These options may be developed with the support of research institutions, or may be developed within the client group, as appropriate. Options may include closed areas, move on thresholds or other actions as appropriate, but should be sufficient to ensure that there serious and irreversible harm to seapens, sponges, and coral gardens is highly unlikely. The client shall provide overlapped maps of VMS records and OSPAR threatened or declining habitats. Score 75 Year 3: Evaluate the options developed in year 2. Consider suggested modifications if needed, and finalise and agree on conservation and management measures for the protection of seapens or other VME species overlapping with the fishery. These measures can be taken either at client group level or at a higher level. Score 75. Year 4: Implement the agreed measures necessary to show that the UoA is highly unlikely (<30%) to reduce structure and function of the VME habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.
A formal commitment to the agreed upon conservation and management measures shall remain in place for the duration of the certification period.
The client shall provide overlapped maps of VMS records and OSPAR threatened or declining habitats, to show avoidance on VME. Score 80. Action 2.1 NFA will approach the IMR and/or the Directorate of Fisheries in year 1 to propose a comprehensive evaluation of the potential damage to deep-sea sponge aggregations, corals and sea pens with regard to principle 2 of the MSC standard. If the IMR and/or the Directorate of Fisheries is unable or unwilling to perform this analysis, NFA will approach a third party such as independent consultants or scientists.
Action 2.2 Client action By the end of year 2, the analysis, which will include overlapped maps of the plan UoC VMS activity and VME habitats, should have provided output that allows the NFA to analyse the results, bring them forward to the Directorate of Fisheries and develop management options to mitigate damage if necessary according to the MSC standard. The goal will be to have the measures integrated into official Fisheries management. However, if the authorities are unwilling or unable to do so, voluntary codes of conduct will be considered.
Action 2.3 Potential management measures, if necessary, will be evaluated and implemented in year 4. Updated maps of the UoC VMS activity and VME habitats will be provided, to show avoidance of VME. None. The conditions involve approaching research institutions and the Directorate of Fisheries. It is a well ‐known fact that the NFA is a major stakeholder for this institution, and that our requests will be given heavy Consultation on emphasis. However, for both the analysis and potential implementation of condition measures, third party alternatives are presented in the action plan. NFA has full power to implement meet the condition through these measures, should IMR and the Directorate not be able to provide support.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 216
Table 43: Condition 3: Applies to UoC 1,2,3,4 and 6 (all bottom trawl UoCs)
Performance PI 2.4.2 There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does Indicator not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. Score 70
Si a: Management strategy in place SG80: There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above.
The Norwegian MAREANO program, which maps depth, topography, sediment composition, contaminants, biotopes and habitats in Norwegian waters, serves as a valuable tool to manage habitat types in Norwegian waters, and has helped to establish no fishing zones in Norwegian waters, which were designed mainly to protect cold corals which are mostly located near the shore line, with the exception of two protected areas in more open waters. The mandatory VMS in place serves to verify that these regulations are followed.
As regards fishing grounds which do not fall under the Norwegian jurisdictions, these are studied by the European’s Union Natura Directive (http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/# ), the OSPAR Commission (www.ospar.org ) and the Mapping European Seabed Habitats portal (www.searchmesh.net ). These areas are protected by the Habitats and Nature 2000 Directives in waters which fall under the EU jurisdiction (see Figure 21). Both the Norwegian and the European Union management tools have designated protected areas for the protection of sensitive habitats in their respective waters. Norwegian and EU enforcement systems, along with the mandatory use of VMS in the fishing fleet, serve to assure the accomplishment of these regulations.
The research undertaken in the status of benthic habitats along with the Rationale establishment of protected areas could serve to support that there is a partial
strategy in place (that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above) if management and enforcement measures were already implemented. But as mentioned, some of the MPAs in the area (such as the central area of the Fladen Ground and the Dogger Bank) are not yet fully well managed, as there are no site-specific fisheries management measures to protect seapens and burrowing megafauna both in the fishing grounds.
Si d: Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs SG80: There is some quantitative evidence that the UoA complies with both its management requirements and with protection measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, where relevant. There is evidence of the establishment of protected areas to protect vulnerable benthic species both in Norwegian and European waters. There is also evidence on the enforcement systems taking place in both these jurisdictions, through each European nation enforcement system, and on the Norwegian fleet accomplishing management measures in the area. The Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries has been consulted in order to know the range of infractions by the Norwegian fleet entering MPAs, and these resulted in an infraction ratio below 5% for 2016. There are however some concerns about some other vulnerable habitats, such as sea pens, which are not fully protected in certain areas. The Scottish Fisheries Sustainable Accreditation Group (SFSAG) has voluntary closed an area in the Fladen Ground to bottom trawl fishing for its vessels. This
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 217
measure is taken to protect seapens (Funiculla spp). This closure will apply until approved at European level. The closure was announced to all vessels in the UoA in May 2017, and will be monitored by Marine Scotland using VMS data. The area could potentially be fished by Norsk Fiskerlag Vessels fishing sandeel, Norway pout and sprat, and Norsk Fiskerlag has not provided the required assurance and SG80 is not met by the Norwegian bottom trawl fleet considered in this assessment. Besides, the team has no information on management requirements that other non-MS fisheries may have implemented in the area. The mentioned voluntary closed area corresponds to one (the southern) of three areas within the Central Fladen Ground MPA which would be closed to demersal towed gear under Marine Scotland’s proposal. The coordinates of SFSAG’s closed area are as follows (this corresponds exactly to the coordinates given by Marine Scotland for their closed area 3 in the Central Fladen Ground MPA. Marine Scotland, 2017a; Section B in Annex, Table B6): • 58° 59.248' N 000° 08.373' W • 58° 58.226' N 000° 04.475' E • 58° 55.440' N 000° 05.816' E • 58° 51.311' N 000° 06.539' E • 58° 49.143' N 000° 00.170' W • 58° 49.819' N 000° 09.843' W The team considers that there isn’t sufficient quantitative evidence that the UoA complies with both its management requirements, and with protection measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, therefore SG80 is not met by the bottom trawl UoCs. The quantitative evidence given by the lack of infringements in relation to MPA by the bottom trawl fleet serves to justify that the UoC complies with mandatory management requirements to protect VME, therefore SG60 is met for the bottom trawl UoCs. The lack of evidence regarding the impact that the bottom trawl fishery may have on this voluntary closed area prevents these UoCs from achieving SG80. SG80 is not met by the bottom trawl fleet. The SG80 requirements for PI2.4.2 SIa and SId must be met.
There shall be evidence of implemented management measures directed to the different VME which are expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome SG80 Condition level of performance.
The client shall present some quantitative evidence of the compliance with protection measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non MSC fisheries, where relevant.
Year 1 : There shall be evidence of the Client’s plan to evaluate the establishment of potential management measures directed to the protection of identified VME by the relevant authorities (such as seapens , deep-sea sponge aggregations or corals) appropriate to this UoC. There shall be evidence of engagement with research institutions with the goal of evaluating potential measures to avoid such damage by the bottom trawl Milestones fleet. If research institutions are unable to provide such support, the fishery shall prepare the potential measures on the basis of other means (e.g. independent consultants or scientists or other means as appropriate). There shall be evidence of activities undertaken in order to comply with voluntary protection measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non MSC fisheries, where relevant. Score 70.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 218
Year 2 : By the end of Year 2 there shall be evidence of ongoing w ork towards the election and implementation of the most appropriate management measures to protect identified VME by the relevant authorities in the UoC (i.e. developing options for conservation and management measures to all identified (by the relevant authorities) VME habitats affected by the UoC, such that the fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, on a regional or bioregional basis, and function). These management measures may be developed with the support of research institutions, or may be developed within the client group, as appropriate. The measures shall be sufficient to ensure that serious and irreversible harm to seapens, sponges, and coral gardens is highly unlikely). There shall be evidence of activities undertaken in order to comply with voluntary protection measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non MSC fisheries, where relevant. Score 70.
Year 3: Evaluate the options developed in year 2. Consider suggested modifications if needed, and finalise and agree on conservation and management measures for the protection of seapens or other identified VME (by the relevant authorities) overlapping with the fishery. These measures can be taken either at client group level or at a higher level. There shall be evidence of activities undertaken in order to comply with voluntary protection measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non MSC fisheries, where relevant. Score 70.
Year 4: Implement the agreed measures necessary to show that the UoA is highly unlikely (<30%) to reduce structure and function of the VME habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. A formal commitment to the agreed upon conservation and management measures shall remain in place for the duration of the certification period. There shall be some quantitative evidence of the compliance with protection measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non MSC fisheries, where relevant.
By the 4 th surveillance audit the client shall provide overlapped maps of VMS records and: - OSPAR threatened or declining habitats overlapping the UoA fishing grounds. - designated MPA overlapping the UoA fishing grounds. Besides, the client shall provide evidence of the accomplishment of voluntary measures undertaken by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries in the same fishing grounds directed to the protection of VME. Score 80. Action 3.1 NFA will engage with IMR and the Directorate of Fisheries to evaluate measures to mitigate bottom damage in the relevant VME areas. Internal discussions will be held to decide how other UoAs voluntary protection of central Fladen or other areas could be protected by a corresponding Norwegian code of conduct if governmental protective measures remain absent. Client action plan Action 3.2 NFA will follow up on the results from the consultations under 3.1 and work towards the election and implementation of the most appropriate management measures. Preferably this will be in the form of expected official protective regulation by the EU. In the absence of this, work will be continued to set up voluntary measures afforded to these VMEs by other UoAs.
Action 3.3
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 219
Options will be evaluated and NFA will finalize and agree on conservation and management measures and begin their implementation.
Action 3.4 Protective measures will be implemented at governmental or private jurisdiction level to show that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the VME habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. The measures will be evaluated with available data, and overlap maps will be provided of VMS records and: -OSPAR threatened or declining habitats overlapping the UoA fishing grounds. -Designated MPA overlapping the UoA fishing grounds. None. The conditions involve approaching the IMR and the Directorate of Fisheries. It is a well-known fact that the NFA is a major stakeholder for these institutions, and that our requests will be given heavy emphasis. However, for Consultation on both the analysis and potential implementation of measures, third party condition alternatives are presented in the action plan. NFA has full power to implement meet the condition through these measures, should IMR and the Directorate not be able to provide support.
There is one recommendation for the fishery.
Recommendation 1 (applies to all UoC):
PI 2.3.3.b: Information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage impacts, minimize mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives.
Recommendation : The assessment team recommends that systems are put in place to ensure that all interactions with ETP species are recorded on log books irrespective of whether they are landed or discarded and that the captures of all ETP species are mapped.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 220
APPENDIX 4 PEER REVIEW REPORTS
1. Peer review report from peer reviewer No. 1 and CAB response.
2. Peer review report from peer reviewer No. 2 and CAB response.
3. Peer review follow up report from peer reviewer No. 1 and CAB response.
4. Peer review follow up report from peer reviewer No. 2 and CAB response.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 221
Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments
Contact Information
Contact Name First Peer reviewer A Last
Assessment Details
Fishery Initial assessment of the Norway sandeel, pout and north sea sprat fishery
Conformity DNV GL Assessment Body
Contact Person
Contact Details DNV GL Business Assurance Norway AS Veritasveien 1 1322 HØVIK, Norway Tel: +47 67 57 99 00 http://www.dnvgl.com
Peer Review Due Date 28 June 2017
Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 1 of 18 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Overall Opinion
Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes and Conformity Assessment Body appropriate conclusion based on the evidence No Response presented in the assessment report? Justification: The team acknowledges both the disturbance of the North Sea and the The assessment deals with one of the most disturbed marine important role of low trophic species as ecosystems in the world – the North Sea ecosystem. The those assessed. target species represent low trophic level species, i.e. they Additional information has been added form basis for this ecosystem. Thus it is necessary to be to better justify the scoring of different especially cautious in the assessing effects of the fishery. On performance indicators. my opinion, the team did not fully accounted for all effects of Regarding the main problems the fishery on ecosystem and target species, and the mentioned: conclusions presented in the assessment will be appropriate i. The low trophic level nature of only in a case of providing additional justifications and the target species has been evidences. considered under both P1 I see the following main problems with this report: (i) and P2I. Besides, the key insufficient consideration of low trophic level nature of the LTL issue is discussed target species, (ii) underestimation of effects of bottom trawls further in section 3.3. The and mid-water trawls on habitat, (iii) too high scores for issue is what is required by sandeel in NS-2r area. the MSC standard. ii. The effects of bottom trawls on habitats have been evaluated taking into account published reports by different researchers. Impacts of bottom trawlers in soft bottoms such as mud and sand are not expected to be irreversible. Impacts of midwater trawls in the seafloor are not expected to occur due both to the deployment conditions of the net itself and to the existence of Norwegian regulation setting a minimum distance to the seafloor when using these nets. iii. The scoring of the sand eel NS- 2r is considered appropriate in the light that that the fishing mortality has been below Fcap since 2010 and the low level of the SSB is likely a result of the environmental conditions.
Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 2 of 18 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes/No Conformity Assessment Body appropriately written to achieve the SG80 Response outcome within the specified timeframe? Justification: Condition 1: No comments Condition 1. Yes Condition 2: The conclusions of the Condition 2. No. assessment team regarding the impacts The condition only addresses hard substrates considering that of bottom trawlers in soft bottoms such soft substrates are insignificantly affected by bottom trawls. as mud and sand has been strengthen The team justifies this by finding of the paper by Kaiser et al. with the addition of two other authors (2006), concluding that the effect of bottom trawls on soft- whom also support that impacts on bottom communities is negative only in short-term perspective, these substratum are reversible. These but is even positive in long-term perspective. As far I know authors are Gordon at al. (2002) and from this paper, the only positive effect was increase of Meenakumari et al. (2008). The papers abundance of organisms – the only available parameter. The used as reference have been added to authors explained this “positive” effect by increase of number the reference list. of small short-living animals, but effect is likely negative on It is agreed that bottom trawl larger and longer-living organisms. However, absence of data disturbance in soft bottoms modify the on biomass does not allow to justify this conclusion. Therefore distribution of benthic species in the it is likely that bottom trawls significantly affect structure of the seafloor, favoring a swift to more community, reducing abundance of large organisms. This resilient species which also serve to needs to be addressed in the assessment. support the structure and function of the habitat. Besides, information has been added regarding the expected recovery time in soft bottoms once the disturbance ceases. No changes have been made to the scoring of habitat PI. The argument that the findings of Keiser et al (2006) are not justified has to be discussed at the proper place, i.e. through a peer reviewed paper that disagree with Keiser et al (2006) based on data that indicate or prove the original paper wrong.
If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient Yes/No Conformity Assessment Body to close the conditions raised? Response Justification: Condition 1: No comments. Condition 1. Yes Condition 2: See above. Condition 2. No (see above)
For reports using the Risk-Based Framework please follow the link. For reports assessing enhanced fisheries please follow the link. General Comments on the Assessment Report (optional)
Figures 7, 13, 21, 25, 27, 31 are absent. The Team apologizes for this error caused by converting the word document into a pdf document.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template
Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Performance Indicator Review Please complete the table below for each Performance Indicator which are listed in the Conformity Assessment Body’s Public Certification Draft Report.
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to information and/or rationale raised improve 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)
Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 4 of 18 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to information and/or rationale raised improve 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 No N/A a) NS-2r: It is unclear how the team ended The fishing mortality (2016) is estimated at up with socore 80 (It is highly likely that the 0.13 while the reference point Fcap is 0.44. stock is above the PRI), and even SG60, Hence, the exploitation level is below Fcap given that they require, respectively 80 th and since 2010, See Figure below modified (Fcap 70 th percentile). Information that the stock is shown) from Figure 1, ICES (2017) Sandeel above Blim in 2016 is not a sufficient (Ammodytes spp.) in divisions 4.b-c and justification for that. Thus, SG60 and SG80 Subdivision 20, Sandeel Area 2r (central and are under question. southern North Sea) Advice on fishing opportunities, catch and effort Greater North Sea Ecoregion February 2017. ICES Advice 2017. Given the short lifespan, recovery from fisheries impact should have taken place (the exploitation over high 2003-2008, The stock was depleted in the 2003-2008 period and have recovered to some degree. Fishing mortality has been well below acceptable limits for almost a decade, On that basis accepting the stock as depleted because of too heavy fishing would be strange.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 5 of 18 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to information and/or rationale raised improve 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 No N/A b) According to MSC Fisheries Standard The time frame is based on considerations of v2.0, SA2.2.2, “the team shall consider the the generation time for the species which are biology of the species and the scale and short as both the age of first maturity is low intensity of both the UoA and management and the natural mortality is high. Therefore, system and other relevant issues in the period is about 10 years. The report text determining time periods over which to judge has been clarified fluctuations”, i.e. MSC does not provide clear recommendations regarding time period to interpret term “fluctuating around”. However in case of salmon assessments, MSC is more specific and, according to SC2.2.3.2 “Stock status in relation to Target Reference Points”, defines that “where time series data are available, “fluctuating around” at the SG80 level means an SMU meeting its target reference point in ≥50% of the 15 most recent years”, This may mean at least an approximate time frame of the term “fluctuating around” in MSC understandig. It is unclear what period is chosen by the team, for interpreting “fluctuating around”, if they consider the situation when almost all years the stock was below not only of target reference point, but also the limit reference point (sandeel NS-2r) to score it 80. The situation is better for other UoCs, but all UoCs are needed to be assessed formally, i.e. with justification timeframe for analyses.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 6 of 18 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to information and/or rationale raised improve 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 No N/A Low trophic level species consideration: The team consider the target specie of the The team apologize for the missing assessment to be low trophic level (LTL) reference: Mackinson, S. and Daskalov, G., species, but does not consider them key LTL 2007. An ecosystem model of the North Sea species, which would require considering to support an ecosystem approach to ecosystem needs during assessment their fisheries management: description and reference points. parameterisation. Sci. Ser. Tech Rep., Cefas The justification that target species are not Lowestoft, 142: 196pp. the reference has not key LTL species is mostly based on been inserted in the report. This paper is a paper by Mackison and Daskalov 2007. This well referenced. The finding are confirmed is a key paper, which is cited many times by Engelhard, G. H., Peck, M. A., Rindorf, A., thought the report, but it is absent in the Smout, S. C., van Deurs, M., Raab, K., reference list. I did not find it also in standard Andersen, K. H., Garthe, S., Lauerburg, R. A. bibliographical databases (Scopus). M., Scott, F., Brunel, T., Aarts, G., van This does not allow to evaluate quality of Kooten, T., and Dickey-Collas, M. Forage presented in the report data from this paper. fish, their fisheries, and their predators: who It is quite strange, for instance, that drives whom? – ICES Journal of Marine according to this paper, “carnivorous” have a Science, 71: 90–104. lower trophic level than, for instance “planktivorous” and “juveniles” (fig. 26 of the report).
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 7 of 18 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to information and/or rationale raised improve 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 No N/A Second, among 10 different groups, which are The definition of the key LTL species relate mentioned by the team to occur between sprat and to tranfer of energy through the ecosystem sandeel in terms of trophic level (thus forming the same trophic level), most are not relevant for such and whether the nergy transfer is through consideration because they are benthic (meiofauna, fish species or through other groups is shrimp, epifauna, Nephrops), not consumed by higher irrelevant in this context. level predators (gelatinous) or seabirds. Also, among these groups there are “carnivorous”, “planktivorous” or “juveniles” without clear information what is included in Concerning the discussion whether the three there. The only species from the list which is relevant, species are key LTL species or not. The i.e. represent small pelagic fish, is herring (respective Team is charged to apply the MSC standard herring fishery is already MSC certified (Norway North and it is not the place here to enter into a Sea and Skagerrak herring fishery, DNV 2014) as non- key LTL species because there are other LTL species in discussion of whether the standard is the ecosystems - assessed here). Therefore species appropriate or not. The reviewer seems to under certification, together with herring, comprise the agree that according to the standard the entire trophic level of small pelagic fish of the ecosystem individual species are not key LTL species under consideration, but, paradoxically, none of them is assessed as key LTL species just because of presence because none of the species individually are of other similar species. As a result, the fisheries, key channels of energy through the system. targeting almost entire trophic level of small pelagic The North Sea ecosystem includes a variety fishes, may be certified without special consideration of of such channels. their ecosystem role. This might satisfy formal MSC requirements, which do not include evaluation of the cumulative effect on different LTL species in one ecosystem, but biologically, there is a serious risk for health of the North Sea ecosystem, which is already strongly affected by many different human pressures. I think that non-addressing of LTL nature of the target species in this fishery does not comply with requirement of using precautionary approach in the assessment.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 8 of 18 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to information and/or rationale raised improve 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)
1.1.2 N/A N/A N/A According to SA2.3.1, “Teams shall only This is an error from a previous version of score this PI when Stock Status PI 1.1.1 the assessment report. The recovery is does not achieve an 80 score”, but according based on the low fishing mortality which has to the assessment provided (which I am not been in place ob average over the last agree with, see above), the score for 1.1.1 decade. Scoring has been changed. for the all species is 80 or above. Given this score, assessent of 1.1.2 is not needed.
1.1.3
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 9 of 18 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to information and/or rationale raised improve 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)
1.2.1 No No N/A a) Given that the sandeel stock in NS 2-r The scoring of the sandeel NS-2r is UoC was below the limit reference point for discussed under PI 1.1.1. The harvest many years, and the fishery continued, is it strategey is based on survey results and as possible to consider the harvest strategy such are responsive to stock development. “responsive to the stock status”? An increase of stock above limit reference point in 2016 is definitely insufficient for score 80 because may be caused by just an accidentally high Concerning the quota swap, this is evaluated reqruitment. The SG80 is not justified. for many stocks, see f. ex. Needle C. L. b) I think that the example of sandeel NS-2r (2011) Fleet dynamics in fisheries shows that evidence exists that the harvest management strategy evaluations. University strategy is NOT achieving its objectives”. of Strathclyde, ICES. 2012. Report of the SG80 is not justified. Workshop for Revision for the North Sea b) Norway pout and sprat: “EU and Norway Herring Long Term Management Plan, 1–2 agreed on an interannually quota flexibility of October 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES 10% of the TAC. Each party could transfer ACOM:72. 110 pp. and Brunel, T., and non ‐utilised quota of up to 10% of its quota Miller, D.C.M. 2013. An Evaluation of the into the next year, where it is added to the Impact of Inter-annual Quota Flexibility quota allocated to the party concerned in the (Banking and Borrowing) on the Performance following year (or borrow 10% of the TAC, to of the North Sea Flatfish Long Term be subtracted the following year). This Management Plan , June 2013, ICES inter ‐annual flexibility has changed in 2015 Headquarters, Copenhagen. ICES CM so that 25 % of the TAC can be transferred 2013/ACOM:64. 39 pp. The findings are that into the next year, while up to 10 % can be interannual quota swops does not in general borrowed”. affect the precautionarity of the HCR. I think that such regulation may cause a However, the studies are most related to serious risks for short-living fish like sprat, is longer lived species than the species transferred TAC will coincide with poor considered here. reqruitment. Justification that such regulation The justfication text has been updated. Document: Peer Reviewer Template does not contradict requirement of Page 10 of 18 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 precautionaryty of the harvest strategy is File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc needed. SG80 is not justified. © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to information and/or rationale raised improve 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)
1.2.2 Yes Yes Yes c) case of sandeel NS-2r needs special The high mortality that is generated for sand consideration for justifying SG80. So far SG eel in the period 2003-2008 suggests that the is not justified. SG100 is not met. Because that management is similar for all the ‘industrial’ fish (Norway pout, sand eel, sprat) there is some doubt about the ‘Clear evidence’.
The justification for SG80 is based on the low fishing mortality since 2010, see comment to PI 1.1.1
1.2.3 Yes Yes N/A Correct score for UoC5-6 (“Y’ instead of “N” Corrected, apologies for the error and thank for all SGs). you for spotting the fault.
1.2.4 Yes Yes N/A
2.1.1 Yes Yes N/A No coments.
2.1.2 Yes Yes N/A No coments.
2.1.3 Yes Yes N/A No coments.
2.2.1 Yes Yes N/A No coments.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 11 of 18 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to information and/or rationale raised improve 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)
2.2.2 Yes Yes N/A No coments.
2.2.3 Yes Yes N/A No coments.
2.3.1 Yes Yes N/A No coments.
2.3.2 Yes Yes N/A No coments.
2.3.3 Yes Yes N/A No coments.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 12 of 18 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to information and/or rationale raised improve 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)
2.4.1 No No No Bottom trawl. Bottom trawl: The assessment team has In all cases the team justifies its scores by strengthen its position by including referring to the paper by Kaiser et al. 2006. It references from Gordon et al (2002) and was indicated above that interpretation of Meenakumari et al (2008). It is noted that the results obtained from that paper is bottom trawling may change the relative incorrect (see comment on Condition 2). abundance of the different benthic species in Thus consideration of effects of bottom trawl a certain habitat, all these authors consider on bottom community should be re- that habitat structure and function remains evaluated. and than soft habitats recover from bottom trawl disturbance in a relatively shrot time Mid-water trawl. frame. Scoring remains unchanged. Midwater trawls often interact with bottom, especially while catching near-bottom fish to Midwater trawls: According to Norwegian increase the catch. For example, see fishing regulation, midwater trawls are certification report on Russian Sea of obligued to be set at a certain distance from Okhotsk Mid-water Trawl Walleye Pollock the seafloor. Captains can check the position (Theragra chalcogramma) Fishery. Norway of the net by using the sonda and the net pout one of such species and thus deployment informatic tools.Impacts in the assessment of effect of interaction of pelagic seafloor are not expected. Scoring remains trawl on bottom habitats requires more unchanged. thorougth consideration. References to fishermen who say that they avoid interaction of the gear with bottom to avoid damage are not convincing. B because fishermen always tend to reduce their impact on biota. Stronger evidences are required not only for GS100, but also for SG80. The score is not justified.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 13 of 18 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to information and/or rationale raised improve 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 No No N/A Insufficient attention is paid so far to effect of The assessment team has strengthen its bottom trawls on soft bottom communities position by including references from Gordon which is also significant (see above analysis et al (2002) and Meenakumari et al (2008). It of paper by Kaiser at al., 2006). is noted that bottom trawling may change the relative abundance of the different benthic species in a certain habitat, all these authors consider that habitat structure and function remains and than soft habitats recover from bottom trawl disturbance in a relatively shrot time frame. Scoring remains unchanged.
2.4.3 No No N/A a)No adequate information about a) Information has been added regarding the vulnerability of soft bottoms to bottom vulnerability of soft bottoms. Scoring remains trawling was provided. SG80 is not justified. unchanged. b) No information, which would be adequate b) Such information has been added. Scoring for analysis of main impacts on main habitats remains unchanged. (in particulr, soft bottoms, see above) was provided. SG80 is not justified.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 14 of 18 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to information and/or rationale raised improve 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)
2.5.1 No No N/A a.Although MSC requirements allow not to A. The management of target species with consider target species in this fishery as key MSY (as described in P1) is evaluated under LTL species (see comment to 1.1.1), while P1 PI. considering effect of their removal from the Justification and scoring of PI 2.5.1 remains ecosytem, it is necessary to take into un changed. This is in concordance with the consideration their specifc ecosystem role. lack of comments by the other peer reviewer Due to this, management of theis species in this PI. with MSY (as described in P1), is not precautionary and causes risks for the ecosystem health, which is already under a number of anhtropogenic stresses. Thus SG80 is not justified sufficiently.
2.5.2 No comments.
2.5.3 No No N/A d. Evidences on impact (or absence of d. According to Norwegian fishing regulation, impact) of mid-water trawls on bottom midwater trawls are obligued to be set at a communities are needed, but not provided. certain distance from the seafloor. Captains SG80 is not justified. can check the position of the net by using the sonda and the net deployment informatic tools.Impacts in the seafloor are not expected. Scoring remains unchanged.
3.1.1 Yes Yes N/A
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 15 of 18 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to information and/or rationale raised improve 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)
3.1.2 Yes Yes N/A
3.1.3 Yes Yes N/A
3.1.4 Yes Yes N/A
3.2.1 Yes Yes N/A
3.2.2 c. Agreement between EU and Norway on See response to PI 1.2.1 comment above. Norway pout and sprat on transfer and and borrowing of TAC does not look as precautionary measure (see comment on 1.2.1). To gain the SG80, additional explanations and justifications, how this recent change meet criteria of precautionary approach, are needed.
3.2.3 Yes Yes N/A
3.2.4 Yes Yes N/A
3.2.5 Yes Yes N/A
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 16 of 18 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Any Other Comments
Comments Conformity Assessment Body Response Some minor comments Assessment team answers: 1. Executive summary mentions an extension. It is unclear what extension is 1. The text has been amended. It refers to the present assessment of the referred to. fishery. 2. P.5. Statement about qualifications of Hans Lassen is absent 2. The statement is included. 3. Acronyms DFPO and DPPO are absent in the list at the beginning of the 3. Acronyms of DFPO and DPPO are included. report 4. The sentence has been amended. The error was a missing ‘-‘ between the 4. P..29: “A female produces 420 980 eggs per gram body weight, equivalent to number 21 000 eggs for a 30 g, two years ‐old fish”. Some mistake 5. The sentence has been amended. 5. p. 57: ”There is evidence that sea bird colonies in the Shetland area (Area 6. The figures have been reviewed. The problem was in converting the word file NS-7r) and off Scotland (Area NS-4) (see Figure 8 for area definition)”. into a pdf file. Incomplete sentence 7. The sentence has been reviewed and modified. 6. Figures 7, 13, 21, 25, 27, 31 are absent 7. P. 35: “Natural mortality was revised in 2015 (ICES, 2014a), which rescaled the estimates of F, SSB, and R in subsequent assessments. Natural mortalities are derived from the 2015 key run of the multispecies model described in the WGSAM reports Natural mortality was revised in 2015 (ICES, 2014a), which rescaled the estimates of F, SSB, and R in subsequent assessments. Natural mortality was revised in 2015 (ICES, 2014a), which rescaled the estimates of F, SSB, and R in subsequent assessments. Natural mortality was revised in 2015 (ICES, 2014a), which rescaled the estimates of F, SSB, and R in subsequent assessments. Natural mortality was revised in 2015 (ICES, 2014a), which rescaled the estimates of F, SSB, and R in subsequent assessments. (ICES, 2014b; ICES, 2016). Variable mortality is applied up till 2013, and after this the average mortality for 2011– 2013 is used. Natural mortality is high, with predation playing a large role at all ages. Estimates of natural mortality at age by quarter and year are available from multispecies assessment models (ICES 2014b). They are never lower than 0.1 even on the oldest ages, and exceed 0.8 for some years on 0-group sprat”. There are several repetitions in this para.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 17 of 18 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 For reports using the Risk-Based Framework: Performance Does the report Are the RBF risk Justification: Conformity Assessment Body Response: Indicator clearly explain scores well- Please support your answers by referring to specific how the process referenced? scoring issues and any relevant documentation where used to Yes/No possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. determine risk using the RBF led to the stated outcome? Yes/No 1.1.1
2.1.1
2.2.1
2.4.1
2.5.1
For reports assessing enhanced fisheries: Does the report clearly evaluate any additional impacts that might arise Yes/No Conformity Assessment Body Response: from enhancement activities?
Justification:
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 18 of 18 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Using the Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments
This template shall be used by peer reviewers of MSC fisheries’ assessments to ensure that the content of the review is relevant and actionable by Conformity Assessment Bodies (CABs). This template ensures a consistent format to facilitate comparisons between different fishery assessments. It will also inform future developments of the MSC’s scheme requirements.
If you have any queries related to using the template please contact the Peer Review College.
NB1 The peer reviewer information should be removed by the Peer Review College prior to sending the peer reviewer comments to the CAB, as the peer reviews will be unattributed in the Public Comment Draft Report (PCDR) and subsequent reports.
NB2 The CAB shall remove the instructions and information provided on pages i-iv when inserting peer review comments in the PCDR and subsequent reports.
Peer Reviewer Information
Contact Name First Peer Reviewer B Last
Fishery Assessment Details
Fishery Norway sandeel, Norway pout and North Sea sprat fishery
Peer Review College Patricia Bianchi - [email protected] contact details
Peer Review Due Date 29 June 2017
Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page iv Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Summary of Peer Reviewer Opinion
Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes CAB Response appropriate conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? Justification: Noted with thanks. I believe that the assessment team has reached the correct Procedural scoring in P2 regarding the conclusion that this fishery should be certified. The fisheries scoring of non-existing main species has score relatively highly on all three Principles. There are several been amended. points which require attention, but none of these have implications for the overall conclusion that the fishery should be certified. For P2 I have raised some questions about the way in which some PIs are scored, but these are primarily procedural, and should not affect the overall high scores for P2.
For P1 the assessment has been complicated by some stocks Thank you for the comments. being managed by the EU, some stocks managed solely by Concerning the issue on sandeel NS-2r Norway and some stocks managed jointly by the EU and this is discussed in detail under PI 1.1.1 Norway. The assessment team has however provided detailed rationale for the scores for each UoC, which has guided the reader through the various management regimes. Each UoC scores relatively highly on P1 except that a condition has been raised in relation to the lack of well-defined HCRs for stocks managed by the EU or jointly by the EU and Norway. In general I agree with the scores allocated to the PIs, although I query the scoring for PI 1.1.1 for sandeel stocks in management area 2r (UoC 2).
For P2 the fisheries are relatively “clean” fisheries with very little bycatch of primary, secondary or ETP species. The For P2, the condition on seapens for the condition in relation to the potential impact of the Norway pout Norway pout fishery has not been fishery on VME habitats is appropriate, although I question broadened to the sandeel or sprat whether the potential impact of these fisheries on sea pen and fisheries, as a comparative of VMS burrowing megafauna communities may need to be addressed maps and VME OSPAR maps show more widely than a single condition on the outcome PI for very limited overlap, if any. More Norway pout. information is provided in the relevant PI. For P3 comprehensive rationales are given for all PIs, and the fishery scores very highly reflecting the strong governance For P3, noted with thanks. across all Norwegian fisheries.
The assessment team concluded that there was no Noted with thanks. We would like to requirement to harmonize the scores with those from the emphasize that the amount of sandeel, Danish fishery, primarily because the Danish fishery sprat and Norway pout taken by the assessment was conducted under CRv1.3 and because the Norwegian fleet is much lower than that sandeel management areas have been revised since the taken by the already MSC certified Danish assessment was completed. I believe that this DFPO reduction fishery of sandeel, conclusion is appropriate. sprat and Norway pout in the North Sea.
Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page 1 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes CAB Response appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? [Reference: FCR 7.11.1 and sub-clauses] Justification: Noted with thanks. Condition 1. HCRs and management plans (all UoCs There is a general issue with conditions except UoC3 Norwegian sandeel stocks). The condition is that depends on international appropriately written in order to achieve the SG80 outcome, agreements beyond the control of the although given that agreement will need to be reached Client, this is an example. between Norway and the EU, it may prove difficult to meet the condition within the specified timeframe. Condition 2. Impact on VME habitats (Norway pout only). The condition is appropriately written in order to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe.
If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient Yes CAB Response to close the conditions raised? [Reference FCR 7.11.2-7.11.3 and sub-clauses] Justification: Noted with thanks. Condition 1. HCRs and management plans (all UoCs except UoC3 Norwegian sandeel stocks). The Client has demonstrated close liaison and collaboration with the Ministry, Directorate of Fisheries and IMR, and therefore the Client Action Plan should be sufficient to close the condition, although as noted above, the requirement for an agreement between Norway and the EU on developing and implementing the HCRs and management plan may make it difficult to meet the condition within the 4-year timeframe. Condition 2. Impact on VME habitats (Norway pout only). As noted above for Condition 1, the Client has demonstrated close liaison and collaboration with the Ministry, Directorate of Fisheries and IMR, and therefore the Client Action Plan should be sufficient to close the condition. In addition, if the Norwegian authorities and scientists are not able to assist the Client within the required timeframe, the Client will employ consultants to carry out the work as an alternative approach to meeting the condition.
Performance Indicator Review Please complete the appropriate table(s) in relation to the CAB’s Peer Review Draft Report:
• For reports using one of the default assessment trees (general, salmon or enhanced bivalves), please enter the details on the assessment outcome using Table 1.
• For reports using the Risk-Based Framework please enter the details on the assessment outcome at
Document: Peer Reviewer Template, v2.0
Date of issue: 1 October 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Table 2.
• For reports assessing enhanced fisheries please enter the further details required at Table 3.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template, v2.0
Date of issue: 1 October 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc
© Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Table 1 For reports using one of the default assessment trees:
Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring relevant and/or rationale raised improve issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. information used to score this the fishery’s been used to Indicator support performance to Note: Justification to support your answers is only required score this the given score? the SG80 level? where answers given are ‘No’. Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No)
1.1.1 Yes No N/A The score of 80 for UoC2, sandeels in management area The fishing mortality (2016) is 2r, appears to be overly generous. Whilst I understand estimated at 0.13 while the that, in such short-lived species, stock biomass can reference point Fcap is 0.44. fluctuate wildly between years, and that there can be very Hence, the exploitation level is large variations in annual recruitment which drive the below Fcap since 2010, See fluctuations in stock biomass, the current status of the Figure below modified (Fcap sandeel stock in 2r, notwithstanding the very high shown) from Figure 1, ICES recruitment in 2016, appears to be poor. Current estimates (2017) Sandeel (Ammodytes of stock biomass are below Blim, and stock biomass has spp.) in divisions 4.b-c and been above MSYBescapement in only one year since Subdivision 20, Sandeel Area 2003. I accept the assessment team’s rationale that there 2r (central and southern North has been a very large recruitment in 2016 and this is Sea) Advice on fishing expected to feed through into estimates of stock biomass, opportunities, catch and effort but the current estimate of stock biomass is still very low Greater North Sea Ecoregion and, as the assessment team notes, the potential increase February 2017 Code: in stock biomass in the near future needs to be confirmed. san.sa.2r ICES Advice 2017. For SIa, I can accept that there is some justification that the Given the short lifespan very high recruitment index in 2016 suggests that there is recovery from fisheries impact no impairment of recruitment even when the stock has should have taken place (the been below Blim for several years. However there seems exploitation over high 2003- to be no justification at present that the stock is fluctuating 2008, The stock was depleted around Bmsy. Indeed, the fact that the assessment team in the 2003-2008 period and have scored PI 1.1.2 for sandeels in 2r confirms that the have recovered to some assessment team consider that this stock is depleted. degree. Fishing mortality has been well below acceptable Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page 4 of 23 Date of issue: 19 January, 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring relevant and/or rationale raised improve issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. information used to score this the fishery’s been used to Indicator support performance to Note: Justification to support your answers is only required score this the given score? the SG80 level? where answers given are ‘No’. Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No)
I agree with the scores allocated for the other UoCs. limits for almost a decade, On However the values of the reference points given for that basis accepting the stock Norway pout do not match up with those given in Table 19 as depleted because of too and Figure 11. heavy fishing would be strange.
Figure 11 and Table 19 are correct. The scoring Table has been updated. I apologise for not having updated this Table.
1.1.2 No No N/A The assessment team has scored this PI for sandeel in 2r This is an error from a (UoC 2) even though a score of 80 was allocated to this previous version of the UoC for PI 1.1.1. assessment report. The For SIa, there is no rationale given about the rebuilding recovery is based on the low timeframe and the generation time of the stock to support fishing mortality which has the score of 100. been in place on average over the last decade. Scoring has been changed.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template, v2.0 Page 5 of 23 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring relevant and/or rationale raised improve issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. information used to score this the fishery’s been used to Indicator support performance to Note: Justification to support your answers is only required score this the given score? the SG80 level? where answers given are ‘No’. Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No)
1.2.1 Yes Yes N/A Minor note: the list of stocks given as EU sandeel stocks in Errors have been corrected SIb, c, & d includes UoC 6, which is incorrect. Note same error under PI 1.2.2.
1.2.2 Yes No Yes For SIc, it is not clear why the SG100 is not met for sandeel The high mortality that is and Norway pout stocks. generated for sand eel in the period 2003-2008 suggests Minor note: The rationale for SIb includes a discussion of that the SG100 is not met. the sandeel stock in management area 7r, although this Because that management is stock is not included in the UoCs. similar for all the ‘industrial’ fish (Norway pout, sand eel, sprat) there is some doubt about the ‘Clear evidence’. Sand eel in area 7r has been removed
Document: Peer Reviewer Template, v2.0 Page 6 of 23 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring relevant and/or rationale raised improve issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. information used to score this the fishery’s been used to Indicator support performance to Note: Justification to support your answers is only required score this the given score? the SG80 level? where answers given are ‘No’. Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No)
1.2.3 No No N/A For SIb, there is not sufficient information provided to justify The harvest control rule the score of 100, i.e. that there is good understanding of the (Norwegian the spatial inherent uncertainties in the data and the robustness of management plan), EU (based assesssment and managment to this uncertainty. on annual survey results). All data required for these Minor note: there is discussion of sandeel stocks in management approaches are management areas 5r and 7r which are not part of this available. The surveys are assessment (see also SIb & SIc for PI 1.2.4). annual and conducted based on ‘best scientific practise’. There is a good understanding of the uncertainties based on studies of the behaviour of the surveys and the robustness of the assessments has been investigated at ICES benchmarks. SG100 is met. Justification has been updated.
Sand eel in areas 5r and 7r have been removed, also for 1.2.4 Sib and SIc
1.2.4 Yes Yes N/A
Document: Peer Reviewer Template, v2.0 Page 7 of 23 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring relevant and/or rationale raised improve issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. information used to score this the fishery’s been used to Indicator support performance to Note: Justification to support your answers is only required score this the given score? the SG80 level? where answers given are ‘No’. Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No)
2.1.1 Yes No N/A For those UoCs where there are no main primary species, Scoring of PI refering to Main my understanding is that SIa should be scored as N/A species have been modified to rather than at 100, because SG60, SG80 and SG100 all N/A where relevant. Scoring apply only to main species (i.e. different to the scoring has been modifed accordingly. tables under MSC CRv1.3). The assessment team should check my interpretation with the MSC. The assessmetn team has I believe that the ‘element’ approach should be used to decided not to use the element score primary species. However for 2.1.1 for sandeels it is approach to acore minor not important as all minor species elements meet the species, as there are 10 minor SG100. The rationale needs tightening up a little, as it species to consider. states that all stocks are above MSYBtrigger, yet the text Rationale for PI 2.1.1 states that both cod and haddock are currently below (sandeels) has been modified MSYBtrigger. The key issue here though is that all stocks to become clearer. are above the PRI. The scores of 80 for SIb for both the Norway pout and sprat Scoring of 80 for SIb for the fisheries seems harsh as they are relatively clean catches Norway pout and sprat with few bycatch species, even taking into account the fisheries remain, mainly due to observation by stakeholders that the whole catch in a haul uncertainties caused by may occasionally be discarded. possible occasional slippage of the catch. Besides, the catch composition of the Norway pout fishery reflects that 22% of the catch are non- target species.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template, v2.0 Page 8 of 23 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring relevant and/or rationale raised improve issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. information used to score this the fishery’s been used to Indicator support performance to Note: Justification to support your answers is only required score this the given score? the SG80 level? where answers given are ‘No’. Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No)
2.1.2 Yes No (UOCs 5-6) N/A The rationale for SIe for UoCs 5 and 6 needs to more Information has been added in specifically address the effectiveness and practicality of Sie for UoC 5 and 6, and the alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted wording has been changed to catch. address the effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch.
2.1.3 Yes No N/A As for PI 2.1.1, for those UoCs where there are no main Scoring has been modified primary species, my understanding is that SIa should be accordinly. scored as N/A rather than at 100, because SG60, SG80 and SG100 all apply only to main species (i.e. different to the scoring tables under MSC CRv1.3). The assessment team should check my interpretation with the MSC.
2.2.1 Yes No N/A See comment above about scoring main species. Scoring has been modified accordinly.
2.2.2 Yes Yes N/A
2.2.3 Yes No N/A See comment above about scoring main species. Scoring has been modified accordinly.
2.3.1 Yes Yes N/A
Document: Peer Reviewer Template, v2.0 Page 9 of 23 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring relevant and/or rationale raised improve issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. information used to score this the fishery’s been used to Indicator support performance to Note: Justification to support your answers is only required score this the given score? the SG80 level? where answers given are ‘No’. Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No)
2.3.2 Yes Yes N/A
2.3.3 Yes Yes N/A I note that the assessment team considered that a better A new recommendation has reporting of non ‐fatal interactions with all ETP species and been set regarding the research conducted to estimate survival rate of released convenience of reporting non elasmobranchs would benefit the fishery in order to achieve fatal interactions with ETP SG100. Is this a good reason to make a formal species. recommendation?
2.4.1 No No Y For VME habitats, the justifications that the sandeel and As regards the sandeel sprat fisheries are unlikely to impact on habitat features are fishery, Figure 22 shows that weak. From the VMS maps of the sandeel fishery (Figure there may be a very small 17) and the sprat fishery (Figure 19) and the maps of overlap with a spot of VME’s (Figure 22) it seems that the fisheries may overlap seapens. Regarding the spart with seapens. Additional rationale needs to be given that fishery, the blue dots in Figure there are no significant interactions. 22 represent intertidal Mytilus edulis beds. In both cases The condition for the Norway pout fishery is appropriate, interactions are expected to be but the final year milestone should relate more closely to minimal and avoided, firstly the wording of the condition rather than focus on the due to the small pacthes of implementation of management measures. VME and secondly to get a cleaner catch. The wording of the 4 th year milestone in the Norway pout condition has been modified accordingly.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template, v2.0 Page 10 of 23 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring relevant and/or rationale raised improve issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. information used to score this the fishery’s been used to Indicator support performance to Note: Justification to support your answers is only required score this the given score? the SG80 level? where answers given are ‘No’. Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No)
2.4.2 Yes No N/A As acknowledged in the rationales, there is some concern Overlap by the sandeel fleet that the management regulations in place are not sufficient with seapens, if any, is to protect sea pens and burrowing megafauna expected to be minimal. communities, which suggests that the score of 80 for all the Overlap of the sprat fishery UoCs is not justified. Much emphasis is placed on the with seapens is not expected MPAs in place rather than the overall known distribution of (as the blue dots in Figure 22 VMEs. represent Mytilus edulis beds). The team has considered that these UoC should not be punished due to the lack of a specific management measure which is considered not to be needed for these UoC.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template, v2.0 Page 11 of 23 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring relevant and/or rationale raised improve issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. information used to score this the fishery’s been used to Indicator support performance to Note: Justification to support your answers is only required score this the given score? the SG80 level? where answers given are ‘No’. Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No)
2.4.3 Yes Yes N/A For SIs b & c, a comment should be made as to why the These comments have been SG100 is not met for bottom trawls. included. As for Sib, although the team considers that there is sufficient information to fully quantify the impacts of the bottom trawl fleet, this has not been done yet. As regards Sic, the team considereds that there isn’t yet enough information on the distribution of the different habitas in the past years enough to measure future trends in habitat distribution.
2.5.1 Yes Yes N/A
2.5.2 Yes Yes N/A
2.5.3 Yes Yes N/A
Document: Peer Reviewer Template, v2.0 Page 12 of 23 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring relevant and/or rationale raised improve issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. information used to score this the fishery’s been used to Indicator support performance to Note: Justification to support your answers is only required score this the given score? the SG80 level? where answers given are ‘No’. Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No)
3.1.1 Yes Yes N/A I agree with the scores for all scoring issues. However the It is a matter of stylistic assessment team should be more explicit about why the preference whether the words various SGs are met or not met, i.e. SG100 is not met ‘SG XX is met [or not] because… This comment applies to all PIs under P3. because…’ should repeated for every single scoring issue and guidepost or not. The important thing is that the documentation in the scoring tables responds to the requirements set forth in the guideposts. However, this formuation has now been introduced throughout P3.
3.1.2 Yes Yes N/A
3.1.3 Yes Yes N/A
Document: Peer Reviewer Template, v2.0 Page 13 of 23 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring relevant and/or rationale raised improve issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. information used to score this the fishery’s been used to Indicator support performance to Note: Justification to support your answers is only required score this the given score? the SG80 level? where answers given are ‘No’. Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No)
3.2.1 No No N/A The score of 90 seems high given that the rationale states The requirement of objectives that the objectives for most components of P2 are not well- being ‘well-defined’ only defined and even those for bycatch are only “relatively” applies to SG 100, which the well-defined. Some additional information is required on team has concluded is not met how objectives are consistent with achieving the outcomes for P2 objectives in any event expressed by MSC Principle 2 to justify the score, – hence, the partial score.
There is no comment on the equivalent objectives in the EU Concerning the specific management system for those stocks managed jointly by objectives for fishing sand eel, Norway and the EU. Norway pout and sprat in EU waters, these are based in the EU Basic Regulation which in its preamble lays down EU obligation for sustainable fisheries, e.g. (6) and (7) and commits the EU fisheries to the precautionary approach for fisheries management (10). There is no specific management plan which establishes objectives different from these general applicable approaches to EU fisheries.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template, v2.0 Page 14 of 23 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring relevant and/or rationale raised improve issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. information used to score this the fishery’s been used to Indicator support performance to Note: Justification to support your answers is only required score this the given score? the SG80 level? where answers given are ‘No’. Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No)
3.2.2 Yes, but see Yes N/A In relation to SId, it would be interesting to know if there are Detailed minutes from these comment formal reports from the twice-yearly Regulatory Meetings as meetings are produced and these meetings appear to be a key opportunity for the published on the website of management authorities to provide stakeholders with how the Directorate of Fisheries. the management system responded to findings and This informtion has now been relevant recommendations and why decisions were taken. included in the text.
3.2.3 Yes Yes N/A
3.2.4 Yes No N/A The assessment team’s rationale for not awarding a score Good point – text amended. of 100 is that “while holistic evaluations of the Norwegian system for fisheries management have been carried out, in the opinion of the assessment team they fall short of reflecting a ‘mechanism’.” However the requirement for a mechanism to be in place applies also to SG60 and SG80. I think that it could be argued that a mechanism is in place to evalute key parts of the management system (examples given in the rationale), and evaluations have been carried out previously, but it is the frequency of evaluations of all parts of the management system that results in a lower score for this SI.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template, v2.0 Page 15 of 23 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Table 2 For reports using the Risk-Based Framework: N/A
Performance Does the report Are the RBF risk Justification: CAB Response: Indicator clearly explain scores well- Please support your answers by referring to specific how the referenced? scoring issues and any relevant documentation where process(es) Yes/No possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. applied to determine risk using the RBF has led to the Note: Justification to support your answers is only stated outcome? required where answers given are ‘No’. Yes/No N/A N/A Appendix 1.2 provides scores from an initial RBF These scores are from an earlier version. Appendix 1.1.1 workshop, but these scores were not used in the 1.2 remains as a summary of who was present in the assessment of the fishery. meeting and what conclusions where raised, however the final scoring of PI 1.1.1 was obtained by using the default assessment tree, as during the site visit more information was provided relative to the status of the stock and the use of RBF wasn’t considered needed anymore. 2.1.1
2.2.1
2.3.1
2.4.1
2.5.1
Document: Peer Reviewer Template, v2.0 Page 16 of 23 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Table 3 For reports assessing enhanced fisheries: N/A
Does the report clearly evaluate any additional impacts that might arise Yes/No CAB Response: from enhancement activities?
Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’.
Justification:
Optional: General Comments on the Peer Review Draft Report (including comments on the adequacy of the background information if necessary) can be added below and on additional pages
The assessment report is generally well-written, and provides detailed background information on the fishery, its practices and governance. There are however several areas where the report needs some minor revisions:
• For those readers not familiar with ICES management areas, and in view of the change in the sandeel management areas in 2017, it would be helpful to have a map of the sandeel management areas earlier in the report than in the current draft. The UoCs on page 10 give the management areas for sandeel as 1r, 2r, 3r and 4, but these do not align with Figure 4 on page 16, and it is not until Table 16 on page 23, and Figure 8 on page 24 that we get an explanation of the sandeel management areas. Figure 8 is referred to in section 3.1.1.1 and in Table 6. Unfortunately, no changes are going to be made to where the Figures are set in order not to change the numbering of the Figures (and the consequence referencing to the different figures along the report). • The Executive Summary states that there are 11 UoCs when in fact there are only 9 UoCs. The text is now amended.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template, v2.0 Page 17 of 23 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 • On page 18, section 3.3, the text states there are 8 stocks considered in this assessment, when in fact only 6 stocks are considered. The text is now amended. • Information is given as to why the effect of the fishery on species of sandeel other than Ammodytes marinus are not considered to be significant because other species constitute a negligible proportion of the landings. However the key information is provided in Figure 7 which was missing from my version of the report. Figure 7, with the required information, appears in the word version of the report. • Figures 21, 25, 27, 30 and 31 are also missing from my version of the report. I suspect that this is something to do with converting the file to pdf format. Those figures appear in the word version of the report. The problem is related to converting the file to pdf. • On page 35, the same sentence about natural mortality is repeated many times. The text is now amended. • In a number pf places in relation to the discussion of primary and secondary species, the assessment team uses the term global catch when I believe that they mean total catch from the UoC. The text is now amended . • Table 26 gives the eel as critically endangered under the IUCN red list. However the MSC CR states that only out-of-scope species should be considered as ETP species if they are on the IUCN red list. Eel should therefore be denoted as N/A under the IUCN red list column in Table 26. Similar comment in relation to spurdog: Eel has been now deleted from the ETP list,as the Norwegian red list of endangered species has no associated management measures, but spurdog remains as is listed in Norwegian Regulation J-250-2013, which specifically protects basking sharks, spurdogs, portbeagles and silky sharks . • Some tidying up of the references is required – in particular there are a number of references to ICES reports which currently give only the date and not the subject of the report. Some references have been cleared.
RBF. The presentation of RBF scores in the appendix is confusing. The assessment team held an RBF meeting with stakeholders and then decided against its use, yet still these scores are presented. Whilst I understand the reasoning for not using the RBF for the target species, and this is explained clearly in section 4.4.3.2, the appendix suggests that the greater sandeel ( H. lanceolatus) should be considered as a minor secondary species and Table 31 considers that it is data-deficient . In addition Tables 39 and 40 are confusing in that the overall score is given in the “scoring element” box and a “x” is given in the “consequence score” box. Tables 39 and 40 have been amended . At the very least, there should be an explicit statement in Appendix 1.2 that whilst an initial RBF meeting was held, the decision was made to us the default assessment tree without the RBF. Such sentence has been added.
Key LTL species. The assessment team concluded that none of the three species in this assessment could be considered to be key LTL species. This is in contrast to a similar assessment on the Danish fisheries. In relation to the scoring of P1, there is little information on why the species are not considered as key LTL species, and although there is more information provided in section 3.4.4, the report should provide additional justification on how and why that differs from the conclusion drawn by the assessment team for the Danish fishery. Additional information has been added in the relevant P1 section.
ETP species. The rationale for including eels and spurdog as ETP species relates solely to their inclusion in the Norwegian red list. Additional information needs to be provided to demonstrate that this list can be considered to be a Government regulation. Eel has been now deleted from the ETP
Document: Peer Reviewer Template, v2.0 Page 18 of 23 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 list,as the Norwegian red list of endangered species has no associated management measures, but spurdog remains as is listed in Norwegian Regulation J- 250-2013, which specifically protects basking sharks, spurdogs, portbeagles and silky sharks . In addition for those UoCs which include fishing in EU waters, consideration should be given to species under the EU’s list of endangered / protected species which vessels are prohibited from catching (Council Regulation (EU) 2016/72). Council Regulation EU 2016/72 refers to the sandeel fishing opportunities. As regards other regulation on ETP species in European waters, the team hasn’t found any relevant ETP species after checking CITES Appendix I and the Birds and Habitats Directives.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template, v2.0 Page 19 of 23 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014
Peer Reviewer A’s Outstanding Issues
List any outstanding issues you have with the CAB’s responses to your comments on PI scoring.
Performance Indicator Outstanding Issue (provide clear justification) Certifier Response
NS-2r sandeel. The essence of response of the assessment team on the initial comment is as follows: “Fishing mortality has been well below acceptable limits for almost a decade, On that basis accepting the stock as depleted because of too heavy fishing would be strange for scoring of 1.1.1”. On my opinion, level of fishing mortality cannot be considerd as a criterion of stock status, which is assessed under this PI. The stock status is assessed by analysis of relation of actual stock size to TRP or LRP. Fishing pressure, causing fishing mortality is Thanks for your comments. The NS-2r stock an important factor, which influences the of sandeel has been removed from the 1.1.1 Stock status stock status, but it is not a direct indicator of certificate. The certificate will not cover its status, because can be also other factors sandeel in area 2r. influencing the stock status such as, for instance, changes of environment. I understand, that if the environmental conditions are unfavorable, the fishing mortality should be reduced further to let the stock to approach the TRP. Due to this I cannot accept an argument of the assessment team “Because of the expected recovery based on the 2016 yearclass SG 60 and SG 80 are met” (p.85). “Expected recovery” can be considered as an argument for scoring 1.1.2, but not for scoring actual stock status as we should do in 1.1.1. Document: MSC Peer Review Follow-up Template v1.1 Page 4 of 6
Date of issue: 1 September 2017 © Marine Stewardship Council 2017
Therefore I still do not understand how data presented at Fig.9 supports SG80 scoring (and even SG60 scoring) which requires that stock would be higher TRP in ≥50% cases during the 10 most recent years. According to Fig. 9, stock status is below LRP in at least 6 years of 10 for period 2007-2016. NS-2r sandeel. If to consider the last ten years, i.e. years 2007-2016 (time frame suggested by the assessment team), the fishing mortality exceeds acceptable level (0.44) at least in 5 years (Fig. 9). SG80 requires “exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, are expected to keep the Thanks for your comments. Sandeel in area stock fluctuating around a target level…”. 2r has now been removed from the 1.2.2 Harvest Control Rules and tools Term “fluctuating around” means that the assessment. The certificate will not cover stock status is above TRP in ≥ 50% for sandeel in area 2r. defined period of time (i.e. 2007-2016). Fig. 9 shows that it occurs only in one year of ten, Thus SG80 cannot be met. In fact, according to Fig. 9, for period 2007- 2016 the stock is below LRP in 6 of 10 years, i.e. cannot be considered to “fluctuate around” LRP, which makes the SG60 questionable. Click or tap here to select a Performance
Indicator.
List any outstanding issues you have with the CAB’s responses to your comments on Conditions.
Performance Indicator Outstanding Issue (provide clear justification) Certifier Response
Click or tap here to select a Performance
Indicator.
Document: MSC Peer Review Follow-up Template v1.1 Page 5 of 6
Date of issue: 1 September 2017 © Marine Stewardship Council 2017
Click or tap here to select a Performance
Indicator. Click or tap here to select a Performance
Indicator.
List any other issues you feel haven’t been adequately addressed and would make a material difference to the scoring of the fishery.
Outstanding Issue Certifier Response
Document: MSC Peer Review Follow-up Template v1.1 Page 6 of 6
Date of issue: 1 September 2017 © Marine Stewardship Council 2017
This template has been adapted from the default ‘ Peer Review Template’ for peer reviewers to provide feedback during the Public Comment Draft Report stage. This process supports peer reviewers in reviewing the CAB’s response to the points they raised in the initial peer review during the PCDR consultation phase.
If you have any queries related to using the template please contact the Peer Review College.
NB1. The Peer Review College will submit any completed forms to CABs anonymously, providing reference to only Peer Reviewer ‘A’ or ‘B’ as also given for the initial reviews. CABs shall remove the instructions and information provided on these introductory pages 1-3 when inserting peer review comments in the Final Report and subsequent reports.
Fishery Assessment Details
Fishery Name Norway sandeel, pout and North Sea sprat fishery
Document: MSC Peer Review Follow-up Template v1.1 Page 3 of 5
Date of issue: 1 September 2017 © Marine Stewardship Council 2017
Peer Reviewer’s Outstanding Issues
List any outstanding issues you have with the CAB’s responses to your comments on PI scoring.
Performance Indicator Outstanding Issue (provide clear justification) Certifier Response
I still believe that the score of 80 for UoC2, sandeels in management subarea 2r, is too generous. I accept the assessment team’s view that fishing mortality is currently well below Fcap, that there was a good recruitment in 2016, and that the short life- span of this species means that the strong recruitment will lead quickly to recovery of the stock. However the most recent assessment shows the current stock biomass to be below Blim, and therefore scoring both SIa and SIb at 80 seems unjustified. Thanks for your comments. Previous UoC In addition, this interpretation seems to 2(sandeel in area 2r) has been removed from conflict directly with the results of the the assessment, as the Norwegian fishery at 1.1.1 Stock status expedited surveillance audit of the Danish present only takes place in area 3r. All UoC sandeel fishery which was undertaken have been renamed as a result of deleting recently by MRAG Americas in order to take this UoC. into account recent revisions to the ICES management areas for sandeel, and changes in stock status. The conclusion of the expedited surveillance audit was that the sandeel fishery in management subarea 2r should be suspended because PI 1.1.1 scored below 60. Whilst I accept that different assessment teams may have slightly different interpretations of stock status in relation to reference points, it is hard to reconcile one team’s score being below 60 whilst another team scores the fishery at 80. Document: MSC Peer Review Follow-up Template v1.1 Page 4 of 5
Date of issue: 1 September 2017 © Marine Stewardship Council 2017
Click or tap here to select a Performance
Indicator. Click or tap here to select a Performance
Indicator.
List any outstanding issues you have with the CAB’s responses to your comments on Conditions.
Performance Indicator Outstanding Issue (provide clear justification) Certifier Response
Click or tap here to select a Performance
Indicator. Click or tap here to select a Performance
Indicator. Click or tap here to select a Performance
Indicator.
List any other issues you feel haven’t been adequately addressed and would make a material difference to the scoring of the fishery.
Outstanding Issue Certifier Response
Document: MSC Peer Review Follow-up Template v1.1 Page 5 of 5
Date of issue: 1 September 2017 © Marine Stewardship Council 2017
APPENDIX 5 STAKEHOLDER SUBMISSIONS
1. MSC, Technical oversight report
2. CAB response to technical oversight report
3. Letter from World Wildlife Fund
4. CAB response to WWF
5. Letter from Norwegian Environment Agenc
6. CAB response to the Norwegian Environment Agency
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 222
Date: 13/10/2017 SUBJECT: MSC Technical Oversight for Norway sandeel, pout and north sea sprat - Public Comment Draft Report Dear Lucia Revenga (Det Norske Veritas Certification AS (DNV)) Please find below the results of our Technical Oversight review. This was completed by both the Fisheries Standards Team and Supply Chain Standards Team. Ref Type Page Requirement Reference Details PI 27311 Guidance FCR-7.10.6.1 v.2.0 A rationale shall be presented to In several places the links to references in previous sections of 1.2.1, 1.2.2 support the team’s conclusion. the document do not work (for example, pages 90,91,95) 27312 Guidance 85 FCR-7.10.6.1 v.2.0 A rationale shall be presented to PI 1.1.1 SI a (sprat): In the rationale provided for sprat, the 1.1.1 support the team’s conclusion. justification sentence for SG 80 mentions that the estimated SSB was just below Blim in 2016. Whereas in the provided sentence for SG 100, it states that the estimated SSB was just at Blim in 2016. Please clarify which is the case. 27313 Guidance 86 FCR-7.10.6.2 v.2.0 The rationale shall make direct PI 1.1.1 SI b (sand eel NS-1r and sand eel NS-4r): The rationales 1.1.1 reference to every scoring issue and state that SG100 is met yet the boxes for SG100 have an 'N' whether or not it is fully met. noted. 27314 Major 86 FCR-7.10.6.1 v.2.0 A rationale shall be presented to PI 1.1.1 SI b (sand eel NS-1r and sand eel NS-4r): Please clarify 1.1.1 support the team’s conclusion. how the stock is fluctuating around or is above a level consistent with MSY over recent years noting SA 2.2.2 and associated guidance. 27315 Major 90 FCR-7.10.6.1 v.2.0 A rationale shall be presented to PI 1.2.1 SI a (EU stocks): Please clarify how SG 100 is met with 1.2.1 support the team’s conclusion. the regard to the harvest strategy being designed to achieve stock management objectives relected in PI 1.1.1 SG80, given the rationale states there is no explicit harvest strategy for these stocks.
www.msc.org Page 1 of 8 27316 Major 91 FCR-7.10.6.2 v.2.0 The rationale shall make direct PI 1.2.1 SI b (sand eel NS-3r): Please clarify how SG 100 is met 1.2.1 reference to every scoring issue and with regard to the harvest strategy being fully evaluated noting whether or not it is fully met. SA 2.4.1. Of note, the first sentence in the last paragraph of the rationale for this SI was difficult to understand. 27317 Major 93 FCR-7.10.6.1 v.2.0 A rationale shall be presented to PI 1.2.1 SI f (all): The rationale mentions there is no unwanted 1.2.1 support the team’s conclusion. catch but proceeds to mention potential for unwanted catch and a measure to minimise this. As it is noted that SG60 and 80 are both met, please provide some clarification on the review that occurs to support the given score. 27318 Major 97 FCR-7.10.6.1 v.2.0 A rationale shall be presented to PI 1.2.2 SI c (all): Please clarify the available evidence that 1.2.2 support the team’s conclusion. supports the SG80 scores noting GSA 2.5.6. 27336 Guidance 71 FCR-7.12.1.4 v.2.0 7.12.1.4 For each risk factor, there shall The report states that the majority of catch is sold through an be a description of the risk present and auction, yet Table 5 Row 4 does not describe the systems in details of the mitigation or place at the auction as it relates to traceability of MSC vs. non- management of risk. MSC product. This is especially relevant because the report indicates that the risk of vessels outside the client group fishing the same stock is high (Table 5 Row 3). Please indicate what these risks means for traceability and how the systems in place in the fishery mitigate any risks of mixing or substitution. 27337 Minor 71 FCR_7.12.1.3 v.2.0 7.12.1 The CAB shall determine if the Section 5.3 states that some vessels do processing of fish meal systems of tracking and tracing in the on board the vessel and that this is excluded from the fishery UoA are sufficient to ensure all fish and certificate. It is unclear whether vessels that do on-board fish products identified and sold as processing of fish meal also land whole fish and whether they certified by the UoA originate from the do so on the same vessel and/or trip or different vessels and/or appropriate Unit of Certification (UoC). trips. The risks and mitigation systems should be outlined in 7.12.1.3 The CAB shall document the Table 5 row 5. risk factors outlined in the “MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template”, identifying any areas of risk for the integrity of certified products and how they are managed and mitigated.
www.msc.org Page 2 of 8 27338 Minor 71-72 FCR-7.12.1.4 v.2.0 7.12.1.4 For each risk factor, there shall Table 5 Row 5 indicates that there is significant bycatch caught, be a description of the risk present and particularly for pout. However, there is no detail on what that details of the mitigation or bycatch is - whether the bycatch is other target species, IPI or management of risk. other non-certified species. Please provide additional detail on this, particularly as, given their size, it is unclear how separation of the species would take place at the factory. This may be captured in Table 5 Row 7. 27339 Guidance 70 FCR-7.12.2.1 v.2.0 The CAB shall determine and document Section 5.2 references a website where the current list of the scope of the fishery certificate, approved buyers in Norway can be accessed. This information including the parties and categories of should be captured and made clear in section 5.3 if it is parties eligible to use the certificate something that buyers from or close to the fishery will need to and the point(s) at which chain of check. custody is needed. a. Chain of custody certification shall always be required following a change of ownership of the product to any party not covered by the fishery certificate. b. Chain of custody certification may be required at an earlier stage than change of ownership if the team determines that the systems within the fishery are not sufficient to make sure all fish and fish products identified as such by the fishery originate from the UoC.
www.msc.org Page 3 of 8 27349 Major 61-62 FCR-PB3.3.3 v.2.0 PB3.3.3 The team shall explain and Principle 1 (PI 1.1.1 and 1.2.2): Harmonisation of overlapping 1.1.1 justify any difference in the scores in fisheries is expected unless there are exceptional circumstances the scoring rationale for relevant PIs. that justify a materially different outcome in overall score or a. Only in exceptional circumstances, conditions. It is not clear why harmonisation was not such as demonstrably different considered in Principle 1, where PIs in assessment trees are not fisheries, or demonstrably different materially different. requirements arising from different Please note that the overlapping fishery the DFPO and DPPO versions of the default assessment North Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat Sandeel, Norway Pout, and trees, shall CABs determine that the Sprat fishery underwent an expedited audit in mid-2017 to outcome in harmonised fisheries is account for new ICES stock advice for sandeel (2017). The materially different in overall scores outcome was a suspension of UoC sandeel in area 2r due to and conditions. PI1.1.1 falling to meet SG60. i. Exceptional circumstances shall be fully documented, together with clear indication of agreement between the CABs responsible for the overlapping fisheries. b. Non-material differences in scores shall be clearly justified.
www.msc.org Page 4 of 8 27350 Major 86 FCR-7.10.6.1 v.2.0 A rationale shall be presented to PI 1.1.1 SI a (sand eel NS-2r): The rationale does not support 1.1.1 support the team’s conclusion. meeting SG60 nor SG80. The scores are based on an expectation of an increase in the stock because of the 2016 year class rather than the current status. Furthermore, at SG60 evidence that the stock likely above the point whererecruitment would be impaired (PRI) is not provided. For further information please see the MSC interpretation which states: "To achieve a 60 score in scoring issue (a) the probability of being below the PRI should be no more than 30% (“likely” above the PRI). In the absence of an explicit probability distribution of stock size, CABs should normally assess this SG as met when the stock is estimated to be at or above 1/3 of the distance between Blim and Bpa (though see note[1])". http://msc-info.accreditation-services.com/questions/scoring- stock-status-against-bmsy-for-ices-stocks/#_ftn1 27351 Major 106 FCR-7.10.6.1 v.2.0 A rationale shall be presented to PI2.1.1 (b): UoC1-4 (sandeel): the rationale does not fully 2.1.1 support the team’s conclusion. support the score. While the quantities are small in comparison to the UoCs, there is no evidence preesented to demonstrate it is a small enough catch in relation to those P2 stocks, not to hinder recovery. 27352 Major 121 FCR-7.10.6.1 v.2.0 A rationale shall be presented to PI2.3.1 (a): UoC 5: Eel is recognised as ETP, and scoring issue a 2.3.1 support the team’s conclusion. is scored which indicates there are national or international limits in place. Yet the rationale does not present those limits nor the take of eel in relation to those limits. It is a very small portion of the UoC catch, but there is no indication of the quantity of the catch in comparison to the eels population. 27353 Major 144 FCR-7.10.6.1 v.2.0 A rationale shall be presented to PI2.1.1(a): UoCs 5 and6: The rationale does not support the 2.1.1 support the team’s conclusion. score. At the SG80 main primary species are required to be above the PRI, yet fro blue whiting F is stated to have increased beyond Fmsy. Further, is it only one blue whitting stock that is intercepted?
www.msc.org Page 5 of 8 27354 Major FCR-SA3.3.1 v.2.0 SA3.3.1 PI2.1.1. 2.2.1, 2.1.3, 2.2.3. All UoCs: The outcome and 2.1.1, 2.2.1, If a team determines that the UoA has Information Pis are not scored in accordance with the 2.1.3, 2.2.3 no impact on a particular component requirements in SA 3.3.1. and has therefore scored 100 under the Outcome PI, the Information PI shall still be scored. 27355 Major 106, 144, 183 FCR-SA3.1.3 v.2.0 SA3.1.3 The team shall assign primary PI 2.1.1 All UoCs: The rationale states that reference points are 2.1.1 species in P2 where all the following not defined for witch, so it doesn’t meet the criteria presented criteria are met: in SA3.1.3 subclauses. SA3.1.3.1 Species in the catch that are not covered under P1 because they are not included in the UoA; SA3.1.3.2 Species that are within scope of the MSC program as defined in FCR 7.4.1.1; and SA3.1.3.3 Species where management tools and measures are in place, intended to achieve stock management objectives reflected in either limit or target reference points. a. In cases where a species would be classified as primary due to the management measures of one jurisdiction but not another that overlaps with the UoA, that species shall still be considered as primary.
www.msc.org Page 6 of 8 27356 Major 167; 130 FCR-7.10.6.1 v.2.0 A rationale shall be presented to PI2.4.2. SI(d). The rationale does not meet the score, it is 2.4.2 support the team’s conclusion. unclear if the assesment team has considered other MSC UoAs or non-MSC fisheries' measures to protect VMES in this assessment. E.g. The MSC certified SCOTTISH FISHERIES SUSTAINABLE ACCREDITATION GROUP (SFSAG) NORTH SEA COD operates within the Fladen Ground. If these two fishery areas are in overlap. See SA3.14.3.2A and related guidance. 27357 Major FCR-7.10.6.1 v.2.0 A rationale shall be presented to PI2.4.2. SI(a). (All relevant bottom trawl UoAs). There is 2.4.2 support the team’s conclusion. reference to a known overlap between the bottom trawl UoAs and VME (Sea Pen) but it is not clear what avoidance measures (e.g. voluntary avoidance, move-on rules etc.), if any, are being instituted to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 (e.g. reduce possible interactions). See SA3.14.2.3 (b), related Guidance and Interpretation http://msc-info.accreditation- services.com/questions/move-on-rules-at-sg60-for-pi2-4-2a/ 27358 Major 166 FCR-7.10.6.1 v.2.0 A rationale shall be presented to PI2.4.1. SI (b) (UoA 5). There are references to possible 2.4.1 support the team’s conclusion. interaction with VME (e.g. Sea Pen) but its not clear how score of SG60 has have been justified given the lack of information related to possible interaction E.g. its unclear how the team as assessed "serious and irreversable harm" (<80% of unimpacted level). See SA.13.4.1 and related guidance. Aditionally this links to SA3.15.6. 27359 Major 173 FCR-7.10.6.1 v.2.0 A rationale shall be presented to PI 2.4.3. SI (b). (UoA 5) The rationale at SG80 indicates that 2.4.3 support the team’s conclusion. VMEs are likely to be encountered and limited information exists demonstrating the likely interaction, it is therefore not clear how rationale supports the score. See SA3.15.6 and related guidance. Additionally, if any other MSC UoAs or non- MSC fisheries have instituted voluntary VME avoidance measures within the MPA, the team should consideration this in the context of SA3.15.6.
www.msc.org Page 7 of 8 27360 Guidance 48, 52 Numerous maps and figures are missing. These need to be corrected. This report is provided for action by the CAB and ASI in order to improve consistency with the MSC scheme requirements; MSC does not review all work products submitted by Conformity Assessment Bodies and this review should not be considered a checking service. If any clarification is required, please contact the relevant FAM or SCS manager for more information.
Marine Stewardship Council cc: Accreditation Services International
www.msc.org Page 8 of 8 Requirement Oversight CAB Comments SubID Page Grade Pi Version Description In several places the links to references in previous sections of the The links in those pages have been removed or corrected. However not all links document do not work (for example, pages 90,91,95) in the report have been revised. FCR-7.10.6.1 27311 Guidance 1.2.1, 1.2.2 v2.0
PI 1.1.1 SI a (sprat): In the rationale provided for sprat, the The 2016 sprat assessment is radically different form the 2017 assessment. justification sentence for SG 80 mentions that the estimated SSB was The conclusion is based on the 2016 assessment while the SI 1.1.1.b would FCR-7.10.6.1 just below Blim in 2016. Whereas in the provided sentence for SG 100, have been scored at SG100 using the 2017 assessment. The text has been 27312 85 Guidance 1.1.1 v2.0 it states that the estimated SSB was just at Blim in 2016. Please clarify rememidied to clary the issue, Figure 13 has been updatde with the also to which is the case. present the 2017 assessment results.
PI 1.1.1 SI b (sand eel NS-1r and sand eel NS-4r): The rationales state See 27314 that SG100 is met yet the boxes for SG100 have an 'N' noted. FCR-7.10.6.2 27313 86 Guidance 1.1.1 v2.0
PI 1.1.1 SI b (sand eel NS-1r and sand eel NS-4r): Please clarify how NS-1r: The justification has been updated, the scoring is unchanged the SG100 the stock is fluctuating around or is above a level consistent with MSY is not met. NS-4r: The text was not clear and is clarified. The scoring (SG100 is FCR-7.10.6.1 over recent years noting SA 2.2.2 and associated guidance. not met) is maintained. 27314 86 Major 1.1.1 v2.0
PI 1.2.1 SI a (EU stocks): Please clarify how SG 100 is met with the The quotas are set based on ICES advice, This advice reflect stock status. regard to the harvest strategy being designed to achieve stock Although the is no management plan (multiannaual plan, EU member states FCR-7.10.6.1 management objectives relected in PI 1.1.1 SG80, given the rationale are bound by the CFP (see preamble) tyo make decisions that are consistent 27315 90 Major 1.2.1 v2.0 states there is no explicit harvest strategy for these stocks. with sustainable fishing. Scoring is maintained
PI 1.2.1 SI b (sand eel NS-3r): Please clarify how SG 100 is met with The justification has been revised for better clarity. Scoring is unchanged. regard to the harvest strategy being fully evaluated noting SA 2.4.1. Of FCR-7.10.6.2 note, the first sentence in the last paragraph of the rationale for this 27316 91 Major 1.2.1 v2.0 SI was difficult to understand. Requirement Oversight CAB Comments SubID Page Grade Pi Version Description PI 1.2.1 SI f (all): The rationale mentions there is no unwanted catch The text is clarified by inter alia refrence to Figures in the report. Scoring is but proceeds to mention potential for unwanted catch and a measure unchanged. FCR-7.10.6.1 to minimise this. As it is noted that SG60 and 80 are both met, please 27317 93 Major 1.2.1 v2.0 provide some clarification on the review that occurs to support the given score.
PI 1.2.2 SI c (all): Please clarify the available evidence that supports The text has been updated scoring is unchanged. the SG80 scores noting GSA 2.5.6. FCR-7.10.6.1 27318 97 Major 1.2.2 v2.0
The report states that the majority of catch is sold through an auction, Additional infromation has been added to the relevant rows to clarify that the yet Table 5 Row 4 does not describe the systems in place at the catch is always accompanied by the landing declaration and the sales note. auction as it relates to traceability of MSC vs. non-MSC product. This is This should serve to minimise the risk of mixiing with any other catch by other especially relevant because the report indicates that the risk of vessels fishing vessels. This information has been added in Table 32, row 4. FCR-7.12.1.4 27336 71 Guidance outside the client group fishing the same stock is high (Table 5 Row 3). v2.0 Please indicate what these risks means for traceability and how the systems in place in the fishery mitigate any risks of mixing or substitution.
Section 5.3 states that some vessels do processing of fish meal on Fish meal is not produced on board. This has been clarified in the report. board the vessel and that this is excluded from the fishery certificate. It is unclear whether vessels that do on-board processing of fish meal FCR_7.12.1.3 27337 71 Minor also land whole fish and whether they do so on the same vessel v2.0 and/or trip or different vessels and/or trips. The risks and mitigation systems should be outlined in Table 5 row 5. Requirement Oversight CAB Comments SubID Page Grade Pi Version Description Table 5 Row 5 indicates that there is significant bycatch caught, Information has been added in Table 32, rows 5 and 7. Catch composition of particularly for pout. However, there is no detail on what that bycatch the Norway pout fishery is detailed in Table 22. It includes a 10% of blue is - whether the bycatch is other target species, IPI or other non- whiting, a 4%of horse mackerel , a 3% or greater silver smelt and less than 1% certified species. Please provide additional detail on this, particularly of other bycatch species. These species are visually distinguishable however as, given their size, it is unclear how separation of the species would segregation is not done on board. They are not considered IPI catch. The catch take place at the factory. This may be captured in Table 5 Row 7. is the factory's responsability as from passing the quay. Once the catch is at the fish factory, is sampled by the Directorate of Fisheries's team, who samples and determines by species the different individuals in the sample and records the catches according to samplings. The species will not be separated, except for what has been sampled. Sampling is FCR-7.12.1.4 27338 71-72 Minor taken from the fish stream, just before the fish gets weighed. The samples are v2.0 transported to a suitable place / room and sorted. Fish sold for consuption is separated on the production line in the processing plant. For fish meal production, the fish is not phisically separated before entering production, but the volumes of the different species entering production is determined. The traceability of the fish meal production is ensured by a Chain of Custody certificate at the processing plant.
Section 5.2 references a website where the current list of approved The mentioned link gives a list of buyers which covers 30 pages, and which is buyers in Norway can be accessed. This information should be updated daily. The team considers that including this list would not bring any FCR-7.12.2.1 27339 70 Guidance captured and made clear in section 5.3 if it is something that buyers clarity to the report, and has therefore decided not to include it anywhere. v2.0 from or close to the fishery will need to check.
Principle 1 (PI 1.1.1 and 1.2.2): Harmonisation of overlapping fisheries The section on harmonisation has been filled. No significant differences were is expected unless there are exceptional circumstances that justify a identified. materially different outcome in overall score or conditions. It is not clear why harmonisation was not considered in Principle 1, where PIs in assessment trees are not materially different. FCR-PB3.3.3 Please note that the overlapping fishery the DFPO and DPPO North 27349 61-62 Major 1.1.1 v2.0 Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat Sandeel, Norway Pout, and Sprat fishery underwent an expedited audit in mid-2017 to account for new ICES stock advice for sandeel (2017). The outcome was a suspension of UoC sandeel in area 2r due to PI1.1.1 falling to meet SG60. Requirement Oversight CAB Comments SubID Page Grade Pi Version Description PI 1.1.1 SI a (sand eel NS-2r): The rationale does not support meeting The sand eel NS-2r is removed from the assessment SG60 nor SG80. The scores are based on an expectation of an increase in the stock because of the 2016 year class rather than the current status. Furthermore, at SG60 evidence that the stock likely above the point whererecruitment would be impaired (PRI) is not provided. For further information please see the MSC interpretation which FCR-7.10.6.1 27350 86 Major states: "To achieve a 60 score in scoring issue (a) the probability of 1.1.1 v2.0 being below the PRI should be no more than 30% (“likely” above the PRI). In the absence of an explicit probability distribution of stock size, CABs should normally assess this SG as met when the stock is estimated to be at or above 1/3 of the distance between Blim and Bpa (though see note[1])". http://msc-info.accreditation-services.com/questions/scoring-stock- status-against-bmsy-for-ices-stocks/#_ftn1 PI2.1.1 (b): UoC1-4 (sandeel): the rationale does not fully support the Additional information has been added in PI 2.1.1 (b) UoC1-3 (sandeel) which score. While the quantities are small in comparison to the UoCs, shows ICES advice on the catch for the different species during 2018, showing FCR-7.10.6.1 there is no evidence preesented to demonstrate it is a small enough that the catch taken during 2016 is insignificant when compared to ICES 27351 106 Major 2.1.1 v2.0 catch in relation to those P2 stocks, not to hinder recovery. sugested maximum catch.
PI2.3.1 (a): UoC 5: Eel is recognised as ETP, and scoring issue a is According to Council Regulation (EC) 1100/2007 of 18 September 2007 scored which indicates there are national or international limits in establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of European eel, all place. Yet the rationale does not present those limits nor the take of directed fisheries should be forbiden and catches should be kep as close to FCR-7.10.6.1 27352 121 Major eel in relation to those limits. It is a very small portion of the UoC 2.3.1 zero as possible. This information has been added in the relevant PI 2.3.1 v2.0 catch, but there is no indication of the quantity of the catch in scoring tables. comparison to the eels population.
PI2.1.1(a): UoCs 5 and6: The rationale does not support the score. At Blue whiting is the only main primary species in both UoC. Other primary the SG80 main primary species are required to be above the PRI, yet species are evaluated as minor primary species. The proportion of the fro blue whiting F is stated to have increased beyond Fmsy. Further, is different species in the catch can be seen in the catch composition table, in the it only one blue whitting stock that is intercepted? P2 background section of the report. According to ICES 2016 advice for blue whiting, the spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has increased since 2010 and is FCR-7.10.6.1 27353 144 Major 2.1.1 above MSY Btrigger. Fishing mortality (F) has also increased from a historical v2.0 low in 2011 to above FMSY since 2014, but still below Fpa and certainly below F lim. The good status of the stock, in which SSB at present doubles the B MSY, serves to support SG 100 for both UoC. Requirement Oversight CAB Comments SubID Page Grade Pi Version Description PI2.1.1. 2.2.1, 2.1.3, 2.2.3. All UoCs: The outcome and Information Pis The requirements in SA 3.2.1 and SA 3.3.1 are now taken into account. The 2.1.1, FCR-SA3.3.1 are not scored in accordance with the requirements in SA 3.3.1. scoring of the relevant scoring tables in all UoC has been modified accordingly. 27354 Major 2.2.1, v2.0 2.1.3, 2.2.3
PI 2.1.1 All UoCs: The rationale states that reference points are not Although reference points are not defined for witch, proxies of the MSY defined for witch, so it doesn’t meet the criteria presented in SA3.1.3 reference points were calculated (as described in ICES 2017 advice for witch in 106, subclauses. the North Sea) using the SPiCT model. Besides, the stock is managed through a FCR-SA3.1.3 27355 144, Major 2.1.1 joint TAC with the lemon sole stock. More information has been added in the v2.0 183 P2.1.1 scoring table. The species remains listed as a primary species.
PI2.4.2. SI(d). The rationale does not meet the score, it is unclear if the A new condition (Condition 3) has been set for the bottom trawl fisheries assesment team has considered other MSC UoAs or non-MSC overlapping with seapens (UoCs 1,2,3,4 and 6). fisheries' measures to protect VMES in this assessment. E.g. The MSC As mentioned by MSC TO, these UoC (which have fishing grounds inside and certified SCOTTISH FISHERIES SUSTAINABLE ACCREDITATION GROUP outside Norwegian EEZ) may overlap with other MSC UoA's/non-MSC fisheries (SFSAG) NORTH SEA COD operates within the Fladen Ground. If these with voluntary measures adopted for the protection of VME. The condition two fishery areas are in overlap. See SA3.14.3.2A and related reflects this situation and encourages the relevant UoCs to adopt the same 167; FCR-7.10.6.1 guidance. protecting measures. 27356 Major 2.4.2 130 v2.0 The team would like to highlight the difficulty to gather updated information on what voluntary protection measures (afforded to the protection of VME) may have been implemented by other fisheries. Besides, the draft report for this assessment was written before the SFSAG agreement was set in May. A MSC database collecting this information would be of much help both for the assessors and the clients.
PI2.4.2. SI(a). (All relevant bottom trawl UoAs). There is reference to a A new condition (Condition 3) has been set for the bottom trawl fisheries known overlap between the bottom trawl UoAs and VME (Sea Pen) overlapping with seapens (UoC4 and UoC6). The condition requires the but it is not clear what avoidance measures (e.g. voluntary avoidance, implementation of management measures to protect seapens or other VME move-on rules etc.), if any, are being instituted to achieve the Habitat present in the area. The team is however aware of the discrepancy of certain Outcome 80 (e.g. reduce possible interactions). See SA3.14.2.3 (b), scientists regarding the use of move on rules to protect seapens, for various related Guidance and Interpretation http://msc-info.accreditation- reasons, being the first one that seapens may enter the net smashed and services.com/questions/move-on-rules-at-sg60-for-pi2-4-2a/ unrecognizable, the tows may long much longer that the recomended 2 nm FCR-7.10.6.1 27357 Major 2.4.2 move on rule (making it impossible to know where the seapen were or how far v2.0 from them the vessel has moved) and that the establishment of closed areas may be more useful in the protection of this VME. The condition has not been set for the sandeel bottom trawl fishery as the sandeel takes place in sandy grounds (which is where the sand-eel lives). Requirement Oversight CAB Comments SubID Page Grade Pi Version Description PI2.4.1. SI (b) (UoA 5). There are references to possible interaction Additional information has been added regarding the expected recovery time with VME (e.g. Sea Pen) but its not clear how score of SG60 has have for VME such as seapens. It has also be remarked that, as the North Sea has been justified given the lack of information related to possible been heavily fished over the past centuries, recovery to it original state isnot interaction E.g. its unclear how the team as assessed "serious and expected. The scoring of PI 2.4.1.b for the Norway pout bottom trawl fishery irreversable harm" (<80% of unimpacted level). See SA.13.4.1 and remains unchanged at 60. Stakeholder input by WWF providing information on FCR-7.10.6.1 27358 166 Major related guidance. Aditionally this links to SA3.15.6. 2.4.1 the occurence of seapens overlaping the sprat fishing grounds has lead to the v2.0 extension of Condition 2 (on PI 2.4.1.b) to also cover the sprat bottom tralw fishery. The scoring of this SI has been brought down from 80 to 60.
PI 2.4.3. SI (b). (UoA 5) The rationale at SG80 indicates that VMEs are Additional information has been added to support the score. The team likely to be encountered and limited information exists demonstrating considers that information provided by the VMS system, the plotter on the FCR-7.10.6.1 the likely interaction, it is therefore not clear how rationale supports bridge, and MPA maps, are sufficient to meet all requirements at SA3.15.6. No 27359 173 Major 2.4.3 v2.0 the score. See SA3.15.6 and related guidance. Additionally, if any changes to the score have been made. other MSC UoAs or non-MSC fisheries have instituted voluntary VME avoidance measures within the MPA, the team should consideration thisNumerous in the context maps and of SA3.15.6.figures are missing. These need to be corrected. That's caused by heavy word documents from word into pdf format. The issue has been reviewed.
27360 48, 52 Guidance WWF-Norway P.O. Box 6784 - St. Olavs plass 0130 Oslo Norway Tel: +47 22 036 500 Fax: +47 22 200 666 [email protected] www.wwf.no facebook.com/WWF Verdens naturfond
DNV GL – Business Assurance /Stefan Midteide
14 October 2017
WWF comment on the Public Comment Draft Report (PCDR) of the Norway sandeel, pout and North Sea sprat fishery
Dear DNV GL – Business Assurance
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Public Comment Draft Report (PCDR) of the Norway sandeel, pout and North Sea sprat fishery.
WWF actively engages as a stakeholder in a number of Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) fishery assessments and audits to improve fisheries sustainability. WWF applauds the efforts of Norwegian fishermen’s association for their commitment to meet the MSC standard and we are convinced that the fishery can reach this goal in the future. But we think that the assessment report does not sufficiently covers all issues and also that several well justified concerns raised by the two reviewers were not sufficiently addressed yet. We hope that we can help with this letter to further strengthen this assessment and to support the fishery in developing and implementing best practice.
Comments
WWF is concerned that the assessment team did not harmonize their assessment with the similar DPPO & DFPO reduction fishery and that the CAB aims to significantly lower the bar of this MSC assessment compared to the aforementioned certification. WWF strongly agrees with the findings of the two reviewers that the assessment team fails to justify the scoring procedures and scoring outcome for several key issues: Key LTL classification of target species, Scoring of other sandeel species, Sandeel in 2R, ETP species, Benthic habitat impacts. We would like to highlight that the MSC standard requires that CABs shall prepare for harmonisation with overlapping fisheries early in each assessment or surveillance process and not later than the site visit stage (PB 3.1.1). We also would like to note that the assessment team missed the opportunity to appropriately address the concerns of the reviewers and to correct identified errors (for example: Many key information figures are still missing in this report, misidentified VME were not corrected etc.)
Additionally, we think that the assessment team does not sufficiently cover the issue of unreported bycatches in the Norway pout fishery.
Rationales:
Key LTL classification of target species:
Rice et al (2017) consider the forage fish community as a whole as a key trophic level and therefore evaluated each of these species as key LTL species under Principle 1 of the assessment. WWF and Reviewer 2 strongly agree with this approach. The aggregation of several potential key LTL species, i.e. a single functional group ‘forage fish’, is deemed as a valid and precautionary approach to calculate the connectance and biomass score as stated by Essington and Pláganyi (2013) “Model and data adequacy for Marine Stewardship Council key low trophic level species designation and criteria and a proposed new assessment index”. More importantly, the MSC standard team did not flag Rice et al (2017) interpretation as inappropriate during their technical oversight, therefore the argument that “the Team is charged to apply the MSC standard” (PCDR) is actually invalid. In contrary, MSC standard (PB 3) requires that CABs assessing overlapping fisheries shall ensure consistency of outcomes so as not to undermine the integrity of MSC fishery assessments and that the new assessment team shall use as their baseline the rationale and scores detailed for the previously scored fishery.
And we do not understand why the assessment team did not categorize sandeel as key LTL species in the North Sea. There are numerous scientific publications that (lesser) sandeel has a central role in the North Sea ecosystem and that in this region sandeels are a keystone species (e.g. Frederiksen et al 2006; Laugier et al. 2015; Dickey-Collas et al. 2013). Also the “MSC Low Trophic Level Project: North Sea Ecosim” (Brown and Mackinson 2013) identifies sandeels as 2
key LTL species due to their high productivity, high biomass and high predator dependency and they came to the conclusion that depletion of sandeels has major ecosystem effects. Clearly, sandeels meet subcriteria I and ii (MSC FCR v2.0, SA 2.2.8).
Other sandeel species:
Rice et al (2017) concluded that there is a lack of reliable information about other sandeel species in the sandeel fishery and that it cannot be concluded that only negligible amounts of those species are caught (less than 2% of the total catch). Based on the AGSAN 2008 figure (missing figure 7 in PCDR), in some areas catch of other sandeel species (other than A. marinus) can be up to 20-35% of identified specimen. Please note that there is a large discrepancy between the Danish dredge survey data, the personal communicated Norwegian acoustic data and the Norwegian reference fleet data. Therefore we do not think that it can be concluded that lesser sandeel accounts for more than 99% of the total catches and better catch information is needed. The present assessment should be harmonized with the DPPO & DFPO assessment and other sandeels should be treated as P1 species.
Sandeel in 2R
The spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has been below the limit biomass level (Blim) in the last two years and below the precautionary reference points (Bpa = MSY Bescapement) for most of the years since 2000. The DFPO and DPPO Sandeel fishery in sandeel management area 2r was suspended from MSC certification in 2 August 2017.
The stock size is clearly below BLim (PRI) and therefore should score<60 (SA2.2.1) in 1.1.1. The team argumentation that fishing mortality is below Fcap does not fulfill the PI 1.1.1 requirement that that the required biomass levels are now likely to be met (SA2.2.4.1). P 1.1.1 is explicitly about present stock status and not about possible future recovery. See also MSC Fisheries Standard (Annexes S) and Guidance v2.0 page 379. Therefore we fully agree with the two reviewers that sandeel in 2R cannot be certified as sustainable in the present moment.
Norway pout
From 2010, selection grids has been used in order to reduce bycatch in the Norwegian pout fishery in the North Sea. It’s especially larger gadoids which the grids have been aiming to reduce bycatch of. However there has been given exceptions (for all vessels from 2016) from the selection grid in the Norwegian pout fishery in the North Sea, so that a number of vessels are fishing without the grid in place on a regular basis (E. Johnsen et al. 2016). At the same time
3
these vessels have been equipped to fish for and deliver larger fish for human consumption. Due to this fact, the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries decided that it is no longer permitted to have 5 % of saithe in the catch-mix when producing fish meal and fish oil from pout.
This practice (no use of selection grid) has most likely lead to the fact that the fishermen do not have full control of the total catch of species, and therefore should develop a method of separate the fish species so all species are correctly registered by the fishery. WWF would in this aspect like to highlight the conclusion from the Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries for this fishery (Blom G. et al. 2016):
“Based on the results of our measurements of species composition it is obvious that skippers, based on visual observations, are not able to specify all species in the catches. This means that species occurring in small quantities in the catches are lacking in the ERS, and this has significance for biodiversity aspects and ecosystem considerations. It is also obvious that the skippers are unable to specify the correct species composition in individual hauls on the basis of visual observations. When such catches are landed and there is no control, it will be the species composition given in the ERS that is the basis for the species composition given on the sales notes. This means that the catch statistics of the FDir also will be incorrect. If one is to achieve the most accurate catch statistics for industrial fisheries, one must either have obligatory sampling of catches on board the vessels or at the landing sites. If not, it is necessary to continue the arrangement with bycatch provision in industrial fisheries.”
WWF fully agree with the Directorate of Fisheries. There must be a mechanism in place to achieve the most accurate catch data for the industrial fisheries of pout if this fishery is to be certified.
Further the Directorate of Fisheries states:
“When relatively large quantities of juvenile North Sea herring are taken in catches in specific areas such as we observed on Egersundbanken on Cruise 1, real-time closures of such areas should be considered.»
WWF supports the Directorate of Fisheries. When large quantities of juvenile fish (not only North Sea herring) are taken, Real-Time closure zones should come into effect (similar to what the shrimp (Pandalus borealis) fishery has established in the Norwegian Deep and Skagerrak).
Benthic habitat impacts
We also fully agree with the two reviewers (and the Rice et al 2017 assessment) that conditions regarding benthic impacts (2.4.1) should also be raised also for the sprat and sandeel fisheries 4
that utilize bottom trawls. Reviewer 1 correctly spotted that the sprat fisheries overlap with known seapen and burrowing megafauna communities. The blue points blue dots in Figure 22 do not represent intertidal Mytilus edulis beds (in the middle of the German Bight !) as stated by the assessor but seapen and burrowing megafauna communities (see: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-1583). In case of the sandeel fishery it should be noted within this assessment, that the 80 score is given for the 2015 and 2016 fishing grounds in sandeel management area 3a. Is there any change in fishing pattern in the future this PI must be rescored accordingly.
ETP species
The list and information of ETP species (Table 26 in the PCDR) in the North Sea has to be updated and corrected. It is also important to take into account when there are specific IUCN status for the Northeast Atlantic and/or European stock for the different ETP species. Examples of species which needs to be corrected on IUCN status: Basking shark, porbeagle and spiny dogfish. The basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) is vulnerable (VU) globally, but the European stock is listed as endangered (EN). The porbeagle (Lamna nasus) is vulnerable (VU) globally, but the European stock is listed as critically endangered (CR). The spurdog (Squalus acanthias) is listed as vulnerable globally, but the Northeast Atlantic subpopulation is listed as critically endangered (CR). All of these three species are migratory species which is highly relevant for fisheries in Norwegian waters in general.
We look forward to your feedback and to understand how you will address these issues. Thank you for your consideration and reply.
Sincerely,
Fredrik Myhre adviser, fisheries and marine conservation [email protected]
5
References
Blom G. et al. (2016) “Artssammensetning og lengdefordeling i industrifisket med småmasket trål etter målartene øyepål og kolmule – fartøy med dispensasjon fra ristpåbudet. ICES WKPOUT Report 2016.
Brown C and Mackinson S (2011) MSC Low Trophic Level Project: North Sea ECOSIM. Marine Stewardship Council Science Series 1: 2 – 18.
Dickey-Collas, M., Engelhard, G. H., Rindorf, A., Raab, K., Smout, S., Aarts, G., ... & Garthe, S. (2013). Ecosystem-based management objectives for the North Sea: riding the forage fish rollercoaster. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 71(1), 128-142.
FREDERIKSEN, M., EDWARDS, M., RICHARDSON, A. J., HALLIDAY, N. C. and WANLESS, S. (2006), From plankton to top predators: bottom-up control of a marine food web across four trophic levels. Journal of Animal Ecology, 75: 1259–1268. doi:10.1111/j.1365- 2656.2006.01148.x)
Johnsen E., et al. (2016) “Norwegian industrial fishery for Norway pout in the North Sea”. Institute of Marine Research. Working document to WKPOUT 2016.
Laugier, F., et al. "Life history of the Small Sandeel, Ammodytes tobianus, inferred from otolith microchemistry. A methodological approach." Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 165 (2015): 237-246.
6
To World Wildlife Foundation, Norway Att. Fredrik Myhre
07.12.2017
REGARDING WWF COMMENT ON THE PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT REPORT (PCDR) OF THE NORWAY SANDEEL, POUT AND NORTH SEA SPRAT FISHERY
Dear Fredrik Myhre,
We refer to your letter dated October 14 th , 2017. We appreciate your input and relevant information regarding the MSC assessment process of the Norway sandeel, pout and North Sea sprat fishery.
In the following we will present and explain our rationale for the content of our report and the changes made to the report after the publication of the Public Comment Draft Report.
Regarding WWF comments on harmonization with the DFPO, the assessment team would like to highlight that, when we started our assessment process, the sandeel management areas in the North Sea had just been modified (in February 2017) from those used in in the DFPO report. In addition, it is worth noting that the Norwegian assessment process follows the requirements of the v2.0 of the MSC requirements while the DFPO report follows earlier version of the requirements, MSC v1.3.
On a general note, the ICES advice shall be based on (see section 1.2.3 of the ICES advice for 2016), “…. an ecosystem approach, within a precautionary approach to management. An ecosystem approach has been defined in various ways but mainly emphasizes a management regime that maintains the health of the ecosystem alongside appropriate human uses of the environment, for the benefit of current and future generations. An ecosystem approach is expected to contribute to achieving long-term sustainability for the use of marine resources, including the fisheries sector….”. Hence, the ICES advice accounts for the proper functioning of the food web in the North Sea ecosystem which is a key concern related to the MSC used of the key LTL concept. The MSC standard seems to be either more or less laxed than ICES if they were identical the MSC special treatment of the key LTL species was not required.
We will now proceed to answer your comments:
1 KEY LTL CLASSIFICATION OF TARGET SPECIES: Regarding WWF comment on the classification of sandeel, pout and sprat fisheries as key low trophic level species by Rice et al (2017) in the MSC assessment of the DFPO and DPPO reduction fishery and our discrepancy with such report :
The team does not disagree with the key role of this group of species, but is obliged to use the definitions given at MSC FCR v2.0, SA 2.2.8 to determine if they should be considered as key low trophic level species or not. Disagreements to such definitions should be directed directly to MSC. Neither the MSC TO review nor the second review by peer reviewers have shown disagreement to such decision.
Allow us to note that the DPPO report page 16 “In this context, the species targeted by the reduction fishery, together with juvenile herring, form a complex where the function of each species is partly substitutable by the other species (Table 26). Even though many species eat the forage fish, no single predator rely fully on one forage fish species. Therefore, none of the
DNV GL Business Assurance Norway AS, Veritasveien 1, P.O.Box 300, 1322 Høvik, Norway. Tel: +47 67 57 99 00. www.dnvgl.com
forage fish can be considered keystone species,”. This assessment team agrees with this evaluation. Also, particular for sprat and Norway pout, there have been periods where both sprat and Norway pout have been virtually absent from the North Sea ecosystem without it has been claimed that the North Sea ecosystem has suffered dramatically.
The issue is therefore whether “the forage fish community as a whole can be considered a key trophic level ”. This possibility is acknowledged by MSC in its guidance to assessment teams as you note in your letter.
The major forage fish species are sandeels Ammodytes marinus , Norway pout Trisopterus esmarki , and sprat Sprattus sprattus , but juvenile herring and gadoids also represent an important part of the forage stock. However, large annual variations in species composition occur as a consequence of natural fluctuations in the recruitment success of individual species. Evaluation based on the community criterion should therefore include all these species.
You point to the analysis presented by Brown C and Mackinson S (2011) MSC Low Trophic Level Project: North Sea ECOSIM. Marine Stewardship Council Science Series 1: 2 – 18. This analysis considers the North Sea ecosystem as an entity. Considering the temporal variation of sprat and Norway pout and the regionalisation of the sand eel populations/stocks we find that this analysis is in our opinion limited. The ecosystem analyses that are presented at present focus much on regionalisation of the North Sea (see e.g. the ICES Report of Ecosystem 2016 and the change in the understanding of the stock structure of the North Sea sand eel raises questions about the validity of previous analysis). We have therefore preferred to consider the species individually. In conformity with the findings of the DPPO assessment, we have concluded that none of the species are key LTL species largely because of the variation in the species composition of the forage fish community over time combined with the general stability of the overall biomass of this community.
Much of the discussion is focusing on sand eel and its role in the ecosystem. For sandeel and in particular for sea birds the dependence has clearly been demonstrated. However, the dependence is with sandeel in the bird feeding areas and not the entire North Sea. As a side remark, allow us to note that there are management measures in place that takes this dependence into account, i.e. closure of sand eel fishing around Shetland and along the Scottish east coast.
The team would like to remark that, especially the sandeel stock in area 3r (where the Norwegian fishery is at present taking place) is subject to a TAC of 40000 tones, which represents half of ICES advise of 74,146 tones. Besides, the sandeel fishery is also regulated by a short fishing season which takes place in spring, reducing the risk of lack of prey for other species in the winter months.
As a final remark, allow us to note that the MSC scoring, whether based on the key LTL concept or the approach we have taken, are similar once the differences between the MSC framework (DPPO v1.3) and the Norwegian (v2.0) is accounted for.
2 OTHER SANDEEL SPECIES:
Regarding the evaluation of other sandeel species in the catch under Principle 1 (target species) or under Principle 2 (secondary species):
There are five sand eel species in the North Sea, but different research studies conclude that lesser sandeels ( Ammodytes marinus ) dominate the catch in Norwegian waters, accounting for more than 99% of the samples. More information has been added and can be found in section 3.3.3.2 of the Norway sandeel, pout and North Sea sprat MSC certification report (pages 21 to 23). Specifically, the Danish dredge survey (all data) from the Norwegian zone shows that <0.1% of the sand eels are registered as something other than lesser sandeel, while the Norwegian acoustic survey results, which only covers Norwegian waters (areas 3 and 5) again shows that lesser sand eel is far dominating. Greater sand eel is not found in the catches of the Norwegian reference fleet ( E. Johnsen pers. Comm .).
DNV GL Business Assurance Norway AS, Veritasveien 1, P.O.Box 300, 1322 Høvik, Norway. Tel: +47 67 57 99 00. www.dnvgl.com
Due to the low proportion of other sandeel species in the Norwegian waters of the North Sea, other sandeel species such as Hyperoplus lanceolatus, Gymnammodytes semisquamatus, Ammodytes tobianus and Ammodytes dubius have been evaluated as minor secondary species under PI 2.2.1.
3 SANDEEL IN AREA 2R
Regarding the MSC certification of the sandeel stock in North Sea area 2r:
The team agrees that the sandeel 2r stock is in a poor situation and has now removed the UoC covering sandeel in area 2r from the present assessment. Sandeel in area 2r will not be covered by the Norway sandeel, pout and North Sea sprat MSC certificate.
4 NORWAY POUT:
Regarding the identification of bycatch species in the Norway pout bottom trawl fishery:
The assessment team used official data from landings in 2016 to determine which were the different species in the catch composition of the different UoCs under assessment. Data showed that, for the Norway pout bottom trawl fishery, 78% of the catch was the targeted Norway pout while the resting 22% were other species. Midwater trawls and purse seines showed a higher proportion of the targeted Norway pout. According to the MSC standard, teams shall classify primary and secondary species as main or minor species in the catch, depending on their proportion in the catch. The data used was provided by the Directorate of Fisheries and is expected to be as accurate as possible. However, it is not in the hands of the team to determine if a fishery should or not use a sorting grid or to assess the reliability of the data provided by official institutions. The team agrees that the establishment of real time closures would always benefit the stocks. However, we are not in a position to implement such as a condition as the stock status of the main retained species (blue whiting, representing a 10% of the catch, is the only main primary species to consider in the Norway pout UoCs) is in a healthy situation. The team agrees that the sampling of all landings would benefit the accuracy of records, but again we believe that we are not in a position to establish a condition on the issue.
5 BENTHIC HABITAT IMPACTS:
Regarding possible impacts on benthic habitats by the sprat and sandeel bottom trawl fisheries:
Information has been corrected regarding the existence of sea pens in the German Bight. Followingly we have raised a condition for the sprat fishery that may overlap with the sea- pens. Fisheries which may have an impact on sea pens (this is, the Norway pout bottom trawl fishery and the sprat bottom trawl fishery) are now subject to conditions in PI 2.4.1 and 2.4.2, to limit the possible impact of the fishing gear on these species and to manage the fisheries accordingly to avoid future impacts on seapens and burrowing megafauna. Such conditions have not been raised for the sandeel fishery, which at present only takes place in area 3r where such interactions are not expected. A new recommendation has been raised, however, that establishes that, in the event of the sandeel fishery taking place in the future in other vulnerable marine ecosystems, , management measures should be in place to avoid damage to such ecosystems.
DNV GL Business Assurance Norway AS, Veritasveien 1, P.O.Box 300, 1322 Høvik, Norway. Tel: +47 67 57 99 00. www.dnvgl.com
6 ETP SPECIES
Regarding the IUCN status of certain ETP species:
Information on the IUCN status of the basking shark, portbeagle and spiny dogfish has been corrected. Table 26 has been updated accordingly.
Best regards
On behalf of the assessment team of DNV GL Business Assurance
Stefan Midteide Principal Consultant, Food & Beverage Norway
E-mail [email protected] Mobile | Direct +47 908 30 545
DNV GL Business Assurance Norway AS, Veritasveien 1, P.O.Box 300, 1322 Høvik, Norway. Tel: +47 67 57 99 00. www.dnvgl.com Det Norske Veritas Postboks 300 1322 Høvik Trondheim, 16.10.2017
Deres ref.: Vår ref. (bes oppgitt ved svar): Saksbehandler: [Deres ref.] 2017/8842 Brit Veie-Rosvoll
Høring - MSC certification reports - Norway Blue Whiting and Norway sandeel, pout and north sea sprat fisheries
Det vises til Public comment draft report; Initial assessment of the Norway sandeel, pout and north sea sprat fishery. Vi kommenterer ikke på sertifiseringsprosessen eller rapporten som sådan, men har kommentarer til framstillingen av sjøfugl. Det kan synes som betydningen disse fiskeriene kan ha for sjøfugl er underkommunisert i rapporten.
Miljødirektoratet har forvaltningsansvaret for sjøfugl, og forskningskompetansen på sjøfugl ligger hovedsakelig i Norsk institutt for naturforskning (NINA). Flere steder i rapporten er NINA sammen med Havforskningsinstituttet (HI), brukt som referanse, f. eks. på s 143 som gjelder tilstrekkelig kunnskap. Når det gjelder HI vises det på s 64, til møter med "relevant stakeholders", personlige meddelelser (hvor HI uttaler seg om marine pattedyr, men presiserer at utsagnet ikke gjelder for sjøfugl s 199) mm. Det framgår ikke av rapporten hvordan NINA er trukket inn i arbeidet, men under Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.3 – Ecosystem information s 141 står det at "The Norwegian Institute for Nature Reasearch (NINA) monitors bird population in the coast of Norway" og forfatterne konkluderer med at "Information from all these studies is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem in the North Sea". Dette er feil, foreliggende kunnskap gir ikke belegg for denne påstanden og NINA er da heller ikke enig i dette (pers. med.).
Bakgrunn om sjøfugl Sjøfugl er den artsgruppen knyttet til det marine miljø som har flest arter med stor nedgang de siste tiårene. Det er 58 regulære arter av sjøfugl i Norge (fastlandet og Svalbard), hvorav 28 arter er marine hele året. Ca. halvparten av artene er rødlistet, totalt er 15 av de norske sjøfuglartene truet. De aller største bestandsnedgangene finner vi hos artene lomvi og krykkje, hvor bestandene nå er under 30 prosent av hva den var i begynnelsen av 1980- årene. I en internasjonal sammenheng har Norge betydelige forekomster av sjøfugl, og Norge har et særlig ansvar for 14 arter hvor Norge har mer enn 25% av de europeiske hekkebestandene.
Sjøfugl er helt eller delvis avhengig av havet for å skaffe seg næring, og endringer i de marine økosystemene påvirker næringsforholdene. Sjøfugl beiter først og fremst på yngel, små stimfisk og store dyreplankton. Nordsjøen er et viktig område for mange sjøfuglbestander, se Faglig grunnlag
Postadresse: Postboks 5672, Torgarden, 7485 Trondheim | Telefon: 03400/73 58 05 00 | Faks: 73 58 05 01 E-post: [email protected] | Internett: www.miljødirektoratet.no | Organisasjonsnummer: 999 601 391 Besøksadresser: Brattørkaia 15, 7010 Trondheim | Grensesvingen 7, 0661 Oslo| Besøksadresser Statens naturoppsyns lokalkontorer: Se www.naturoppsyn.no 1 for forvaltningsplan for Nordsjøen og Skagerak: Arealrapporten 2010 og forvaltningsplanen, Meld. St. 37 (2012-2013). Flesteparten er hjemmehørende i Sør-Norge, og nordøstre deler av Storbritannia, men utenom hekketida er Nordsjøen også et viktig område for sjøfugl fra hekkeområdene lenger nord, spesielt om vinteren. Se SEAPOPs sjøfugldatabasen http://www.seapop.no/no/utbredelse-tilstand/utbredelse/apent-hav/ Vinteren er ofte en flaskehals for sjøfugl – altså en tid på året der det er særlig krevende å få i seg nok næring, noe som kan få stor betydning for hele bestander ettersom store deler av bestanden ofte er samlet på begrensede områder. Redusert tilgang på byttedyr er identifisert som en av årsakene til nedgangen i flere sjøfuglbestander de siste tiårene. Tobis og brisling er attraktive næringsemner for sjøfugl store deler av året. I rapporten Sjøfugl og marine økosystemer, NINA Rapport 1161, 2015 som er forfattet av havforskere og sjøfuglforskere i fellesskap for å utrede sammenhengene mellom nedgangen i mange sjøfuglbestander og tilgang på næring, er et av forslagene til tiltak: gjenoppbygging av bestandene av tobis og brisling i Nordsjøen og Skagerak
I faggrunnlaget og forvaltningsplanen for Nordsjøen og Skagerrak omtales tobis, brisling og øyepål: For å forstå dynamikken i et økosystem er det viktig å vite hvor mye som er nødvendig for en bestand for å opprettholde mattilbudet hos andre arter. I så henseende er brislingen svært ettertraktet mat for både annen fisk, sjøpattedyr og sjøfugl. I sørlige deler kan brislingen bl. a. være svært viktig som byttedyr for hekkende fugl. Tobis har en sentral rolle i Nordsjøens økosystem. Tobis utgjør viktig føde for annen fisk, sjøpattedyr og sjøfugl, og spiller således en nøkkelrolle i økosystemet. Arten betegnes som en nøkkelart. Øyepål er og et viktig bindeledd i næringskjeden, ICES understreker i sin rådgiving at det er viktig å beholde en bestand som kan sikre matgrunnlaget for ulike predatorer.
Kommentarer til rapporten 3.3.1 Key LTL Stocks: På bakgrunn av det over stiller vi spørsmålstegn ved at forfatterne ved hjelp av tre subkriterier under MSC FCR v2.0, argumenterer seg fram til at de ikke betrakter noen av utredningsartene som nøkkelarter. Underlig blir det også i et økosystembasert forvaltningsperspektiv, at de til støtte for sin konklusjon påpeker at hvis artene hadde blitt utredet enkeltvis ville konklusjonen i hvert fall vært sånn (s 18). Vi er uenig i denne vurderingen, spesielt for tobis og med henblikk på sjøfugl. Sammenhengene er komplekse og overvåking av dietten til overflatebeitende sjøfugl byr på store utfordringer, men det foreligger studier som har vist at stenging av fiske i områder utenfor Skottland førte til økning i tobisbestanden (Greenstreet et al. 2006) samt ga økt hekkesuksess for krykkje. Hekkesuksessen var relatert til årets yngel samt ett år og eldre fisk (Daunt et al. 2008). Det vises også til tabellen på s 26 i ICES WKSand 2016 Report som viser dokumentert kunnskap om ulike topp-predatorers avhengighet av tobis, herunder sjøfuglarter som splitterne, rødnebbterne, toppskarv, storjo, tyvjo, lunde, lomvi, alke, krykkje, havhest. VI refererer også til Furnes and Tasker (2000) som har rangert arter fra høysensitive (terner, krykkje, tyvjo) til insensitive (havsule) for reduksjon i tilgjengelighet av tobis.
3.4.2 Endangered, threatened or protected species: Området som omtalen av artene refererer seg til er mer omfattende enn arealene som er utredet i rapporten. Omtalen av hvilke sjøfuglarter som er tallrike i området kan derfor være noe misvisende. I SEAPOP Nøkkeldokument 2005 - 2014 er estimert antall hekkefugl av havsule i norsk del av Nordsjøen-Skagerrak veldig lite, derimot er flere arter som kan være avhengig av tobis i
2 dietten som rødnebbterne, makrellterne og toppskarv som ikke er nevnt i rapporten, blant de mest tallrike (Meld. St. 37 2012-2013).
Det står også her om krykkje ;.."this one protected by the Norwegian red list". Dette er feil. Rødlista sier noe om truetheten for artene, men gir ingen fredning eller beskyttelse.
I Table 26: ETP species for the Norwegian fleet in the North sea (s 43) er krykkje oppført. Her burde også makrellterne som står som sårbar i den norske rødlista vært med. Andre arter på rødlista i forvaltningsplanområdet Nordsjøen og Skagerrak er lomvi som er kritisk truet, alke, teist og lunde.
3.4.4 Ecosystems: Artenes trofiske nivå omtales, og det gjentas at forfatterne ikke anser noen av utredningsartene å ha en nøkkelrolle i økosystemet. Dette underbygges med følgende utsagn (s 53)…"i.e. the proportion each species represent is low with the exeption of some sea birds… , og videre… " where special area closures and hence no fishing take place have been implemented to provide the necessary food basis". Dette gir et inntrykk av at selv om sjøfugl er et unntak så er de ivaretatt med dette, noe som ikke er tilfellet.
På s 51 beskrives SMS-modellen som forfatterne bruker for å underbygge sine vurderinger. Beskrivelsen redegjør for parameterne som inngår og konkluderer med at dette "…assuring that dependent predatores are left sufficient available resources for their prey needs." Dette er ikke tilfelle for sjøfugl. ICES WKSand 2016 Report er med i referanselisten i rapporten, men vi kan ikke se at følgende forbehold om SMS-modellen er referert:"…However, the External Experts identified a problem with the SMS model that needs to be addressed; the model is not designed to provide estimates of variance, and the variance estimate derived from the model is a critical component of the estimated strategy TAC setting process . Much variance in the real world is not included in the SMS model (an obvious example being uncertainty in sandeel consumption by predators, and hence the variance around the estimate of M)" (Executive summary på s 1). Flere viktige forbehold for bruk av modellen er beskrevet i ICES Advice 2013, Book 6 Multispecies considerations for the North Sea stocks som omhandler SMS-modellen og forbehold om bruk av resultatene. Her konkluderes det med at resultater bare skal tolkes kvalitativt og ikke brukes til en kvantitativ beregning for framtidig utbytte, men kan være en veiledning for framtidig uttak og begrensninger. Videre omtales at data om mageinnhold er vitale for analysene og at de i stor grad mangler eller er for gamle (hovedsakelig fra 1981 og 1991).
Et annet aspekt er at mageinnhold for sjøfugl ikke gir et bilde av hvor mye fisk det må være for at sjøfugl skal være i stand til å finne nok til å livberge seg. Det er mange ganger mer enn det faktiske konsumet de står for, som vanligvis er en forsvinnende liten andel i forhold til andre predatorer og fiskeriene. Det vises her til Cury, Phillippe M. et al (2011). Global Seabird Responses to forage fish Depletion – One-third for the Birds. Science VOL 334, 1703.
På s 56 omtales the Lenfest Forage Task Fish Forces anbefalinger for økosystembasert tilnærming til fiskeriforvaltningen. De beskrevne anbefalte forvaltningstiltakene er hentet fra en tabell i Task forcen som anbefaler tiltak avhengig av kunnskapsnivå, og viser seg å være dem som gjelder for det høyeste informasjonsnivået av 3. Om forutsetningene for anbefalingene skriver forfatterne: …"where the population and status of predatores are known in sufficient detail, the functional
3 responses of dependent predators are well defined, and localized forage fish can be estimated with high precision"…. Denne forutsetningen kan ikke sies å være oppfylt for sjøfugl.
Det vises flere steder i rapporten til at enkelte tobisområder utenfor Skottland er stengt for fiske av hensyn til lokale krykkjebestander. Dette er et godt tiltak, men ivaretar ikke hensynet til sjøfugl generelt. Konsekvensene av fiske på lavt trofisk nivå er i stor grad ukjent på økosystemnivå, og det er utfordrende å overvåke effekter av fiske på næringsnettet da mange relasjoner mellom predator og bytte er ukjent, selv for kommersielt utnyttede fiskebestander.
Hilsen Miljødirektoratet
Dette dokumentet er elektronisk godkjent
Knut Morten Vangen Brit Veie-Rosvoll seksjonsleder seniorrådgiver
Tenk miljø - velg digital postkasse fra e-Boks eller Digipost på www.norge.no.
Kopi til: Fiskeridirektoratet Postboks 185 Sentrum 5804 Bergen Norges Fiskarlag Postboks 1233 Sluppen 7462 Trondheim
4
To Norwegian Environment Agency Att: Knut Morten Vangen
Dear Knut Morten Vangen and Brit Veie-Rosvoll,
Marine Stewardship Council - Initial assessment of the Norway sandeel, pout and north sea sprat fishery
Thank you very much for your input and comments to our MSC certification report on Norway sandeel, pout and north sea sprat fisheries. We appreciate your interest and the background information you refer to. As our reply to all stakeholders are published internationally we reply to you in English.
First, about the MSC assessment processes and involvement of stakeholders. All MSC fisheries are publicly announced on MSC website. Besides, certain stakeholders, which have shown interest on MSC assessments in the past, are also specifically advised of the process by email of the beginning of MSC processes in the area. We will make sure the Norwegian Environmental Agency is included as a stakeholder with an interest in Norwegian MSC assessments in the future.
Your letter refers to different sections in the report (Public comment draft report; Initial assessment of the Norway sandeel, pout and north sea sprat fishery) which we will try to address:
1. Regarding adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem: This relates to the scoring of performance indicator 2.5.3a of the MSC standard. The indicator is formulated as follows: ”There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem: Information is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem. We understand from your letter that you (NINA) disagree with us on this matter.
MSC v2.0 Table SA8 defines the term “broadly understood” as that “ there is a general knowledge of the component’s status, the UoA’s impact on the component, the components distribution or the key elements of the component. This general knowledge can be acquired from diverse sources that are relevant to the component and UoA but does not have to be locally derived information ”. After revising the rationale of this PI, the team agrees that the scoring of it should remain at 80. This is, that available information, obtained by research undertaken by different research institutions, is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem. This does not imply that all elements of the ecosystem are perfectly understood, but that the requirements of the definition in Table SA8 are met. This corresponds with the opinions of two independent peer reviewers and MSC technical oversight comments on the report. Besides, this criteria, which in this report relates to the North Sea ecosystem, is generally met in North Sea MSC assessments. However, to take your comment into account, the sentence which made reference to NINA’s work in the North Sea has been removed from the PI 2.5.3.a rationale.
2. Regarding the background information on seabirds: The assessment team would like to thank for the background information on seabirds. The assessment team agrees that the North Sea is an important area for many seabirds, which, as mentioned in your letter, primarily feed on fry, small shrimp fish and large animal plankton.
The team would like to remark that, according to WKSand (2016) Report (page 148), “ there is strong evidence that sandeel stocks are affected by bottom-up processes involving climate and changing plankton stocks ”, therefore depletion of sandeel stocks is not always attributable to the fishing activity. On the same page the WKSand report states that “local depletion of sandeel aggregations at a distance less than 100 km from seabird colonies may affect some species of birds, especially black-legged kittiwake and sandwich tern, whereas the more mobile marine mammals and fish are likely to be less vulnerable to local sandeel depletion ”.
DNV GL Business Assurance Norway AS, Veritasveien 1, P.O.Box 300, 1322 Høvik, Norway. Tel: +47 67 57 99 00. www.dnvgl.com
The sandeel fishery (which is managed through 7 different stocks in the North Sea) is subject to temporary closures. In area 3r where at present the Norwegian fishery takes place, the sandeel fishery is only open for about 2 months in the spring time and is closed from 24 th June to 22 nd April in 2017 (specific dates vary through the years). As described in WKSand Report (page 45) the sandeel stock in North Sea area 3r (this is, in Norwegian waters), the management of the fishery includes spatial measures to prevent local depletion of the stock. These measures include the above mentioned establishment of a short fishing season, area closures when the sandeel stock abundance is not considered sufficiently high, establishment of subareas inside the Norwegian sandeel areas so that the different areas (3r and 5r) will never be completely open at the same time in order to prevent too high fishing effort, annual acoustic survey which is used to calculate the fishing TAC, and one week temporary closures when the proportion of undersized sandeel (<10cm) exceeds 10% of the catch. All these measures should effectively serve to minimise the possibility of local depletion of the stocks, preventing further impacts on dependant predators such as seabirds.
The sprat and Norway pout fisheries do not have such temporal limitations and are not subject to local depletion due to their distribution patterns. In any case, the fishing of the three stocks is seasonal as it is the same vessels targeting the three different stocks through the calendar year, with most catches of sprat taking place in January and most catches of Norway pout taking place between June and November.
The team would like to remark that the three stocks under assessment are subject to TAC limitations, and that the Norwegian fleet complies with it.
Stock Year ICES Advice ICES TAC TAC EU Official advice Norway catch Predicted catch corresp. to advice** Norway 2015 Precautionary considerations < 326,000 178,000 150,000 63,430 pout (F = 0.6) Norway 2016 MSY approach (escapement < 390,000 210,000 150,000 65,155 pout biomass with Fcap) Norway 2017 MSY approach (escapement ≤ 358,471 204,235 141,950* pout strategy; probability of SSB falling below Blim is less than 5%) Sprat 2015 MSY approach, Fcap (wanted ≤ 506,000 350,000 299,000 290,380 catch#) *** Sprat 2016 MSY approach, Fcap (catch) ≤ 125,541 245,000 255,513 240,673 *** Sprat 2017 MSY approach, Fcap (catch) ≤ 170,387
Norway pout: *TAC for EU Member States fishing in EU waters from 1 November 2016 to 31 October 2017. ** Starting with the advice for 2016, ICES advice has been provided for the period 1 November of the previous year to 31 October of the current year. Sprat: TACs are set for January–December whereas the advice is given for July (of the TAC year) to June of the next year. ** Advice for 1 July to 30 June. *** Final TAC following an in-year revision For sprat the ICES Category 3 approach is applied by ICES. This approach implies maintaining TAC from the previous year within rather narrow limits and is inappropriate for shortlived species with very varying recruitment between years such as sprat. The 2016 situation is based on an in-year revision of the advice.
3. Key LTL stocks. Relating to the question of key LTL stock, you raise three main arguments:
DNV GL Business Assurance Norway AS, Veritasveien 1, P.O.Box 300, 1322 Høvik, Norway. Tel: +47 67 57 99 00. www.dnvgl.com
a) “question the authors using three criteria under MSC FCR v2.0, arguing that they do not consider any of the species for assessment types as key species”. b) Further you question “that in support of its conclusion it is pointed out that if the species had been investigated individually, the conclusion would in any case be the same” c) Thirdly, you disagree “with this assessment especially for sandeel relating to seabirds”
Regarding the use of the three criteria under MSC FCR V2.0, the team does not disagree with the key role of this group of species, but is obliged to use the definitions given in the MSC standard (MSC Fishery Certification Requirement v2.0, SA 2.2.8) to determine if they should be considered as key low trophic level species or not. Disagreements to such definitions should be directed directly to MSC.
As regards the decision to investigate the forage species jointly or separated, there is scientific agreement that there are several different species identified in the North Sea at the same trophic level ( inter alia sandeel, Norway pout, sprat, herring and juvenile gadoids) (ICES 2013 Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, Book 6: North Sea, page 15). Many species eat the forage fish, but no single predator rely on one forage fish species to the extent that the prey species meets the criteria as key LTL species and the energy flow in the North Sea ecosystem does not critically depend on a single forage fish species (Rice et al., 2017, e.g. based on Mackinson and Daskalov (2007)). The variation in the species composition of the forage fish community over time (with large annual variations in species composition that occur as a consequence of natural fluctuations in the recruitment success of individual species) combined with the general stability of the overall biomass of this community serves to support our conclusion that none of the species under assessment are key LTL species. The issue is therefore whether the forage fish community as a whole can be considered a key trophic level and be evaluated under MSC as such. Again, it is not for the team to discuss MSC Standard but to verify if fisheries under assessment comply with it.
Regarding the role of sandeel species relating to seabirds, table 1.5.2.1 (page 26), the W.K.Sand 2016 report shows the dependency of different species on the sandeel stocks. The table effectively reflects how at least 10 bird species (sandwich tern, Arctic tern, shag, great skua, Arctic skua, puffin, guillemot, razorbill, kittiwake and gannet) are highly dependent on the availability of sandeels. This dependency is in feeding areas for sea birds and does not apply to the total North Sea. Sand eel is sedentary once settled and the appropriate approach to assure sufficient feed for the birds are 1) to maintain -recruitment and 2) to restrict fisheries in bird feed areas, e.g. off Shetland and off the Scottish coast. The is done by management of the specific components of the sandeel population, such as the management measures for the sandeel stock in area 3r (as described above). The team would like to remark that, especially the sandeel stock in area 3r (where the Norwegian fishery is at present taking place) is subject to a TAC of 40000 tons, which represents half of ICES advice of 74146 tons. In addition, the sandeel fishery is also regulated by a short fishing season which takes place in spring, reducing the risk of lack of prey for other species in the winter months.
4. Endangered, Threatened and Protected species.
Regarding the areas to which the mention of ETP species refers in the report, the team is obliged to enlist all species present in the area which are protected either by Norwegian or EU regulation. The assessment report covers three different stocks in the North Sea, which cover both Norwegian and EU waters, and lists the different species that may be present in the North Sea, regardless of some species been localized far from the fishing grounds or some others having migratory patterns which imply that they are only temporal visitors in the area. In any case, the scoring of the ETP MSC Performance Indicator mostly takes into account direct impacts on these species, such as injuries and casualties. Indirect impacts such as prey availability are only taken into account when attempting for a high score (SG100).
As regards your comments to the species listed in Table 26 of the MSC assessment report (ETP species): It is not always easy to follow the different updates in the relevant regulations, red lists and treaties across the different jurisdictions. The list was made taking into account available information on the following website, http://www.biodiversity.no/Pages/135380 , with information
DNV GL Business Assurance Norway AS, Veritasveien 1, P.O.Box 300, 1322 Høvik, Norway. Tel: +47 67 57 99 00. www.dnvgl.com
on the Norwegian Red List. To date (30 th October 2017) such website is not available but pdf documentation on the 2015 Norwegian red list was used in the report. A note has been added to Table 26 to highlight that information was taken from the 2015 red list and that there may be later updates to it.
Regarding the implications of a species been red listed and its consideration for MSC assessment reports as ETP species, the assessment team specifically addressed this question to the Ministry of Fisheries. We asked if there was any associated regulation to the Norwegian red list, and were given the answer that, although there is no specific regulation to apply when a species is red- listed, the Marine Resources Act and the Marine Diversity Act, which are both based in the principle of ecosystem based management, would oblige management authorities to apply management measures to ensure the safeguard of biodiversity and that the red listed species is returned to a safer status.
5. Ecosystems As highlighted in your letter, ICES WKSand 2016 Report (page 7) identifies that there is “ a problem with the SMS model that needs to be addressed: the model is not designed to provide reliable estimates of variance, and the variance estimate derived from the model is a critical component of the escapement strategy TAC setting process ” and suggests the use of the SESAM (Seasonal state-space assessment) model, which is a newly developed extension to the SAM model. Page 47 of the same report states that “ The SESAM model, which was run exploratively prior to the 2016 benchmark meeting, confirmed stock dynamics and the dynamic exploitation patterns emerging from the SESAM model to some extent mimicked the discrete changes in exploitation pattern in the SMS model .” Besides, page 105 states that “ the overall impression was that the SMS model was more stable, given that there is sufficient data in the latest SMS period cluster (4–5 years). Nevertheless, the SESAM model’s ability to estimate gradual temporal changes in selectivity and effort catchability has some merit over the blocking approach (period clusters) used in the SMS model, since the latter may introduce sudden jumps in the perceived stock status, when new blocks are introduced. Also, the SESAM model incorporates pro-cess error unlike the SMS model, which should provide more realistic uncertainty estimates .”. Moreover, WKSand 2016 report concludes (page 7) that “ the SMS model should be used for stocks in areas SA1, SA2, SA3 and SA4 ”, which is where the UoA takes place (areas 1r, 3r and 4r).
It is not the intention of the team to enter into discussions about which model should be used, but to follow the recommendations on ICES 2017 advice on sandeel. Page 5 of such advice shows that the SMS-effort model continues to be used as the basis of the assessment and advice.
6. As regards the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force’s recommendations for ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management (page 91 of such report), the Norwegian Environmental Agency disagrees with the allocated high level of information on the North Sea ecosystem considered by the assessment team. Again, the disagreement lies on how detailed the available information is. The team considers that the North Sea ecosystem has been studied over the years by different institutions, and that sufficient information is available to meet all requirements set in the table below. Still, we agree that the knowledge on the different species and their relations can always be improved.
Table 1: Precautionary approach to the management of fish developed by the Lenfest Forest Fish Task Force:
DNV GL Business Assurance Norway AS, Veritasveien 1, P.O.Box 300, 1322 Høvik, Norway. Tel: +47 67 57 99 00. www.dnvgl.com
The team does not want to undermine the importance of seabirds in the North Sea ecosystem and their dependence on fish species such as sandeel, sprat and Norway pout. It is the team role to assess the fishery (unit of assessment) against MSC standard, which covers the impacts of the fishery on different components of the ecosystem, but not only on seabirds. The assessment team has reached the conclusion that this UoA complies with the MSC v2.0 standard and can therefore be MSC certified.
Best regards On behalf of the team of DNV GL Business Assurance
Stefan Midteide Principal Consultant, Food & Beverage Norway
E-mail [email protected] Mobile | Direct +47 908 30 545
DNV GL Business Assurance Norway AS, Veritasveien 1, P.O.Box 300, 1322 Høvik, Norway. Tel: +47 67 57 99 00. www.dnvgl.com
APPENDIX 6 SURVEILLANCE FREQUENCY
Table 42 Surveillance level rationale Year Surveillance Number of Rationale activity auditors 1-4 2 on-site 1-2 auditors on- From client action plan it can be deduced that surveillance site with remote information needed to verify progress towards audits support from 1 conditions 1.2.2, 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 can be 2 off-site auditor provided remotely in year 2 and 3. surveillance audits Considering that milestones indicate that most conditions will be closed out in year 4, the CAB proposes to have two on-site audits with 1-2 auditor on-site with remote support.
Table 43 Timing of surveillance audit Year Anniversary Proposed date of Rationale date of surveillance certificate audit 1 -4 2018-01-25 November The dates of the releases of ICES advice for the three species suggest that November could be a suitable time for surveillance audits. The team will also seek to coordinate surveillance with other fisheries in the area, where possible.
Table 44 Fishery Surveillance Program Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Level Level 4 On -site Off -site Off -site On -site surveillance audit surveillance audit surveillance audit surveillance audit & re-certification site visit
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 223
APPENDIX 7 OBJECTIONS PROCESS
(REQUIRED FOR THE PCR IN ASSESSMENTS WHERE AN OBJECTION WAS RAISED AND ACCEPTED BY AN INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATOR)
The report shall include all written decisions arising from an objection.
(Reference: FCR 7.19.1)
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 224
APPENDIX 8 VESSEL LIST
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 225
30.10.2017
Side 1 av 3
Vessel list Valid for: Norway Blue Whiting, Sandeel, Pout and Sprat Callsign Vessel name T -0042-T Asbjørn Selsbane H -0087-AV Birkeland SF-0012-F Bluefin H -0001-BN Brennholm H -0175-B Bømmelbas R -0015-K Cetus M -0150-HØ Christina E M -0150-HØ Christina E M -0158-SM Dyrnesvåg H -0140-B Elisabeth H -0015-F Endre Dyrøy M -0029-HØ Eros M -0022-SM Fiskebank M -0625-H Fiskeskjer T -0025-I Frantsen Junior H -0034-AV Gardar H -0032-AV Gerda Marie M -0031-HØ Gollenes M -0139-A Gunnar Langva H -0088-AV H. Østervold H -0120-AV Hardhaus H -0001-O Hargun H -0001-AV Harvest H -0050-AV Haugagut H -0081-BN Havdrøn M -0520-A Havfisk M -0520-A Havfisk M -0200-A Havskjer M -0195-MD Havsnurp VA-0015-S Hellevig M -0620-HØ Herøy M -0021-HØ Herøyfjord M -0250-HØ Herøyhav SF-0004-S Hovden Viking R -0022-B Håflu R -0005-B Håflu F -0184-M Ingrid Majala N -0119-SO Ketlin M -0022-HØ Kings Bay H -0009-AV Knester H -0015-AV Kremmervik H -0069-S Krossfjord 30.10.2017
Side 2 av 3
H -0034-BN Krossøy N -0400-B Kvannøy N -0400-B Kvannøy M -0003-HØ Leinebjørn H -0003-F Liafjord H -0005-F Libas H -0002-F Ligrunn H -0030-B Lønningen H -0007-B Lønnøy N -0307-LN M.Ytterstad H -0077-AV Malene S H -0026-AV Manon H -0005-AV Morten Einar H -0569-B Mostein N -0134-LN Norafjell H -0182-AV Norderveg H -0181-AV Nordervon N -0001-B Nordfisk M -0190-HØ Nordsjøbas T -0260-G Odd Lundberg VA-0095-K Piraja ST-0008-O Rav R -0080-ES Roaldsen M -0070-HØ Rogne N -0118-LN Rødholmen H -0004-O Røttingøy R -0333-K Salvøy N -0024-ME Selvåg Senior N -0060-B Senior VA-0110-S Sille Marie SF-0014-SU Sjarmør M -0122-HØ Sjøbris H -0010-AV Slaatterøy M -0065-HØ Smaragd H -0095-AV Staaløy H -0380-AV Storeknut M -0038-AV Stormfuglen M -0425-H Strand Senior N -0001-LF Straumberg ST-0019-F Svanaug Elise M -0027-VD Sæbjørn H -0074-AV Talbor M -0001-HØ Teigenes SF-0004-V Torbas H -0718-B Trygvason NT-0500-V Trønderbas R -0007-K Vea 30.10.2017
Side 3 av 3
H -0004-AV Vendla SF-0028-B Vestfart H -0012-AV Vestviking R -0003-K Vikingbank H -0140-AV Østanger H -0099-AV Østerbris N -0200-DA Åkerøy
APPENDIX 9 CLIENT AGREEMENT
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 226
About DNV GL Driven by our purpose of safeguarding life, property and the environment, DNV GL enables organizations to advance the safety and sustainability of their business. We provide classification and technical assurance along with software and independent expert advisory services to the maritime, oil and gas, and energy industries. We also provide certification services to customers across a wide range of industries. Operating in more than 100 countries, our 16,000 professionals are dedicated to helping our customers make the world safer, smarter and greener.
DNV GL – Report No. 2017-008, Rev. Rev 3 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Page 227