MACALISTER ELLIOTT AND PARTNERS LTD

Final Report

UK Fisheries Ltd. / DFFU / Doggerbank saithe (Pollachius virens) fishery

22 NOVEMBER 2010

MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd 56 High Street, Lymington Hampshire SO41 9AH United Kingdom Tel: 01590 679016 Fax: 01590 671573 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.macalister-elliott.com 2187R01C

Table of contents

Contents Report summary ...... 5 1. Introduction ...... 6 1.1 General background ...... 6

1.2 Client ...... 6

1.3 Units of certification ...... 7

1.4 Assessment team and peer reviewers ...... 7

1.5 Previous assessments by MEP ...... 8

1.6 Report structure ...... 8

2. Background to the fishery ...... 9 2.1 Target species...... 9

2.2 Vessels, gear and fishing operations ...... 9

2.2.1 Vessels ...... 9

2.2.2 Gear and fishing operations ...... 10

2.2.3 Fishing grounds ...... 11

2.3 Saithe catch ...... 15

2.4 Retained species, by-catch and interactions with ETP species ...... 15

2.5 Ecosystem context ...... 20

2.6 Interactions with other fisheries ...... 21

3. Management System ...... 22 3.1 Legislative context ...... 22

3.2 Organisations involved in management ...... 23

3.3 Harvest control rules and tools ...... 23

2187R01C 2

3.4 Management plan and objectives ...... 24

3.5 Regulation and enforcement ...... 25

4. Stock assessment ...... 26 4.1 Definition of stocks and management units ...... 26

4.2 Monitoring and stock assessment system ...... 27

4.3 Current status of stocks and recruitment ...... 29

5. Fishery evaluation process ...... 29 5.1 MSC standard and methodology ...... 29

5.2 Assessment process ...... 33

5.3 Assessment of UK Fisheries Ltd. / DFFU / Doggerbank saithe fisheries ...... 34

5.4 Stakeholder consultations ...... 34

6. Scoring ...... 35 6.1 Scoring methodology ...... 35

6.2 Weighting ...... 36

6.3 Harmonisation ...... 37

7. Assessment results ...... 40 7.1 Overall results ...... 40

7.2 Principle 1 ...... 40

7.3 Principle 2 ...... 41

7.4 Principle 3 ...... 42

8. Certification Recommendation ...... 43 8.1 Recommendation ...... 43

8.2 Conditions ...... 43

9. Chain of custody ...... 44

2187R01C 3

9.1 Determination of the point at which fish and fish products enter further Chain of Custody ...... 44

9.2 Risk Assessment to the Chain of Custody ...... 46

9.3 Chain of Custody Determination ...... 47

9.4 Target eligibility date ...... 47

10. Client Action Plan (response to conditions) ...... 48 10.1 Client Action Plan from UK Fisheries Ltd...... 48

10.2 Client Action Plan from DFFU and Doggerbank ...... 50

Annex 1 – Assessment tree ...... 52 Annex 2 – References ...... 120 Annex 3 – Summary of stakeholder comments received during information gathering 126 Annex 4 – Peer reviewer reports with MEP responses ...... 128 Annex 5 – Stakeholder comments on the PCDR with MEP responses ...... 149

2187R01C 4

Report summary This report is the final report of an MSC assessment of the fisheries for saithe by the UK fishing company UK Fisheries Ltd. and the German fishing companies Deutsche Fischfang Union GmbH (DFFU) and Doggerbank GmbH. These companies are linked because they are all part of a single larger group (a consortium of the Dutch company Parlevliet & van der Blas B.V. and the Icelandic company Samherji HF). DFFU and Doggerbank operate together as a single operational unit, while UK Fisheries operate separately. The fishing companies both target saithe but have different strategies. UK Fisheries Ltd. has one vessel that targets saithe (the Farnella) and she fishes exclusively (at present) in the North Sea, in both EU and Norwegian waters. DFFU has three vessels in the Unit of Assessment (all German registered), while Doggerbank has two German registered vessels and one which is a joint venture with a Polish company (Arctic Navigation – also under the umbrella of the same larger group) and is Polish registered. All these vessels operate in the same way (as regards saithe) – fishing mainly in the NE Arctic area (North Norway and Spitzbergen), with small amount of catch in the North Sea. Overall, the evaluation was positive and MEP’s recommendation is that both fisheries should be certified to the MSC standard. However, MEP proposes that conditions be placed on this certification for both fisheries. MEP also notes that the average score for both fisheries for Principle 2 was close to the minimum possible for certification (80) and therefore recommends more generally that each fishery conducts a general review of its activities in relation to the requirements of Principle 2. For both fisheries, the average score for Principle 1 was 90.6. For Principle 2 the average score was 80.3. For Principle 3 the average score was 89. Three conditions are proposed for UK Fisheries Ltd. and four for DFFU / Doggerbank, all relating to Principle 2. Three of the proposed conditions apply to the interactions of the fishery with the protected species common skate Dipturus batis. The team felt that information on possible catches was not sufficient to assess fully the level of impact, and, in the case of DFFU and Doggerbank, that the regulation on immediate discarding of catches may not have been being properly implemented. The fourth condition required the development of a partial strategy to avoid sensitive habitats.

2187R01C 5

1. Introduction

1.1 General background

The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is a non-profit organisation which aims to use market mechanisms to support the long-term sustainability of marine fisheries. MSC has developed a standard for well managed and sustainable fisheries, and an associated methodology for assessing individual fisheries against the standard – this collectively is now called the Fisheries Assessment Methodology (FAM) (1). The standard and methodology is periodically updated. This assessment uses the FAM version 1 of June 2008 - the most recent at the time the assessment was started. Assessments are carried out by private companies (Certification Bodies – CBs) who are accredited to carrying out MSC assessments by the accreditation organisation Accreditation Services International (ASI).

This report is the Final Report for the fishery for saithe (Pollachius virens) in the North Sea and North Norway (ICES Subareas I, II and IV) by three fishing companies : UK Fisheries Ltd., Deutsche Fischfang Union GmbH (DFFU) and Doggerbank GmbH. These three companies are part of the same overall group. The report has been prepared by an assessment team from the CB MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. (MEP). The report has already been subject to comment and review by the clients, peer reviewers, stakeholders and MSC, and the review period is now over. However, formal objections are possible on the content of this report under certain circumstances – full information is available from MSC or MEP (details and contacts on the MSC website or at www.macalister- elliott.com).

1.2 Client

The clients for this assessment are the fishing companies UK Fisheries Ltd, based in Hull, UK, Deutsche Fischfang Union GmbH (DFFU) and Doggerbank GmbH, both based in Cuxhaven, Germany. UK Fisheries Ltd. has one vessel specialised in fishing for saithe (the Farnella), fishing in the northern North Sea. Doggerbank has two vessels targeting saithe: the Gerda Maria and the Atlantic Peace. DFFU has three vessels targeting saithe: the Kiel, the Baldvin and the Odra. A fourth DFFU vessel, the Polonus, actually belongs to a Polish fishing company (Arctic Navigation) which is, however, majority owned by DFFU. The Polonus is to all intents and purposes operated as a DFFU vessel, the only difference being that it fishes saithe on Polish quota rather than German quota. Details of the vessels are given below. The four fishing companies (UK Fisheries Ltd., DFFU, Doggerbank and Arctic Navigation) are all part of a single larger group (a consortium of the Dutch company Parlevliet & van der Blas B.V. and the Icelandic company Samherji HF), so there is a logic to assessing them together.

2187R01C 6

1.3 Units of certification

The unit of certification defines exactly what is being assessed and certified, in terms of fishing companies and vessels, as well as in terms of fish species and stocks.

This assessment is comprised of two Units of Certification: UK Fisheries Ltd. and DFFU and Doggerbank GmbH (including the Polonus). The distinction between the two has been made because the management of the fishery at national level is somewhat different between the UK and Germany, and also because the fishing companies and vessels are managed separately, although they form part of the same overall group (for more details see below). DFFU and Doggerbank have not been separated in the Unit of Certification because it was clear to the team that despite being separate companies, the vessels work very closely together and are essentially managed as for a single fleet.

In biological terms, this assessment covers two stocks of saithe (the target species) – the North Sea / West of Scotland stock and the Northeast Arctic stock. The Farnella (UK Fisheries) fishes only on the North Sea stock, while the other vessels fish on both stocks. The UK Fisheries Ltd. Unit of Certification thus evaluated only the North Sea stock, while the DFFU / Doggerbank Unit of Certification evaluated both stocks.

1.4 Assessment team and peer reviewers

The assessment team was made up of three experts, each of whom has competences in fisheries assessment, marine ecology and fisheries management – i.e. in each of the three Principles of the MSC standard. All three experts therefore had equal input on the scoring of each PI in each of the three Principles. For the purpose of drafting the rationales and reporting, each member of the team took responsibility for one of the Principles, and their drafts were then reviewed and revised by the other two team-members.

The assessment team was composed of the following individuals:

Ulf Löwenberg: Ulf is an independent fisheries consultant with many years of experience in fisheries assessment and management in Europe and West Africa. He has been involved in four MSC assessments (German Kutterfisch saithe, Euronor saithe, German Baltic herring and Swedish Skagerrak and North Sea herring and sprat), and is also involved in another ongoing assessment (Scapêche / Comapêche saithe). Ulf was responsible for Principle 1 for this assessment. Dr. Jo Gascoigne: Jo is the Director for Fisheries Certification at MEP and a former research lecturer in marine biology at Bangor University. She has been involved in two previous assessments (Euronor saithe and Mauritania mullet trial assessment) and is involved in five ongoing assessments (Scapêche / Comapêche saithe, northern Menai Strait mussel, Normandy-Jersey lobster, SARPC toothfish and Tristan da Cunha rock

2187R01C 7

lobster). Jo was responsible for Principle 2, and was the Project Manager for the assessment. Dr Sophie des Clers: Sophie des Clers is an independent expert in fisheries management and socioeconomics, as well as an affiliated research fellow of University College London. She is involved in two other ongoing MSC assessments (the Biscay sardine seine fishing and the Normandy-Jersey lobster). She was in charge of Principle 3 for this assessment.

CVs for all three experts are available on the MSC website.

Peer reviewers for the report are the following individuals:

Dr Jan Hiddink: Dr Hiddink is a lecturer in Marine Ecology. School of Ocean Sciences, Bangor University, and an expert on marine and fisheries ecology; particularly the ecology of important commercial species and the ecosystem impacts of fishing activities. His publications include both modelling and field studies on various aspects of fisheries, benthic ecosystems and climate change.

Helen Davies: Helen Davies is a private consultant specialising in sustainable fisheries management and oceans governance. Helen has worked for UK Government agencies (DEFRA, English Nature and Scottish Natural Heritage) and environmental NGOs (mainly WWF) in marine resource management for over 20 years. She has also worked closely with small scale fisheries in East Africa and aquaculture operations in New Zealand.

1.5 Previous assessments by MEP MEP has completed one full assessment (the Euronor saithe fishery) and is working on six ongoing assessments (two other European saithe fisheries, a European and a South Atlantic lobster fishery, a toothfish fishery and this fishery). Euronor was given a certification without conditions, and so far no annual audits or recertifications have been carried out by MEP.

1.6 Report structure

The report is structured as follows:

Section 1: Introductory material; Section 2: Background to the fishery – information on the target species; catches; interactions with bycatch species, protected species, habitats and ecosystems; interactions with other fisheries and non-fishing activities; Section 3: The management system – including management organisations, legislative context, objectives and plans, rules and tools and evaluation; 2187R01C 8

Section 4: Stock assessment and stock monitoring; Section 5: MSC fishery evaluation process – including the evaluation process and timeline; Section 6: Scoring- methodology and weighing; Section 7: Results of the assessment; Section 8: Certification recommendation; Section 9: Chain of custody – brief description and risk assessment; Section 10: Client Action Plan – how conditions will be met by the fishery; Annex 1: Assessment tree – detailed scores and rationales for each PI; Annex 2: References for main report and Annex 1; Annex 3: Summary of stakeholder comments during information-gathering; Annex 4: Peer reviewer reports and responses; Annex 5: MSC comments on the PCDR, and responses from MEP (no comments were received from stakeholders).

2. Background to the fishery

2.1 Target species

Saithe (lieu noir, Pollachius virens) is a large fish in the cod family (Gadidae). It is distributed across the North Atlantic, in the Barents Sea, around Greenland and Iceland, in the North Sea and as far south as the Bay of Biscay and North Carolina (although rare on the edges of this range) (2,3). It is gregarious, and is known to migrate ontogenetically and for spawning. Adult saithe are piscivorous, feeding on smaller fish (3,4).

In the eastern Atlantic, juvenile saithe are distributed in coastal waters – in the fjords on the coast of Norway, for example. They mature at an age around 3 years, and at the same time migrate offshore where they live as adults roughly between 200 and 400 m depth (4).

2.2 Vessels, gear and fishing operations

2.2.1 Vessels

This assessment involves seven fishing vessels: one for UK Fisheries Ltd. and six for DFFU / Doggerbank – of these six, two belong to Doggerbank, two directly to DFFU and one to Arctic Navigation, majority owned by DFFU. Details of the vessels are given in Table 1.

2187R01C 9

Table 1. Details of the vessels in the Unit of Certification. Company Vessel Length Product Source of Main port(s) of (m) quota landing UK Fisheries Farnella 36 fresh UK Hanstholm (Denmark) Doggerbank Gerda 81 frozen Germany Cuxhaven / Maria Bremerhaven Atlantic 57 frozen Germany Peace DFFU Kiel 92 frozen Germany Odra 86 frozen Germany Baldvin 67 frozen Germany Arctic Navigation Polonus 60 frozen Poland* (DFFU) * Acquired by annual exchange with France at governmental level

2.2.2 Gear and fishing operations

The gear used to fish for saithe is a standard demersal rockhopper otter trawl. The trawl mesh size must be at least 100mm in EU waters ICES Subarea VI, 110mm in EU waters ICES Subarea IV and 120mm in Norwegian waters (5). All the vessels use 120 mm mesh (or slightly larger). In European waters, the Farnella may also include a 110 mm square mesh panel1 in the net, if it is deemed necessary to avoid catching large quantities of saithe just above the minimum size (a larger mean size is preferred). The otter boards (trawl doors) weigh around 1250-1500 kg. Trawling depth is mainly 200-250 m (minimum ~120 m, maximum ~300 m), and trawl duration is highly variable depending on catch rate.

The Farnella fishes in 8-10 day trips (usually grouped in threes – ‘trebles’), landing fresh fish mainly into Hanstholm in Denmark. Around 10% of the total catch is landed at Peterhead or Scrabster (Scotland).

The DFFU / Doggerbank vessels fish in trips of around 60 days, landing frozen product into Germany (Cuxhaven or Bremerhaven) or more rarely Iceland (Reykjavik, Havnafjördur, Grundafjördur or Akureyri).

1 A given size in square mesh is larger than in standard (diamond) mesh.

2187R01C 10

2.2.3 Fishing grounds

The Farnella fishes entirely in the northern North Sea, concentrating around the 200 m contour to the north of the Shetland Islands and off the Norwegian coast (ICES Subarea IV straying into Subareas VI and IIa) (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Tows by the Farnella May 2007 to March 2009 in red, and the 200 m bathycline in blue (6).

The DFFU and Doggerbank vessels fishing partly in the same area as the Farnella, but mainly further to the north, along the Norwegian coast and around Spitzbergen (ICES Subareas I and II). They also fish around Iceland and Greenland but are not targeting saithe in these areas, which are not included in the assessment (Figure 2). This detailed

2187R01C 11

information is not available for the Polonus, but as regards saithe her activities are essentially the same.

Figure 2. A - Fishing areas for the Kiel, Baldvin and Odra (DFFU); B – Fishing areas for the Gerda Maria and the Atlantic Peace (Doggerbank), provided by BLE (the German fisheries management authority). Note that the fishing activities around Iceland and Greenland are not targeting saithe and are not included in this assessment. The period spent in the Canary Islands (A) was for maintenance rather than fishing purposes.

2187R01C 12

A

B

Figure 3. ICES fishing areas, for reference.

2187R01C 13

2187R01C 14

2.3 Saithe catch

Saithe landings for DFFU and Doggerbank vessels (including the Polonus) and for the Farnella, are given in Tables 2 and 3.

Table 2. Saithe landings by DFFU and Doggerbank vessels, 2007-9 by sector, in tonnes live weight. Data from DFFU and Doggerbank. Norwegian waters EU waters (IVa) ICES Subarea (IIa and IVa) VI DFFU 2007 1470 1845 0 2008 1240 1177 0 2009 1193 1925 0 Doggerbank 2007 1261 352 199 2008 1049 429 0 2009 775 439 302

Table 3. Saithe landings by the Farnella, 2008-9 by sector, in tonnes live weight. Data from the FPO. I and IIa IIIa Norw. IVa EU IVa VIa 2008 28.9 0 575 1928 14.2 2009 0 51 1138 1271 107

2.4 Retained species, by­catch and interactions with ETP species

The MSC standard distinguishes between retained species and by-catch, with retained species those that are kept and marketed along with the target species, and by-catch those that are discarded (1). This distinction is important because retained species feature in the logbooks and discarded species do not. In this fishery, nearly all the non-saithe catch is retained and marketed (except when against regulations to do so).

For the Farnella, the only target species is saithe, and saithe makes up more than 90 % of the catch. The other species making up more than 1% of the catch are cod and haddock, which are also retained. Other species make up a small percentage of the catch (Table 4).

For DFFU and Doggerbank vessels the most important target species is actually cod from the Northeast Arctic stock (treated in this assessment as a retained species). Saithe is the second most important target species. Haddock catches are also significant, and some mackerel is caught in the North Sea. Other species also make up a small percentage of the catch (Tables 5 and 6).

2187R01C 15

Table 4. Retained species volume by the Farnella (UK Fisheries Ltd.) in 2009 (kg live weight), by ICES Subarea and zone. Species are listed in order of total landings. Species with zero landings for 2009 are listed because they may be caught in other years.

Species Species North North West of Ska- Total % common scientific Sea EU Sea Scotland gerrak total sector Norway (VIa) (IIIa) catch (IVa) sector (IVa) saithe Pollachius virens 1271126 1137695 106588 51055 2566463 92.5 cod Gadus morhua 25079 33081 3916 62076 2.24 haddock Melanogrammus 22627 27621 1288 51536 1.86 aeglefinus ling Molva molva 24426 1463 25889 0.93 monkfish Lophius 13184 2926 1130 17240 0.62 piscatorius pollack Pollachius 4723 8184 12907 0.47 pollachius hake Merluccius 9370 2262 437 12070 0.44 merluccius whiting Merlangius 8066 722 8788 0.32 merlangus wolffish Anarhichas lupus 1723 3604 5327 0.19 megrim Lepidorhombus 3215 32 270 3516 0.13 whiffiagonis tusk Brosme brosme 3536 3536 0.13 lemon Microstomus kitt 576 758 1334 0.048 sole Gr. Reinhardtius 391 855 1246 0.045 halibut hippoglossoides redfish Sebastes spp. 514 514 0.019 plaice Pleuronectes 87 310 397 0.014 platessa witch Glyptocephalus 179 207 386 0.014 cynoglossus turbot Psetta maxima 161 207 367 0.013 squid Loligo vulgaris 331 30 361 0.013 other 218 109 327 0.012 dogfish Scyliorhinus sp. 40 40 0.001 Atl. Hippoglossus 0 halibut hippoglossus blue ling Molva dypterygia 0 total 1389532 1218612 115123 51055 27743231

2187R01C 16

Table 5. As above, for DFFU and Doggerbank vessels for 2009, in tonnes live weight. Species with zero catch are listed if there was any catch in 2008 or 2009 for any vessel. Fishing Species Species DFFU Dogger- Total DFFU Dogger- Total zone common scientific bank % bank % % catch catch catch Nor- cod Gadus wegian morhua 3814 911 4725 30.3 21.4 28.1 zone (I saithe Pollachius and IIa) virens 1193 775 1968 9.49 18.2 11.7 haddock Melano- grammus aeglefinus 510 130 640 4.06 3.05 3.80 redfish Sebastes spp. 68 27 95 0.54 0.63 0.56 other* 12 8 20 0.095 0.19 0.12 Gr. Reinhardtius halibut hippo- glossoides 8 0 8 0.064 0.00 0.047 Spitz- cod G. morhua 3627 1378 5005 28.8 32.3 29.7 bergen haddock M. zone aeglefinus 1355 270 1625 10.8 6.33 9.65 (IIb) wolffish Anarhichas lupus 45 8 53 0.36 0.19 0.32 Gr. R. hippo- halibut glossoides 4 12 16 0.032 0.28 0.095 redfish Sebastes spp. 3 0 3 0.024 0.00 0.018 EU saithe P. virens 1925 439 2364 15.3 10.3 14.0 waters mackerel Scomber (IV, scombrus 0 302 302 0.00 7.08 1.79 VI) cod G. morhua 4 0 4 0.032 0.00 0.024 haddock M. aeglefinus 10 4 14 0.080 0.094 0.083 redfish Sebastes spp. 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 *see Table 6 below.

Table 6. Specification of ‘other fish’ for DFFU (tonnes live weight, 2007-2009) Species Species scientific Norwegian zone North Sea common 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 Atlantic Hippoglossus 2.4 halibut hippoglossus 5.0 4.7 ling Molva molva 1.0 1.9 0.6 3 6 0 pollack Pollachius pollachius 2.7 0.2 0.0 wolffish Anarhichas lupus 13.4 7.1 silver smelt Argentina silus 0.1 blue ling Molva dypterygia 0.1 tusk Brosme brosme 0.2 hake Merluccius merluccius 0 3 0

2187R01C 17

By-catch species (defined by MSC as non-target species which are discarded rather than retained) are not entered in logbooks so do not show up in catch data. Instead, they are usually identified via observer reports. Observer coverage in this fishery is present but somewhat patchy.

The Farnella does not host observers onboard as part of a regular programme; she has, however, participated in two scientific research projects under the Fisheries Partnership Scheme (a UK Government scheme to partner fisheries research scientists with fishermen: 6,7). These projects both provide an extensive list of by-catch species. A list of these species is given in Table 7. The numbers caught are likely to be variable from tow to tow, but the available data suggests that the by-catch (discarding) rate in this fishery is somewhere around 3-4% by number and likely to be less by weight since most of the species listed are smaller than saithe.

For DFFU / Doggerbank, 10 trips were carried out with observers in the period 2007- 2009, including six on the Kiel and four on the Baldvin (8). The observers were concentrated on these vessels for two reasons: i) some other vessels (such as the Atlantic Peace) only switched to saithe recently; ii) some vessels (such as the Gerda Maria) do not have suitable accommodation for an observer.

The team reviewed the observer reports provided to identify any species that is always discarded. All species identified are given in Table 7.

Table 7. Species discarded by the Farnella during one tow for saithe (in Subarea IVa). This list comes from one of the CEFAS FSP research projects (6) and has been cross- checked against the other (7) to ensure that all species are represented – however the numbers will of course vary from trip to trip. Species included in Table 4 above are not included here.

2187R01C 18

Species Number Number % total % retained discarded catch by discarded number inc. saithe grey gurnard Eutrigla gurnardus 0 392 0.59 100 rabbitfish Chimaera monstrosa 0 358 0.53 100 mackerel Scomber scombrus 0 279 0.42 100 squid (unidentified) 0 221 0.33 100 Ommastrephidae cuckoo ray Raja naevus 0 77 0.12 100 witch Glypotocephalus cynoglossus 0 76 0.11 100 argentine Argentinidae 0 54 0.081 100 northern squid Loligo forbesi 0 50 0.075 100 greater forkbeard Phycis blennoides 0 49 0.073 100 round skate Raja fyllae 0 36 0.054 100 starry ray Raja radiata 0 31 0.046 100 Norway pout Trisopterus esmarki 0 31 0.046 100 blue whiting Micromesistius 0 27 0.04 100 poutassou American plaice Hippoglossoides 0 26 0.039 100 platessoides herring Clupea harengus 0 14 0.021 100 Norway lobster Nephrops 0 11 0.016 100 norvegicus red gurnard Aspitrigla cuculus 0 5 0.0075 100 blackmouth dogfish Galeus 0 5 0.0075 100 melastomus common dragonet Callionymus lyra 0 1 0.001 100 dab Limanda limanda 0 1 0.001 100 longnosed skate Dipturus oxyrinchus 0 1 0.001 100 silver smelt Argentina silus not caught in this survey; 861 individuals caught in 9 tows with standard trawl (6)

2187R01C 19

Table 8. Discarded species by the Kiel and the Baldvin over three years of observer reports (excluding species which are sometimes discarded and sometimes retained). Numbers are highly variable from trip to trip, but the team was satisfied that catches of all these species are low. Species (English) Species (German) Species (scientific) Subarea common skate Glattrochen Dipturus batis IIa monkfish Seeteufel Lophius piscatorius IIa lumpfish Seehase Cyclopterus lumpus IIa witch flounder Rotzunge, Hundszunge Glyptocephalus cynoglossus IIa megrim Fluegelbutt, Scheefsnut Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis IIa lemon sole Limande, (Rotzunge) Microstomus kitt IIa herring Hering Clupea harengus IIa rabbit fish Chimäre Chimaera monstrosa IIa plaice Scholle Pleuronectes platessa IIa silver smelt Goldlachs Argentina silus IIa spotted wolffish Seewolf, Gefleckter Anarhichas minor IIb American plaice Doggerscharbe Hippoglossoides platessoides IIb northern wolffish Seewolf, Blauer Anarhichas denticulatus IIb starry ray Sternrochen Raja radiata IIb cuckoo ray Kuckucksrochen Raja naevus IIb Norway redfish Kleiner Rotbarsch Sebastes viviparus IVa grey gurnard Grauer Knurrhahn Eutrigla gurnardus IVa bluemouth Blaumäulchen Helicolenus dactylopterus IVa conger Meeraal Conger conger IVa dogfish Dornhai Squalus acanthias IVa sand ray Sandrochen Raja circularis IVa John Dory Heringskönig Zeus faber IVa Arctic rockling Gabeldorsch Gaidropsarus argentatus IVa

ETP (‘endangered, threatened and protected’) species are defined by MSC as those which are protected under national law or international treaty (1). The most likely interaction in these fisheries is with the common skate (Dipturus batis), which is protected under EU fisheries legislation (5), as well as being IUCN Red Book listed as ‘critically endangered’ (9). Some protected species of cetaceans, seals and seabirds are also present (10) but the team could find no evidence of any significant interactions with any of these species.

2.5 Ecosystem context

The North Sea is a semi-enclosed water body, situated on the continental shelf of Northwest Europe. It is relatively shallow (generally <200m) is strongly affected by both saline inflows from the north, and from freshwater inputs from the major rivers of the continent. It is highly productive ecosystem, with primary productivity generally highest in the south, coastal regions and at tidal fronts. The North Sea is the focus of a range of

2187R01C 20

human activities, including fishing, dredging, oil and gas exploitation, shipping and as recipient for discharges.

A wide range of information exists on the North Sea ecosystem, including oceanography, plankton, nutrients, benthos, fish distribution and abundance, and the interactions between these components. As regards the interactions of fish species such as saithe within the North Sea ecosystem, feeding habits have been examined using stomach contents data. These studies have been used as the basis for the Multispecies VPA programme developed for the North Sea by the ICES Multispecies Assessment Working Group, which estimates the predation mortalities for nine commercially important fish stocks by key fish species, seabirds and seals. ICES takes these ecosystem-level impacts into account in fisheries assessment and advice (11,12).

The Barents Sea also has extremely high primary production and supports rich biological diversity including some of the world’s numerous colonies of seabirds such as puffin and guillemot and large stocks of demersal fish, which both feed mainly on large populations of small pelagics such as capelin and herring. Benthic ecosystems include kelp-forests and numerous deep-water coral reefs. The Barents Sea supports a wide variety of marine mammals such as walrus and polar bears and various species of cetaceans. Less information is available on the Barents Sea ecosystem than on marine ecosystems further south (4). 2.6 Interactions with other fisheries

In the North Sea, a dozen or so countries report saithe landings (11). Norwegian, German and French fleets take the majority of the catch (11, Table 9); the majority of all three of these fisheries are already MSC certified.

Table 9. Reported landings of saithe in the North Sea in 2008 (source: ICES – 11) Country 2008 Reported landings North Sea (tones) Denmark 8 069 France 15 302 Germany 14 141 Norway 62 055 UK 11 701 Other countries 3 249 Total 114 517

Norway’s saithe fishery is by far the most important in the Northeast Arctic (Table 8), and involves a variety of gears (trawls, purse seines, Danish seines, gillnets and handlines). There may be occasional discards in these fisheries (13). Russia also reports some saithe landings and other countries may also land some limited amounts (12, Table 10). The Northeast Arctic saithe fishery is generally prosecuted as an adjunct to the cod and haddock fisheries.

2187R01C 21

Table 10. Reported landings of saithe in the Northeast Arctic in 2008 (source: ICES – 12) Country 2008 Reported landings Northeast Arctic (tonnes) Faroe Islands 1543 France 302 Germany 2766 Norway 166 263 Portugal 335 Russia 11 577 UK 418 Other countries 372 Total 183 443

There are many other fisheries in the northern North Sea and the Arctic, but most do not interact particularly with this fishery. Incidental saithe catches occur in other demersal fisheries and discards may exist in fisheries which do not have a saithe quota (11). Overall, however, scientists consider that those discards are not significant compared to total landings (11).

In the North Sea, the most significant interaction of the saithe fishery is with cod (an important retained species under strict quota control), and ICES considers that the intensity of that interaction is medium (14). In the Arctic, interaction is considered high with cod (target species) and medium with redfish (15,16). These fisheries are all considered in detail by the assessment. Interactions with other fisheries are considered as low or non-existent.

3. Management System

3.1 Legislative context

The saithe fishery under assessment takes place in both EU and Norwegian waters, and is managed under an international agreement between the EU and Norway, which has been in force since 1980 (17, Council Regulation 2214/1980). The EU and the Norwegian Government meet annually to review management measures for the fishery and to determine the TAC.

Within EU waters, the fisheries are managed under the framework of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). EU Regulation 2731/2002 (18) sets out the framework and objectives for the CFP, and enables the Commission regulate individual fisheries. The principal regulations relevant to the saithe fishery are i) the annual TAC and national quotas (5); ii) technical measures such maximum trawl mesh sizes and minimum landing sizes (5); and iii) those associated with the North Sea Cod Recovery Plan (19). 2187R01C 22

3.2 Organisations involved in management

Several organisations are involved in the management of this fishery : • ICES is responsible for assessing the stock and giving scientific advice on management and the level of the TAC; • The European Council of Ministers makes the final decision on the management of the fishery (TAC, regulations), based on a proposal from the European Commission, that follows prior negotiations between the Commission and the Norwegian Government (shared stock); • The North Sea RAC (Regional Advisory Council) is the stakeholder group for North Sea fisheries, which provides an opinion to the European Commission on management measures; • The Distant Water RAC plays the same role for Arctic fisheries; • Sea fisheries in Germany are administered and managed by the Federal Government and by the federal states. The organisation responsible for managing German fisheries at the national level is the Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz (BMELV, Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection). • The fishing quotas allocated to the Federal Republic of Germany are distributed every year by the Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung (BLE, the Federal Agency for Agriculture and Food) on the basis of the Sea Fisheries Act. • The German PO to which DFFU and Doggerbank below is Seefrost Vertriebs GmbH • The equivalent Polish PO is the North Atlantic Producers Organisation (NAPO). • The UK quota is allocated and managed by the Marine Management Organisation (MMO – formerly the MFA) which is part of the Department of Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). • The Farnella belongs to the PO The Fisheries Producer Organisation who manage quota on behalf of their members (The FPO) • The Farnella has been involved in research programmes relating to the saithe fisheries with CEFAS (the former UK government fisheries research agency, now privatised) under the Fisheries Partnership Scheme.

3.3 Harvest control rules and tools

The main management measure for the saithe stocks is control of harvest via an annual TAC, which is divided into quotas for each fishing company. The TAC and quotas are set as follows: 1. For each stock, ICES provides scientific advice on the status of the stock. The ICES Advisory Committee proposes a total allowable catch (TAC) selected from a range of TAC options, including those that are consistent with the precautionary approach and the EU-Norway management plan. This is done on a annual basis. 2187R01C 23

2. The final TAC is decided by the European Council of Ministers following annual negotiation between the Commission and Norway, and taking into account any implementation of the EU rule restricting the change in TAC between years to 15%. They are not obliged to follow ICES’ advice; however, since 2001 the TAC for saithe has been set at or slightly below the level proposed by ICES (11,12). 3. This TAC is divided between the EU and Norway by negotiation. 4. The EU TAC is then divided between Member States. In 2009 Germany got a quota of 2 400 tonnes for Norwegian waters of I & II and 13 187 tonnes for IIIa and EU waters of IIa, IIIcbd and IV. In 2010 the German TAC has been set at 2 400 and 11 002 tonnes, respectively. 5. Resources are allocated in Germany by the BLE. DFFU and Doggerbank receive their quotas directly from the BLE and distribute it among their vessels. 6. In 2010, the UK quota for Subareas IIa, IIIa and VI was 8435 tonnes, of which 2638 tonnes went to The FPO. 7. The Polonus fishes on Polish quota. Poland is not initially entitled to any saithe quota, but obtains some each year (up to now) by exchange with France – this exchange takes place at national level.

There are also other management regulations on EU saithe fisheries, which are set by regulation by the EU under the framework of the CFP and the EU-Norway management plan (5). There is a minimum size limit of 37cm for saithe in EU waters and 40cm in Norwegian waters. Mesh size must be above 110 mm in EU waters in the North Sea, and 120 mm in Norwegian waters (all the vessels in the Units of Certification use 120 mm mesh or greater). There are also management measures in the fishery associated with the Cod Recovery Plan (19) – these include quotas, effort limitations and real-time closures in areas where high cod catches are reported. These last are a UK initiative applying to the UK (Scottish) part of EU waters (in the case of this fishery, nearly all the EU waters are Scottish waters) (20), but from 2010 they are mandatory for all EU vessels. Similar arrangements also apply in Norwegian waters, where there are also closed areas for protection of cold water corals (21,22).

3.4 Management plan and objectives

The North Sea saithe stock has management objectives defined by a management agreement between the EU and Norway. The specific objectives defined in this plan are the following : i) spawning stock biomass (SSB) to be maintained above 106 000 tonnes ; ii) exploitation at F = 0.3 when the stock is above Bpa (11). The management plan and these objectives was evaluated by ICES in 2008 and was considered to be consistent with the precautionary approach in the short term. A review of the management plan shall take place no later than 31 December 2012 (23).

For the north Norway stock, management objectives are set by the Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs (12-Annex). Their stated objectives for the management of this stock are to maintain i) high long-term yield, ii) year-to-year stability and iii) full

2187R01C 24

utilization of all available information on the stock dynamics in the development of management strategies (24). Specifically, the plan aims to maintain target F at Fpa (the precautionary reference point for fishing mortality) and minimize between-year changes in the TAC to 15%, unless SSB falls below Bpa (precautionary reference point for SSB) in which case the management targets should be adjusted to rebuild the biomass above Bpa. ICES evaluated this management strategy in spring 2007 and concluded that it is consistent with the precautionary approach, as long as estimates of uncertainty are appropriate (12).

3.5 Regulation and enforcement

Management and control over the fishery is maintained by a variety of different methods:

Logbooks: The main means of keeping track of catches is via vessel logbooks, which all vessels >10m in EU and Norwegian waters are required to complete. The logbooks record all catches of all retained species on a daily basis. There are, however, two sources of imprecision in the logbook data; firstly, weight of catches on board are estimated rather than measured; and secondly the weight of each species is only measured on board after the fish have been gutted, a multiplication factor being applied to correct for live weight. The first source of imprecision is corrected later using sales records, as long as the catch is sold in the EU (as it is in this case) – official EU catch statistics include this correction but the raw logbook data does not. (The catch data presented above and to the expert team also included this correction.) In the second case, the multiplication factor may often be somewhat conservative, meaning that live weight of landings may be slightly overestimated.

VMS: All the vessels in this fishery are tracked by a satellite vessel monitoring system which provides their position every two hours to the relevant authorities (i.e. to the Norwegian authorities in Norwegian waters and to the relevant national authority plus Brussels in EU waters). These satellite tracks can be cross-referenced to the logbook data to ensure that logbooks have been completed correctly. It is possible to assess by the track (speed, changes in direction) whether or not a vessel is fishing at any given point.

Marine controls: In EU waters (mainly Scottish in this case), the frequency of marine controls has been increasing steadily but is still at a relatively low level. In Norwegian waters, controls at sea are reported to be frequent and thorough. Table 11 gives examples of the number of controls on the Atlantic Peace, Gerda Maria, Baldvin and Odra.

2187R01C 25

Table 11. Number of controls at sea on four of the vessels in the Unit of Certification The majority of these controls took place in Norwegian waters. 2007 2008 2009 Atlantic Peace 3 3 2 Gerda Maria 2 1 3 Baldvin 4 3 7 Odra 1 6 9

VHF controls: Vessels fishing in UK and Norwegian waters are frequently contacted via radio and are requested to transmit information on catches and fishing grounds.

Observers: As described above, observer coverage has been present but patchy in these fisheries. The Farnella has been observed due to her participation in two scientific research projects (6,7), while for the DFFU / Doggerbank fishery, there have been a good number of observed trips (8) but covering only two of the six vessels – for reasons discussed above.

Quayside controls: Vessels landing fish in the EU (as these vessels do for the most part) must submit to controls on the catch during landing. A vessel must land at a designated port and must provide 48 hours warning to authorities in the relevant port so that they can mobilise to check the catch. Similar arrangements are in place in Iceland and Norway where catch from DFFU / Doggerbank may occasionally be landed, or has been landed in the past – it is reported that landings are nearly always controlled at these ports.

4. Stock assessment

4.1 Definition of stocks and management units

Northeast Atlantic saithe populations consist of several components. For assessment and management purpose, four units (therefore considered de facto to be separated stocks) are considered: - Iceland and West Greenland (ICES Division Va) (25); - Faroe (ICES Division Vb) (26); - Northeast Arctic (ICES Subareas I – II) (12); - North Sea (ICES Division IIIa - Subareas IV and VI) (11,27).

The separation between the two latter stocks is set at the latitude 62°N, even if exchanges occur between the two units. Catches by the fisheries under assessment take place on the North Sea stock and the Northeast Arctic stock.

2187R01C 26

4.2 Monitoring and stock assessment system

The monitoring of stock status is based on fisheries-dependent data (Catch Per Unit Effort, CPUE) and fisheries-independent data (scientific surveys). Time series of CPUE are derived from logbook data, which are crosschecked by dockside monitoring and by sales records. For the North Sea stock, two scientific surveys are carried out (28): 1. the Norwegian acoustic survey collects data on fish with an age range of 3-6, and has been operating annually since 1995 (“NORACU”) 2. the North Sea International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) collects data on fish ages 3-5, and has operated each autumn since 1991 (“IBTSq3”). For the Northeast Arctic stock, an acoustic survey carried on by Norwegian scientists is used to validate CPUE data. This survey started in 1994 and covers fish up to age 7 (29).

Basic biological data (length, weight, otoliths for age reading) are collected from sampling of landings. Other data (i.e., age at maturity, fecundity, etc.) are gathered on a less regular basis, either during trawl surveys or with specific sampling programs.

ICES assesses the stocks using an age-based model called XSA, which is calibrated using both fisheries-dependent data (i.e. the CPUE time series) and fisheries-independent data (survey indices as above). A stock assessment is made every year by the Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak (WGNSSK) and the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG) from ICES. Assessments are peer reviewed by the ICES Review Group and the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). (28,29). The main limitations on the modelling process relate to the use of commercial CPUE time series, which may not track stock abundance reliably. Nonetheless, retrospective analysis suggests that the assessment for the North Sea stock is robust; there are more concerns about medium and long term forecasts for the Arctic stock.

For each stock, both target and limit reference points are derived from analytical models. They are based on a recruitment-stock relationship which allows the calculation of the “limit biomass” (Blim), which represents the spawning stock biomass below which recruitment is impaired. It may be compared to the BMSY, which is calculated from surplus production models. The « precautionary biomass » (Bpa > Blim) is further calculated and represents the spawning stock biomass from which the spawning stock biomass has only a small risk of dropping below Blim. From those analytical models, fishing mortalities corresponding to Blim (Flim) and Bpa (Fpa) are calculated.

For each stock, both target and limit reference points are defined as set out in Table 12 below.

2187R01C 27

Table 12. ICES reference points and their definitions (11,12).

Reference Definition Type point Blim The stock biomass (B) should be maintained above this limit level according to the management plan and to the precautionary approach. Flim The rate of fishing mortality that is estimated to lead to the limit stock biomass falling below Blim in the long term Bpa A precautionary reference point, from which the spawning limit stock biomass has only a small risk of dropping below Blim Fpa The rate of fishing mortality which maintains an limit equilibrium stock biomass greater than Bpa, with a probability of <10% that it will fall below Bpa Fmgt The rate of fishing mortality defined in the management target plan as the maximum permissible when the stock biomass is above Bpa. Assuming the stock is above Bpa, the current estimated stock biomass is multiplied by this rate of fishing mortality to calculate the proposed TAC2.

An appropriate value for these reference points is re-evaluated each year by ICES, as is the status of the stock in relation to them. For the North Sea stock, they were calculated in 1998, and evaluated yearly since then, even if not changed. For the North-East Arctic stock, they were calculated during the 2005 Arctic Fisheries Working Group (31).

At present they are as follows :

Table 13. Limit and target reference points for each stock (11,12). North Sea stock North Norway stock Blim 106 000 tonnes 136 000 tonnes Flim 0.6 0.58 Bpa 200 000 tonnes 220 000 tonnes Fpa 0.4 0.35 Fmgt 0.3 0.35 most recent estimated 263 377 tonnes 689 583 tonnes SSB most recent estimated F 0.29 (average 2006-8) 0.20 (2008)

2 In fact it’s a little more complicated than that, but that’s the general principle.

2187R01C 28

4.3 Current status of stocks and recruitment

ICES defines the North Sea stock at present as sustainably harvested. It considers that the stock is at full reproductive capacity, and that fishing mortality is appropriate in relation to the productivity of the stock and the agreed target mortality. The stock biomass is estimated to have been above the precautionary reference point since 1998, and the fishing mortality to have been below the precautionary target reference point since 1997. The most recent estimate of spawning stock biomass (SSB) was in 2009 and the most recent estimate of fishing mortality was in 2008 (11).

ICES also defines the Arctic stock as sustainably harvested. It considers the stock to be at full reproductive capacity, with fishing mortality appropriate in relation to maximum yield as well as to the target mortality for the stock. Fishing mortality is stable and has been below the precautionary target reference point since 1996. The SSB has been well above the precautionary reference point since 1994 (12).

These analyses, plus the fact that juvenile saithe are not exploited due to their habitat preferences (in coastal waters such as fjords – 4), suggest that recruitment is not likely to be affected by fishing, with fluctuations in recruitment likely to be due to environmental factors (an issue with nearly all fisheries). However, the non-exploitation of juveniles, while obviously a benefit for stock conservation, means that there is no fisheries dependent data for the 1-3 year ages classes, making direct scientific assessment of recruitment difficult. The stock assessment model, however, estimates the size of each age cohort; however this is done only retrospectively once the cohort has entered the fishery (i.e. round about 4 years) (11). For the North Sea stock, the most recent cohort for which the biomass has been estimated is thus the 2004 cohort, which is considered to be among the strongest in the last 20 years; although since 1987, recruitment has been on average low (in common with other gadoid stocks) (11). It was reported to the team by a stakeholder that recruitment in 2008 was low. For the Arctic stock, recruitment in 2002 was estimated to be the highest in the time-series, while 2003 was the lowest (12).

5. Fishery evaluation process

5.1 MSC standard and methodology

This assessment follows the Fisheries Assessment Methodology and Guidance (FAM), version 1 (the current version when the assessment was started). The FAM sets out the MSC Standard against which the fishery is assessed, as well as setting out the assessment methodology and providing definitions of key terms (1).

The MSC Standard is composed of three Principles, as follows: 2187R01C 29

• Principle 1: A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over- fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery; • Principle 2: Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends. • Principle 3: The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable.

Each Principle is divided into a series of Performance Indicators (PIs). Each PI can be either related to ‘outcome’ (i.e. the current situation in regard to the element described in the PI), ‘management’ (i.e. the management objectives, strategy or rules for that element) or ‘information’ (i.e. the available knowledge about that element). The structure of the FAM and the PIs for each Principle are shown in Table 14.

Table 14. The PIs for each Principle within the FAM (1).

Prin- Compo- PI number PI ciple nent 1 Out-come 1.1.1 Stock The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has status a low probability of recruitment overfishing 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock Reference points 1.1.3 Stock Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding rebuilding* Manage- 1.2.1 Harvest There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place ment strategy 1.2.2 Harvest There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place control rules / tools 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Information / monitoring 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Assessment of stock status 2 Retained 2.1.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to species Outcome the retained species and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species 2.1.2 There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is Management designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species 2.1.3 Information on the nature and extent of retained species is Information adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species

2187R01C 30

By-catch 2.2.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to Outcome the by-catch species or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted by-catch species or species groups 2.2.2 There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed Management to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations 2.2.3 Information on the nature and amount of bycatch is adequate to Information determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch ETP 2.3.1 The fishery meets national and international requirements for species Outcome protection of ETP species. The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species 2.3.2 The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies Management designed to: - meet national and international requirements; - ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species; - ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and - minimise mortality of ETP species 2.3.3 Relevant information is collected to support the management of Information fishery impacts on ETP species, including: - 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 Habitats 2.4.1 Outcome The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function 2.4.2 There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery Management does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types 2.4.3 Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat Information types by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types Eco- 2.5.1 Outcome The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key systems elements of ecosystem structure and function 2.5.2 There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a Management risk of serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the Information ecosystem 3 Govern- 3.1.1 Legal / The management system exists within an appropriate and ance and customary effective legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: policy framework - Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2; - Observes the legal rights created explicitly or by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and - Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework 3.1.2 The management system has effective consultation processes that Consultation, are open to interested and affected parties. The roles and roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved responsibilities in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties. 3.1.3 Long The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide term decision-making that are consistent with MSC Principles and objectives Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach 2187R01C 31

3.1.4 The management system provides economic and social incentives Incentives for for sustainable fishing and does not operate with subsidies that sustainable contribute to unsustainable fishing fishing Fishery- 3.2.1 Fishery- The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the specific specific outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 manage- objectives ment 3.2.2 The fishery-specific management system includes effective system Decision- decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies making to achieve the objectives processes 3.2.3 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the Compliance fishery’s management measures are enforced and complied with and enforcement 3.2.4 Research The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information plan needs of management 3.2.5 There is a system for monitoring and evaluating the performance Management of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. performance There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific evaluation management system * Only scored when evidence that stock is depleted – not scored in this case.

For each PI, there are three Scoring Guideposts (SGs). The lowest SG corresponds to a minimum requirement for certification, under the condition that the situation can be improved; the middle SG corresponds to a minimum requirement for certification without conditions, while the highest SG corresponds to an optimal or ‘perfect’ scenario. These three SGs are assigned scores of 60, 80 and 100. The consequences for each score are set out in Table 15 below.

Table 15. Categories of score for a PI, and the consequences of a given score for the overall outcome of certification (1). Score Consequence < 60 If even one PI scores < 60, certification cannot be awarded 60 – 80 Certification is possible but with conditions: performance under any PI scoring between 60 and 80 must be improved to at least the 80 level within a time period specified by the assessment team 80 – 100 If all PIs score 80 or above, certification will be achieved without any conditions

Note that this assessment methodology (the FAM) differs from the methodology used in assessments prior to mid-2008, because PIs and SGs were previously defined by the CB. They are now set out in the FAM, and cannot be altered except under exceptional circumstances (they have not been altered in this case).

The full set of PIs and SGs are set out in the assessment tree for this fishery, with the scores given for each PI and a detailed rationale for each score according to the SGs. The

2187R01C 32

assessment tree is provided in Annex 1 of this report. The scores are also summarised in Section 7.

5.2 Assessment process

The steps to follow in the assessment process are set out by MSC in the Fisheries Certification Methodology (most recent version 6, September 2006). In summary, these steps are as follows: 1. Pre-assessment 2. Full assessment step 1: Preparation. This phase forms the start of the formal assessment process, and includes i) the formal notification of the assessment to MSC, stakeholders and public; ii) the selection and approval (including the possibility of stakeholder input) of team of experts and iii) selection of the appropriate assessment methodology (usually the FAM)3. 3. Full assessment step 2: Data gathering and evaluation. In this phase the fishery is assessed using data from a variety of sources including: i) published and unpublished scientific data, reports and other similar sources; ii) a site visit by the expert team; and iii) stakeholder consultations via face-to-face interview, phone or email. On the basis of the information gathered, the fishery is scored against the standard (using the FAM). A preliminary assessment report is produced, which is reviewed by the client and by two external peer reviewers. The resulting Public Comment Draft Report and Draft Certification Determination is then made available for stakeholder comment. 4. Full assessment step 3: Final report and objections procedure. In this phase, the CB produces a Final Report which must present and respond in full to all comments by reviewers and stakeholders. The Final Report is made available on the MSC website, and stakeholders are given the opportunity to object formally to the determination made by the CB. If such objections are received, the CB must respond in detail to the objector and to MSC. A final determination decision is then made. 5. Ongoing review of certification. A certified fishery is audited every year and re- assessed every five years.

The publication of this Final Report on the MSC website marks the start of a fifteen (15) working day period during which any formal objections may be made.

3 It is possible to use an alternative assessment methodology known as the Risk-Based Framework (RBF) for some elements of the standard. The RBF was not used for this assessment.

2187R01C 33

5.3 Assessment of UK Fisheries Ltd. / DFFU / Doggerbank saithe fisheries

Pre-assessment: MEP prepared a pre-assessment study of the UK Fisheries Ltd. saithe fishery in July 2009, and DFFU and Doggerbank saithe fisheries in October 2009. The intention to proceed with full assessment for UK Fisheries Ltd. was announced by MEP on the MSC website in August and the Unit of Certification was revised to include DFFU and Doggerbank on 2 November 2009.

Full assessment: The proposed assessment team was nominated by MEP on the MSC website on 21 August 2009 and confirmed on 17 November 2009. No comments or objections were received about the composition of the team. The team concluded that it would be appropriate to use the FAM for this assessment (see above), and this was announced by MEP on 3 November 2009. The site visits took place on 20 January 2010 in Hull and 25-6 January 2010 in Cuxhaven and Hamburg, with the scoring meeting on 27-8 January 2010 in Hamburg. The peer reviewers were nominated by MEP on 8 June and approved after 10 days. The Public Comment Draft Report was returned after review by the client on 13 August and by the peer reviewers by the end of August. Peer reviewer comments were incorporated, and it was placed on the MSC website for stakeholder review on 12 October 2010. The public comment period ended on 12 November 2010. No comments were received from stakeholders, although some comments were received from MSC. The MEP Certification Committee met on 07th December 2010 to make the final certification determination, and decided that this fishery should be certified.

5.4 Stakeholder consultations

As well as making announcements and documents available via the MSC website, as required by the MSC assessment process, MEP made direct contact with key stakeholders, to ensure that they were aware that the assessment was taking place and that they had the opportunity to comment or objective to any part of the process. This process of contact was conducted primarily by email, backed up by telephone when there was difficulty in making contact by email. The first set of contact letters was sent out on 7 September 2009 and announced the imminent start of the assessment. The second set was sent out on 4 December and announced the revision to the Unit of Certification (addition of DFFU and Doggerbank to the assessment) as well as details of the site visit.

The following stakeholder organisations were contacted in this way: • ICES Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak • UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) • Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs

2187R01C 34

• Scottish Government: Fisheries Group, Environment and Rural Affairs Department and Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency • North Sea Regional Advisory Council (RAC) Secretariat (North Sea fisheries stakeholder organisation) • The Fisheries Producer Organisation (FPO) • National Federation of Fishermans Organisation (NFFO) • WWF Germany, UK and Poland • Seas at Risk

During the site visit, a series of stakeholders were met and interviewed by the team, as shown in Table 16.

Table 16. Stakeholders interviewed by the team during the site visit. Name Affiliation Position Mike Thompson Marr Management Ltd. Management for Farnella Chloe Davies The FPO Quota management for the Farnella John Stipetic Marine Fisheries Agency Officer in Farnella’s home port (DEFRA) (Grimsby) John Musgrave UK Fisheries Ltd. Skipper, Farnella Brynja Traustadóttir DFFU Project Manager Uwe Warrings DFFU Account Manager Eckart Riediger Doggerbank Managing Director Mark Parlevliet Parlevliet & van der Blas Managing Director B.V. Dr. Alexander Kempf Johann Heinrich von Demersal fish resources Thünen-Institut – Insitute of Sea Fisheries Kay Panten Johann Heinrich von Data collection and management Thünen-Institut – Insitute of Sea Fisheries Sibylle Möller BLE Quota management Bettina Gromke BLE VMS management Christian Neumann WWF Germany Marine and coastal issues Karoline Schacht WWF Germany Fisheries Policy

6. Scoring

6.1 Scoring methodology

2187R01C 35

Each PI is scored with reference to the three scoring guideposts (SGs) (see above). Initially, each member of the assessment team scored each of the PIs independently, using the dossier of information provided by the client. During the site visit and scoring meeting, each PI was discussed in the light of additional information received from stakeholders during the site visit. The score and rationale put forward by each team member was considered and a joint score arrived at. Scores between 60 and 80 or between 80 and 100 were arrived at by a semi-quantitative method. For example, if the fishery achieves all the elements set out in SG 80, but only some of the elements in SG 100, the fishery would have been scored as shown in Table 17.

Table 17. Example of how the team decided on a score between 80 and 100 (the same principle would apply to a score between 60 and 80, as well as to SG with different numbers of elements).

Number of elements in SG Score Number of elements in SG Score 100 achieved by the 100 achieved by the fishery, fishery, out of four out of five 0 80 0 80 1 85 1 80 2 90 2 85 3 95 3 90 4 100 4 95 5 100

6.2 Weighting

The FAM sets out how the score of each PI should be weighted. The weighting ensures that overall scores for each Principle are equally important in the overall score. Within each Principle, each component is weighted equally. Within each component, each PI is weighted equally. The aggregate score for each Principle, and the overall score, is thus a weighted average of the scores for each PI. The overall weighting is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Weighting of Principles, components and PIs in the FAM (1). The alternative weightings for Principle 1, Component 1 depends on whether PI 1.1.3 is scored or not – in this case it was not so the first alternative was used.

2187R01C 36

6.3 Harmonisation This fishery overlaps with four other fisheries which are certified or in the process of becoming certified: i) Norway saithe (certified); ii) Germany Kutterfische saithe (certified); iii) Euronor saithe (certified) and iv) Scapêche-Compagnie de Pêche de St. Malo saithe (under assessment). 2187R01C 37

Of these, the first two fisheries were assessed under the previous system (before the FAM came in), so the scores are not directly comparable. The other two fisheries have been assessed by MEP using a similar team to that used in this assessment (two out of three members the same). For these two fisheries, there are thus not likely to be any issues around harmonisation – and indeed a check suggests that the scores are consistent for these fisheries. For Principle 1, small differences in score related to the extent to which the fisheries use the two separate NE Arctic and North Sea stocks (i.e. Compagnie de Pêche de St. Malo, DFFU and Doggerbank and Euronor fish on both stocks while Scapêche and UK Fisheries Ltd. fish only on the North Sea stock). For Principle 2, scores vary depending on whether the companies have good observer data, have been shown to catch endangered species such as common skate and subscribe to the VMS feed to keep track of their vessels in relation to protected habitat areas. For Principle 3, small variations are due to differences in and changes of national and company policy on various issues. As noted above, the other two certified fisheries are not directly comparable with the above assessments. Nonetheless, the issue of harmonisation with these assessments was reviewed and addressed. The following PIs were considered:

• PI 1.2.4 Stock assessment: In the German Kutterfisch and Norwegian assessments, a condition was placed on the fisheries to address uncertainties in the stock assessment. In this fishery, no such condition has been required. This is because MEP considers that the condition imposed on the other fisheries arose as a consequence of the previous assessment methodology – specifically, the assessment tree used for this assessment contained a PI that put heavy emphasis on sources of uncertainty in the evaluation of the stock status. The MEP team considered that SG 80 was met or exceeded for all the PIs in Principle 1 for both stocks, including the PI on stock assessment under discussion here.

• PI 2.1.3 Retained species information: For MSC certification, a condition was imposed on the German Kutterfisch and Norwegian saithe fisheries to improve their reporting of North Sea cod by-catch. In this fishery, no such condition was imposed. The MEP team notes that since these previous assessments, significant strides have been made in implementing new measures to support the recovery of North Sea cod stocks (e.g. mandatory real-time area closures, eliminator trawls or chalut à cordes, very tight TACs and quotas). In this case, the MEP team were confident that i) North Sea cod catches were low and discarding of cod minimal and ii) that the companies are operating well within their permitted cod quotas and had measures in place should the quota come close to being finished. MEP also had confidence in the data provided on cod by-catch (retained and discarded). They therefore decided that in the light of this new situation, no conditions were required.

• PI 2.2.3 By-catch information: On the German Kutterfisch and Norwegian MSC certified saithe fisheries, a condition was imposed requiring an improvement of observer data on by-catch species. In this assessment, no such condition has been imposed, as described above. The UK Fisheries Ltd. fishery has less observer

2187R01C 38

coverage than the French or German fisheries, although the data provided by the observers is more detailed; the DFFU and Doggerbank fisheries have good observer data for some vessels but none for others. However, the team noted that to score 80 under PI 2.2.3 of the FAM (by-catch species information), it was not required that there be ‘statistically robust estimates of the by-catch of all species’ (as required in the condition imposed on the Norwegian and German certifications) – only that there be ‘qualitative and some quantitative information on the amount of main by-catch species’. The team found that this requirement was met by the existing observer programme and on this basis could not find grounds for scoring lower than 80, so no condition was imposed.

2187R01C 39

7. Assessment results

This section summarises the results of the assessment of the UK Fisheries Ltd. / DFFU / Doggerbank saithe fishery. The full assessment tree with scores and rationales for each PI is in Annex 1 of this report.

The two Units of Assessment (UK Fisheries Ltd. and DFFU/Doggerbank) were scored separately. For Principle 1, the two stocks (Northeast Arctic and North Sea) were also scored separately for DFFU/Doggerbank. This does not apply to UK Fisheries Ltd. who fishes only on the North Sea stock. To calculate the aggregate scores for Principle 1 for DFFU/Doggerbank, the lower of the two scores is used where the scores for each stock differ (they never differed by more than 5 points). For the individual PIs, the individual scores for each stock are given.

7.1 Overall results

The scores for each Principle (calculated as described above) are shown in Table 18.

Table 18. Scores for each Principle for the UK Fisheries Ltd. / DFFU / Doggerbank saithe fishery. Principle Aggregate score UK Aggregate score DFFU / Fisheries Ltd. Doggerbank Principle 1 90.6 90.6 (North Sea), 93.1 (Arctic) Principle 2 80.3 80.3 Principle 3 89 89

7.2 Principle 1

The scores for each PI, and the aggregate score for each component for Principle 1 are shown in Table 19.

2187R01C 40

Table 19. Scores for each PI, and aggregate scores for each component for Principle 1 for the UK Fisheries Ltd. / DFFU / Doggerbank saithe fishery. Component PI Score UK Score Score Fisheries DFFU / DFFU / Ltd. Doggerbank Doggerbank – North Sea – NE Arctic Outcome 92.5 92.5 95 Stock status 95 95 95 Reference points 90 90 95 Stock rebuilding n/a n/a n/a Harvest 88.75 88.75 91.25 strategy Harvest strategy 90 90 95 (management) Harvest control rules and 90 90 95 tools Information/monitoring 85 85 85 Assessment of stock status 90 90 90

7.3 Principle 2

The scores for each PI, and the aggregate score for each component for Principle 2 are shown in Table 20.

Table 20. Scores for each PI, and aggregate scores for each component for Principle 2 for the UK Fisheries Ltd. / DFFU / Doggerbank saithe fishery.

Component PI UK Fisheries Ltd. DFFU / Doggerbank Retained species 80 83.3 Outcome 80 85 Management 80 85 Information 80 80 By-catch 81.7 81.7 Outcome 80 80 Management 85 85 Information 80 80 ETP species 75 71.7 Outcome 75 75 Management 80 70 Information 70 70 Habitat 78.3 78.3 Outcome 90 90 Management 60 60 Information 85 85

2187R01C 41

Ecosystem 86.7 86.7 Outcome 85 85 Management 80 80 Information 95 95

7.4 Principle 3

The scores for each PI, and the aggregate score for each component for Principle 3 are shown in Table 21.

Table 21. Scores for each PI, and aggregate scores for each component for Principle 3 for the UK Fisheries Ltd. / DFFU / Doggerbank saithe fishery.

Component PI UK Fisheries DFFU / Ltd. Doggerbank Governance and policy 90 90 Legal and/or customary 95 95 framework Consultation, roles and 95 95 responsibilities Long term objectives 90 90 Incentives for sustainable 80 80 fishing Fishery-specific 88 88 management system Fishery-specific objectives 90 90 Decision-making process 90 90 Compliance and 90 90 enforcement Research plan 80 80 Monitoring and 90 90 management performance evaluation

2187R01C 42

8. Certification Recommendation

8.1 Recommendation

The fishery is recommended for certification under the MSC programme, having met the following criteria: • Each Principle has an aggregate score higher than 80; • No individual PI has a score below 60

8.2 Conditions

Under Principle 1, no PI scored less than 80 for either Unit of Assessment – there are therefore no conditions associated with Principle 1 for this fishery.

Under Principle 2, three PIs scored less than 80 for UK Fisheries Ltd. and four PIs scored less than 80 for DFFU / Doggerbank, as follows: • 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome: UK Fisheries (75) and DFFU/Doggerbank (75); • 2.3.2 – ETP species management: DFFU/Doggerbank (70); • 2.3.3 – ETP species information: UK Fisheries (70) and DFFU/Doggerbank (70); • 2.4.2 – Habitat management: UK Fisheries (60) and DFFU/Doggerbank (60)

Under Principle 3, no PI scored less than 80 for either Unit of Assessment – there are therefore no conditions associated with Principle 3 for this fishery.

There are therefore four conditions in all that apply to this assessment; three that apply to both companies and one than applies to DFFU/Doggerbank only.

These conditions are as follows:

Condition for 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome This condition applies to the common skate Dipturus batis and to both DFFU and Doggerbank and UK Fisheries Ltd. Information on catches of common skate by these fisheries needs to be improved to the point where the impact of the fisheries on this species can be properly quantified. Catches of common skate must be dealt with in full accordance with the EU legislation (5), with the aim of minimising mortality as far as possible.

Actions to meet this condition should be implemented within one year from certification.

Condition for 2.3.2 – ETP species management This condition applies to the common skate Dipturus batis and DFFU and Doggerbank only. The EU regulation on the immediate discard of common skate must be fully 2187R01C 43

implemented on board all DFFU and Doggerbank vessels in the Unit of Assessment. The companies should produce evidence that the relevant individuals on board each vessel are fully aware of the regulatory requirements.

The timeframe for meeting this condition is one year from certification.

Condition for 2.3.3 – ETP species information This condition applies to the common skate Dipturus batis and to both DFFU and Doggerbank and UK Fisheries Ltd. The companies need to provide sufficient information on their catches of common skate such that a quantitative analysis of the impact of the fishery on common skate is possible. This includes information on i) retained catches (including for consumption on board); and ii) discards, with information on date and location of the catch. The fishing company or a scientific body will review this data periodically to assess impacts and trends. This condition can be dealt with as a component of the condition for 2.3.1.

Actions to meet this condition should be implemented within one year of certification.

Condition for 2.4.2 – Habitat management This condition applies to both DFFU / Doggerbank and UK Fisheries Ltd. The fishing companies need to develop a partial strategy to monitor habitats in their fishing area and avoid fishing in sensitive areas. The companies will need to show that they know where the vessels are fishing in relation to sensitive habitat areas, and that a system is in place to avoid damaging sensitive areas.

The timeframe for this condition is one year to put in place a process for identifying sensitive areas, two years to put in place a process whereby vessels can be shown to avoid these areas.

9. Chain of custody

9.1 Determination of the point at which fish and fish products enter further Chain of Custody

In order for products to enter into the chain of custody and bear the MSC logo the Certification Body must be satisfied that the system of tracking and tracing of fish and fish products is sufficient to ensure confidence that they have indeed originated from the evaluated fishery. The two Units of Assessment for this certification cover the vessels in Table 22 below (taken from Table 1). Table 22. Details of the vessels in the Units of Assessment. 2187R01C 44

Unit of Company Vessel Length Product Source Main port(s) Assessment (m) of quota of landing UK UK Fisheries Farnella fresh UK Hanstholm Fisheries Ltd. (Denmark) Ltd. DFFU / Doggerbank Gerda 81 frozen Germany Cuxhaven or Doggerbank GmbH Maria Bremerhaven Atlantic 57 frozen Germany Peace DFFU Kiel 92 frozen Germany GmbH Odra 86 frozen Germany Baldvin 67 frozen Germany Arctic Polonus 60 frozen Poland* Navigation (DFFU) * Acquired by annual exchange with France

The tracking and tracing system and possible risks to this are discussed below:

UK Fisheries Ltd: The Farnella is the only vessel covered under this unit of certification and lands only fresh, gutted saithe. All saithe caught by the Farnella will be MSC certified under this assessment and so there will be no risk of mixing MSC and non-MSC saithe on board the vessel. Tracking and tracing of certified saithe will be guaranteed via the following system;

1. Logbooks and VMS will allow the tracing of catch back to the location and date of landing 2. All product on board will be MSC and so no need for separation of MSC and non- MSC product by date will be required 3. Outgoing documentation (invoices and product labeling) to state MSC and the fishery certificate number

Certified saithe may be landed either at Hanstholm (Denmark) or in Peterhead or Scrabster (Scotland). For product landed at Hanstholm (Denmark) products shall enter directly into the auction. For product landed at Peterhead or Scrabster, product will either enter into auction or will be sold directly to clients. Should product be sold directly to clients, its transportation shall be completed by an approved sub-contractor (currently, D Stevens) and this shall be covered within the scope of the fishery certificate.

DFFU / Doggerbank: The vessels listed in Table 22 are covered under this unit of certification and land a variety of frozen, saithe products. All saithe caught by the DFFU and Doggerbank vessels will be MSC certified under this assessment and so there will be no risk of mixing MSC and non-MSC saithe on board the vessel.

2187R01C 45

The vessels listed in Table 22 complete a variety of on-board processing activities in regards to certified saithe. This consists off (but is not limited to), the creation of boxed shatter packed fillets.

Tracking and tracing of certified saithe will be guaranteed via the following system;

1. Logbooks and VMS will allow the tracing of catch back to the location and date of landing 2. All product on board will be MSC and so no need for separation of MSC and non- MSC product by date will be required 3. Frozen product will be boxed and labelled as MSC 4. Outgoing documentation (Invoices and labelling) to state MSC and the fishery certificate number

Certified saithe may currently be landed by the DFFU / Doggerbank vessels into Germany (Cuxhaven or Bremerhaven) or more rarely Iceland (Reykjavik, Havnafjördur, Grundafjördur or Akureyri). Should product be sold directly to clients, its transportation shall be completed by an approved sub-contractor (currently Columbus, Eimskip or Maersk) and this shall be covered within the scope of the fishery certificate.

9.2 Risk Assessment to the Chain of Custody

MEP identified the main risks to product entering future chains of custody as follows;

1. Mixing of MSC and non MSC product on board the vessel.

The scope of this certification covers all saithe currently caught by the vessels in Table 22. Should these vessels increase their effort to areas not included in this assessment, a system would be required to maintain separation and traceability of MSC and non-MSC product at all times. It is likely that this could only be achieve through further Chain of Custody assessment.

MEP highlight that any system to ensure this, would need to be evaluated and approved by the CB prior to the commencement of fishing for saithe by the vessels in Table 22 in areas not covered by this certification (non-MSC waters).

2. Mixing of MSC and non MSC product through other vessels not included in the Units of Assessment

Both UK Fisheries Ltd and DFFU / Doggerbank maintain and run a number of other vessels outside of those listed in Table 22. Some of these may target saithe but will not be covered by this assessment. A small risk may exist in such cases that saithe is being landed in port simultaneously by vessels from the same company which is MSC and non- MSC. It is therefore vital that product is traceable to the vessel of landing directly. 2187R01C 46

9.3 Chain of Custody Determination

MEP conclude that saithe landed by the vessels in the Unit of Assessment shall be eligible to enter into further chains of custody and be eligible to carry the MSC logo. The point at which product will be required to enter further chains of custody shall be the first point of sale, which may be at auction or through direct purchase from buyers.

9.4 Target eligibility date

The target eligibility date for this fishery shall be the date of certification.

2187R01C 47

10. Client Action Plan (response to conditions)

10.1 Client Action Plan from UK Fisheries Ltd.

UK Fisheries Ltd welcomes the outcome of the MSC assessment of the Saithe Fishery. We undertake to implement this action plan in the response to the 3 conditions raised by the team.

Condition for 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome This condition applies to the common skate Dipturus batis. Information on catches of common skate by these fisheries needs to be improved to the point where the impact of the fisheries on this species can be properly quantified. Catches of common skate must be dealt with in full accordance with the EU legislation, with the aim of minimising mortality as far as possible.

Condition for 2.3.3 – ETP species information This condition applies to the common skate Dipturus batis. The companies need to provide sufficient information on their catches of common skate such that a quantitative analysis of the impact of the fishery on common skate is possible. This includes information on i) retained catches (including for consumption on board); and ii) discards, with information on date and location of the catch. The fishing company or a scientific body will review this data periodically to assess impacts and trends. This condition can be dealt with as a component of the condition for 2.3.1 and does not require separate actions.

Actions put in place since the assessment Farnella is participating in conjunction with CEFAS and MMO to a catch-quota trial. There are cameras fitted on board the vessel which automatically record our fishing operations as soon as the vessel starts to haul its fishing gear. There are also cameras in the factory where the fish caught arrives to be processed and sorted. The contents of our net and our production and discards is recorded and saved onto a hard drive which is collected by CEFAS. The Camera feeds back instant images to the skipper on the bridge. This enables him to identify appropriately species caught and inform the crew immediately which to discard while the species is still alive. As well as this we complete haul by haul written sheets providing date, time, hauling position, selectivity devices used and catch retained onboard and discarded catch.

2187R01C 48

Each species including the different types of skate and rays must be identified by number and approx weight.

Condition for 2.4.2 – Habitat management The fishing companies need to develop a partial strategy to monitor habitats in their fishing area and avoid fishing in sensitive areas. The companies will need to show that they know where the vessels are fishing in relation to sensitive habitat areas, and that a system is in place to avoid damaging sensitive areas.

Action already in place The Farnella carries on board and electronic logbook which allows the office to connect too remotely. This enables us to monitor the exact point of the Farnella fishing operations and latest position at any time. This therefore enables us to manage where the vessel is fishing exactly at any point in time. In turn this enables us to following the latest regulations regards closed areas and any sensitive areas

Future actions and time scale Year 1 Monitor MMO website and other available resources to identify the latest and long standing sensitive areas. Discuss with skipper during our pre-trip briefing regards avoiding sensitive habitats and reporting any signs of new sensitive habitats if necessary.

Year 2 Periodic review of latest habitat information. Continually monitor the Farnella positions during fishing operations in respect of habitat information.

2187R01C 49

10.2 Client Action Plan from DFFU and Doggerbank

Condition 2.3.1. – 2.3.3. The fisheries will be responsible for an annual announcement of the EU regulation setting the fishing possibilities for specific fish stocks and stock groups in EU waters as well as for EU ships on the fishing grounds with catch limits and specific references to the article regarding the forbidden species. For the compliance of the regulation and its practical execution in the fisheries, operating instructions for the ship crews were constructed (see attached). These operating instructions contain an enhanced gathering of information regarding the by-catch and distribution of the species Dipturus batis. This information will be provided to the Institute of Sea Fisheries at the Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institute (vTI) for a further scientific analysis of the by-catch situation. Furthermore, an agreement has been made with the Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institute that the ships belonging to the Doggerbank group and DFFU, as listed in the assessment application, will be regularly tested in accordance with the legal fundamentals of the data collection regulation (Regulation 199/2008, Commission Decision 2010/93/EU). It is warranted on behalf of the German fisheries that the Institute of Sea Fisheries will be informed of the travel dates as promptly as possible and that employees from the Institute of Sea Fisheries will be able to participate. The biological tests will refer to target species, by-catch and discards. The cooperation between DFFU and the vTI scientists will be further reinforced and more emphasis placed on the tests for the by-catch and combined efforts will be placed on covering all by-catch, including by-catch that does not go into production or is caught outside of the tester’s working hours. The scientists will support the crew in identifying the by-catch and in the application of practical solutions on board the ships for a gentler return of forbidden species aiming at ensuring the survival of the specimens. A continuous exchange of information regarding the by-catch of forbidden species will take place on the fishing area between the ships of the Doggerbank group and of DFFU, in order to directly influence further choice of fishing area. Furthermore, it was decided that scientists from the Institute of Sea Fisheries of the Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institute and representatives of the fisheries will meet annually or as required to analyze the fishing trips. This meeting will aim at establishing or adjusting the measures for the protection of forbidden species.

Condition 2.4.2. The Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institute advices and supports the fisheries with the preparation of maps (as possible) of those marine areas with habitat that should be protected (e.g., corals) that fall within the main fishing grounds. These will then be compared to the existing VMS data regarding the trawl strips. Should the previously used trawl strips fall within these marine areas, they will be defined as potentially habitat damaging trawl strips and should not be used again. Through the implementation of electronic log books and the constant expansion of the so-called habitat maps, due to a 2187R01C 50

national as well as an international information system, it is possible to maintain a constant comparison that can direct the fishing. The national and international notifications of recently opened protected areas shall be adhered to. The central information system BMELV will be used for this purpose. Possible sedimentary and benthos by-catch will be recorded. The results will be included if possible in the habitat maps.

Time plan for the introduction of measures Short-term • Coordination with the vTI to meet the individual measures in accordance with the Client Action Plan (10/2010) • Informing the ship crews about measures to be introduced in accordance with the Client Action Plan (10/2010) • Firm establishment of the measures to be introduced based on consultation with vTI and implementation suggestions from the ship crews (01/2011) • Briefing for the crew regarding the measures to be undertaken (01/2011)

Continuously as of 01/2011 • Updates of the annual briefing in accordance with the TAC and quota regulation • Participation of a scientific observer on the fishing trips according to the data collection regulation of the EU (Regulation 199/2008, Commission Decision 2010/93/EU) followed by a report and deduction of further measures for the implementation of the MEC goals and the Client Action Plan. Preparation of interim reports according to the season developments through DFFU. • Immediate (regarding the current fishing area) as well as annual appraisals of the information from the ship crews (by-catch reports, sedimentary test results) through vTI and DFFU.

2187R01C 51

Annex 1 – Assessment tree

Principle 1 A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery.

1.1 Outcome 1.1.1 Stock status

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

SG 60: It is likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. SG 80: It is highly likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. The stock is at or fluctuating around its target reference point SG 100: There is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. There is a high degree of certainty that the stock has been fluctuating around its target reference point, or has been above its target reference point, over recent years.

North Sea stock North-East Arctic Global score (IIIa-IV-VI) stock (I-II)

UK Fisheries 95 - 95

DFFU/Doggerbank 95 95 95

Rationale

1. Scoring of Units of Assessment

This PI refers to the status of the stock rather than the fishery. Since one of the two fisheries operates on more than one stock, each stock will have to be scored separately. 2. Definition of stocks

2187R01C 52

The Farnella (UK Fisheries Ltd.) operates on the North Sea / West of Scotland stock of saithe in the North Sea / West of Scotland (ICES Subareas IV and VI and Division IIIa – mainly IV). The DFFU / Doggerbank saithe fishery operates both the North Sea and the North-East Arctic stock (ICES Subareas I, II,, IV and VI) 3. Saithe in Divisions IIa (EU zone), IIIa, Subareas IV (North Sea) and VI (West of Scotland) The status of the stock is assessed every year by ICES (see 1.2.4 below) (11,27). Reference points consider both the spawning stock biomass (SSB) and the fishing mortality (F). For SSB two reference points are defined:

• Blim, (limit reference point) below which the reproductive capacity of the stock is reduced and where the risk of collapse is high (recruitment overfishing); • Bpa, (precautionary reference point) – the stock should remain above this reference point so that the risk of reaching Blim is low, taking uncertainties into consideration. In the same manner, ICES has set two reference points for F:

• Flim is the limit fishing mortality above which the exploitation becomes unsustainable; • Fpa is the precautionary level of mortality that should not be exceeded so that the risk of reaching Flim is low, taking uncertainties into account.

Therefore, if SSB>Bpa, the stock is at its full reproductive capacity, and if F

Type Value

Precautionary Blim 106 000 t approach Bpa 200 000 t

Flim 0.6

Fpa 0.4

For this stock, the projected biomass for 2011, with 2010 landings of 118 000 t (in agreement with the management plan), is 212 000 t. The calculated SSB has been above 200 000 t since 1999 and F has been below Fpa since 1997. In 2009, the SSB is estimated

2187R01C 53

to be 1.3* Bpa (i.e. 30% higher than the precautionary reference point). The average fishing mortality for the period 2006-2008 is estimated at 0.29, i.e. below Fpa and close to the management plan target rate expected to lead to high long-term yields (F = 0.3). The stock is therefore considered to be above precautionary reference points with a high degree of certainty. Since 2003, stocks have been in this “safe” zone of the precautionary approach plot (SSB*F) (11). Since 2003, the stock have been in the “safe” zone of the precautionary approach plot (SSB*F) – see Figure below from ICES advice 2009 (11).

There are a few concerns, however. ICES considers that productivity of the North Sea saithe stock has declined, due to recent reductions in recruitment levels and growth rates. Specifically for this aspect, the ICES advice on this stock in 2008 (31) stated: The influence on the maturity ogive from the observed decrease in the weight at age is unknown, but it is reasonable to believe that the spawning capacity of the stock will be affected. The ICES review group also raised this issue of possible changes in the maturity ogive for this stock. While ICES are aware of the issue and are able to incorporate new data into future stock assessments, the team considered that for this reason a full score of 100 was not justified, although the requirements of SG 100 are broadly met. 4. Saithe in Divisions I, IIa (Norwegian zone) and IIb For the above stock, precautionary reference points have been set as follows (10): Type Value

Precautionary Blim 136 000 t approach Bpa 220 000 t

Flim 0.58

2187R01C 54

Fpa 0.35

For the North-East Arctic stock, the projected biomass for 2011, with 2010 catches of 204 000 t, is 486 000 t, which would lead to F = 0.30. The calculated SSB has been above 275 000 t since 1994 and F has been below Fpa since 1995 (10). Since the mid 90's, this stock has been in the “safe” zone of the precautionary approach plot (SSB*F) – see Figure below from ICES advice 2009.

According to those data, it is almost certain that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired over the short term (<5 years), although recruitment has been below average since 2006, following the strong 2002 year class (32). There is also a high degree of certainty that the stock has been above its target reference point, and that fishing mortality has been below target reference points, over recent years. For this stock, too, however, there are uncertainties about the maturity ogive that could have an effect on the stock status, so the full 100 was not given (12).

1.1.2 Reference points Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock. SG 60: Generic limit and target reference points are based on justifiable and reasonable practice appropriate for the species category. SG 80: Reference points are appropriate for the stock and can be estimated. The limit reference point is set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity. The target reference point is such that the stock is maintained at a 2187R01C 55

level consistent with BMSY or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome. For low trophic level species, the target reference point takes into account the ecological role of the stock. SG 100: Reference points are appropriate for the stock and can be estimated. The limit reference point is set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity following consideration of relevant precautionary issues. The target reference point is such that the stock is maintained at a level consistent with BMSY or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome, or a higher level, and takes into account relevant precautionary issues such as the ecological role of the stock with a high degree of certainty. North Sea stock North-East Arctic Global score (IIIa-IV-VI) stock (I-II)

UK Fisheries 90 - 90

DFFU/Doggerbank 90 95 90

Rationale As explained in the rationale for PI 1.1.1, the stocks are scored separately. For both stocks (North Sea and North-East Arctic), reference points are derived from biological assessment by the ICES Working Groups (28,29). 1. North Sea stock

For the North Sea stock, reference points were established in 1998. Blim was defined from a recruitment-stock relationship and Bpa was derived from the value of Blim. Fishing mortality (Flim) was defined from a yield-per-recruit analysis based on Blim (28). Simulations were carried on to assess the effect of those scenarios (28). This approach is classical fisheries science, is recognized worldwide and appears to be generally successful (33). The approach has some shortcomings, however: i) simulations assume that current productivity levels are constant; ii) discards and highgrading are not taken into account in the simulations (28). In this case, however, these shortcomings are considered as minor compared to the official landings and should not therefore affect the output of the analytical models. Biologists are concerned that the productivity of the stock has declined, and uncertainties about recruitment and weight at age remain issues (11,12,32). Fecundity with size has been adequately established but does not appear to be under regular review to detect trends and shifts. The assessment uses a single maturity ogive and natural mortality of 0.2 (28). Experiences from other fisheries show that those parameters may change over time, due to exploitation or natural factors. Those parameters are key elements and may add uncertainty to the simulations. Even if not formally revised, the references points are tested each year along with the new assessment. Scientists consider that they are still valid in the medium term (<5 years) (28). 2187R01C 56

2. North-East Arctic stock For the North-East Arctic stock, ICES has re-estimated reference points from the latest benchmark assessment in 2005, updated in 2009, but they remain the same as in previous years. They appear to be consistent with the precautionary approach (29), but as for the other saithe stock considered in this report, there is some concern about a reduction in mean weight at age (32). 3. Reference points in relation to the MSY approach Comments received from MSC on the public comment draft report required us to revise our evaluation of reference points giving greater consideration to the relationship of the target reference point BMSY or some proxy. In general, we note that ICES has not in the past taken an ‘MSY’ approach to providing advice on the level of target biomass and fishing mortality reference points – these have instead been set at a ‘precautionary’ level based on the probability of the stock biomass falling below a certain level. However, in the last couple of years, ICES has started to review all their stock assessments with the objective of moving towards on approach based on stock productivity as well as probability of collapse. Nonetheless, for most stocks, this process is still in its early stages. Here we consider the process in detail as it applies to the two saithe stocks in assessment here. Note that this element of the rationale was composed after the other rationales in Principle 1 for this assessment, and uses more recent information – the ICES North Sea and Skaggerak demersal fisheries working group report 2010 (96) and the ICES Arctic Fisheries Working Group report 2010 (97). North Sea stock: Initial work was done by the North Sea and Skaggerak demersal fisheries working group in 2010 (96) to estimate FMSY using a variety of methods (two models, three stock recruit curves and different ways of treating the input data and the bootstrapping). The outcome was sensitive to some of these variations, so that more work remains to be done to get a robust estimate of FMSY. The most robust methodology was considered to be the CEFAS ADMB model with a hockey stick recruitment curve. This gave a median bootstrap estimate of 0.3 (5% percentile 0.13, 95% percentile 0.54). Thus while work clearly remains to be done, the best estimate of FMSY at present is identical to the level of fishing mortality already enshrined in the management plan. Equilibrium landings were also estimated, and overall, the ICES working group considered that ‘the stock is currently harvested at an optimal level’. The figure below is taken from the working group report (Figure 11.9.4b), and shows equilibrium landings in relation to fishing mortality rates, calculated from the above modeling exercise. While there is clearly considerable uncertainty in the data and modeling at present, it is clear that F=0.3 appear appropriate from the point of view of maximising stock productivity (equilibrium landings) as well as for minimising risk.

2187R01C 57

Figure 1. Reference 96, Figure 11.9.4b, showing estimates of equilibrium landings (y- axis) in relation to fishing mortality rates (x-axis). The left-hand figure shows the median of 1000 resamples in blue, with percentiles in red, plus the actual assessment data points in black, while the right-hand figure shows 100 illustrative resamples. Northeast Arctic stock: Work on the MSY approach for the northeast Arctic stocks is less well advanced, and has up till now focussed on the cod stock (by far the largest stock and fishing in the area) (see 97). Work on the cod stock has found that long-term equilibrium yield from this stock is more or less stable for a range of fishing mortality rates from 0.25 to 0.6 (due to strong density-dependent effects including from cannibalism). We note that saithe are also a cannibalistic species so a similar range for FMSY may apply, although saithe biomass may be more dependent on cod biomass (due to predation) than on population-level density-dependent effects (as is known for haddock in the same area). For the saithe stock itself, no explicit work on determining appropriate levels for MSY- based reference points has yet been done. However, the harvest control rules has been assessed in terms of long-term equilibrium yield, which was obtained at F=0.32. This is certainly consistent with the current Fpa under the management plan, which is set at 0.35. 4. Conclusions Overall, the team considered that the reference points are appropriate for both stocks and that they should provide a safe means to protect the stocks’ reproductive capacity. Following the second review, the team was also happy that the reference points are consistent with maintaining high stock productivity as well as reducing risk. However, the team considered that the concerns raised about the productivity of the North Sea stock is not taken into account in the definition of the reference points with a high degree of certainty, as required for a score of 100. The ecological role of the stock is not taken into account with a high degree of certainty for either stock. This leads to a score of 90 for the North Sea stock and 95 for the Arctic stock.

1.1.3 Stock rebuilding

Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding

2187R01C 58

NOT REQUIRED TO BE SCORED

1.2 Harvest strategy (management) 1.2.1 Harvest strategy

There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place

SG 60: The harvest strategy is expected to achieve stock management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. The harvest strategy is likely to work based on prior experience or plausible argument. Monitoring is in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. SG 80: The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. The harvest strategy may not have been fully tested but monitoring is in place and evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives. SG 100: The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. The performance of the harvest strategy has been fully evaluated and evidence exists to show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary.

North Sea stock North-East Arctic Global score (IIIa-IV-VI) stock (I-II)

UK Fisheries 90 - 90

DFFU/Doggerbank 90 95 90

Rationale As explained in the rationale for PI 1.1.1, the stocks are scored separately. 1. North Sea stock For the North Sea stock (Division IIIa, Subareas IV and VI), the EU and Norway agreed in 2004 to implement a long-term management plan for the saithe stock, consistent with the precautionary approach (11):

• Spawning stock biomass should be > 106 000 t (Blim);

• If SSB > 200 000 t (Bpa), fishing mortality should not exceed 0.3;

• If SSB > Blim and < Bpa, fishing mortality should be < 0.3;

2187R01C 59

• If SSB

Overall, the team concluded that the harvest strategy for each stock is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. Also, evidence exists to show that they are achieving their objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels (see rationale for 1.1.1). SG 80 is thus met. The harvest strategies are periodically reviewed but have not been fully evaluated. This, plus the minor concerns discussed above preclude a score of 100

1.2.2 Harvest control rules and tools There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place SG 60: Generally understood harvest control rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and which act to reduce the exploitation rate as limit reference points are approached. There is some evidence that tools used to implement harvest control rules are appropriate and effective in controlling exploitation. SG 80: Well defined harvest control rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached. The selection of the harvest control rules takes into account the main uncertainties. Available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules. SG 100: Well defined harvest control rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached. The design of the harvest control rules take into account a wide range of uncertainties. Evidence clearly shows that the tools in use are effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules. North Sea stock North-East Arctic Global score (IIIa-IV-VI) stock (I-II) UK Fisheries 90 - 90 DFFU/Doggerbank 90 95 90

Rationale As explained in the rationale for PI 1.1.1, the stocks are scored separately. For both areas, harvest control rules are based on a TAC, but also include various technical measures including minimum mesh size, minimum landing size, bycatch regulations, area closures, and other area and seasonal restrictions (11,12,5). The main harvest control tool, however, is the TAC. 1. North Sea stock

2187R01C 61

TAC: A TAC is calculated such that fishing mortality does not exceed Fpa or SSB drop below Bpa (11 - see above). For the North Sea stock, TACs are suggested by ICES and set by the European Council of Fisheries Ministers. Harvest control rules are defined in the management plan (see above). Agreed TACs are then divided by member state, each implementing its own sharing system. The ICES Working Group recommends that there be no limitation in TAC reduction (i.e. the 15% rule) if the biomass is below Bpa (see PI 1.1.2 above). Minimum landing size: For the North Sea stock, the minimum landing size is 35 cm. Minimum mesh size: In the North Sea there is a minimum mesh size in the cod-end of 100 mm (soon to be increased to 110 mm). Closed areas: Areas in Scottish waters in the North Sea may be closed at very short notice (hours) if high catches of juvenile cod are reported. At present, only UK fleets are obliged to comply, but next year it will be required for all fleets. No breach of this rule has been reported for the vessels under assessment. A concern remains with the 15% TAC constraint (see 1.2.1). Also, it is important to note that even if uncertainties are built in the definition of the precautionary reference points (Fpa, Bpa), it is not possible to say that the design of the harvest control rules take into account a wide range of uncertainties such as environment or stock productivity. Those uncertainties are raised in the assessment but are not formally incorporated in the design of control harvest rules. Thus SG 100 was not fully met. 2. North-East Arctic stock TAC: For the North-East Arctic stock, the TAC is calculated as a simulated average for the 3 coming years, based on Fpa. If the biomass is below Bpa, the TAC should be based on a fishing mortality that is linearly reduced from Fpa (12). Therefore, the 15% constraint observed for the North Sea stock does not exist there. Minimum landing size: In Norwegian waters the minimum landing size is 45 cm for trawl and conventional gears, and to 42 cm (north of Lofoten) and 40 cm (between 62°N and Lofoten) for purse-seine, with an exception for the first 3000 t purse-seine catch between 62°N and 65°30′N, where the minimum landing size remains at 35 cm (5). Minimum mesh size: In Norwegian waters north of 62 degrees N, the minimum mesh size is 135 mm (5). Closed areas: Real time closures are regularly implemented in Norwegian waters. Other measures: In the Norwegian fishery, quotas may be transferred between fleets. Sorting grids are used in the trawl fishery. Discarding is illegal but does occur when trawlers targeting cod catch saithe as by-catch without having any quota for saithe (this does not apply in the case of these fisheries). Highgrading is prohibited. Overall, it appears obvious that well defined harvest control rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy. Evidence clearly shows that the tools in use are effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules (scientific advice vs TAC; TAC vs landings, see above).

2187R01C 62

Also, it is important to note that even if uncertainties are built in the definition of the precautionary reference points (Fpa, Bpa), it is not possible to say that the design of the harvest control rules take into account a wide range of uncertainties such as environment or stock productivity. Those uncertainties are raised in the assessment but are not formally incorporated in the design of control harvest rules. Conversely to the North Sea stock, there are clear harvest rules if the biomass falls below Bpa. This point allows a higher score even if SG 100 was not fully met.

1.2.3 Information / monitoring Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy SG 60: Some relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity and fleet composition is available to support the harvest strategy. Stock abundance and fishery removals are monitored and at least one indicator is available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule SG 80: Sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data is available to support the harvest strategy. Stock abundance and fishery removals are regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule, and one or more indicators are available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. SG 100: A comprehensive range of information (on stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, fishery removals and other information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly relevant to the current harvest strategy, is available. All information required by the harvest control rule is monitored with high frequency and a high degree of certainty, and there is a good understanding of the inherent uncertainties in the information [data] and the robustness of assessment and management to this uncertainty. North Sea stock North-East Arctic Global score (IIIa-IV-VI) stock (I-II) UK Fisheries 85 - 85 DFFU/Doggerbank 85 85 85

Rationale As explained in the rationale for PI 1.1.1, the stocks are scored separately. 1. Information on fisheries removals Boats are clearly identified and recorded through the licensing system. On board, catches are recorded in compulsory logbooks. After landing the vessels get a landing declaration and a sales note. Landing declarations and logbooks are gathered and verified by the vessels’ homeport authorities, MFA in UK and BLE in Germany, respectively, which 2187R01C 63

centralize all landings data. A certain difference between logbooks and landing notes is tolerated (20% in UK in the case of saithe). UK Fisheries – The Farnella, only vessel to be certified, fishes only for fresh fish in EU and Norwegian waters in ICES Divisions IVa + b. Usually 85% of the catches are taken in EU waters, but in 2009 it was only 50%. Landings are made in a designated port (as imposed by EU regulation) and recorded there (90% Hantsholm/Denmark, 10% Peterhead and Scrabster/ both Scotland and very rarely in Hull). DFFU/Doggerbank – The six freezing trawlers operated by the two companies are based in Cuxhaven. They fish in ICES subareas II, IV and VI. Catches are mostly landed in Cuxhaven and Bremerhaven but sometimes also in Iceland (Reykjavik, Hafnarfjördur, Grundafjördur and Akureyri) and recorded there. Landings of all three companies are quayside controlled in landing ports. At sea activities are controlled through the VMS system. On board controls occur occasionally in EU waters but take place regularly when fishing in the Norwegian zone. DFFU vessels participate in a observer program (around 3 trips per year). Doggerbank vessels have not yet taken observers because Gerda Maria has not enough space and Atlantic Peace only started fishing for saithe in 2009. The Polish vessel Polonus has not yet had observers on board when fishing for saithe. Both Atlantic Peace and Polonus are prepared to participate in observer programs. The French and Norwegian fleets, which along with the German and UK fleets represent the majority of North Sea saithe catches, are also well monitored. Discards are not considered to be a problem in any of these fleets (28,29). Discards may be more important in the Scottish fleets (28) but are nonetheless considered minor compared to total catches. 2. Biological data The general aspects of saithe biology are well known and documented (e.g.2,3,11,12,27,28). CEFAS and FRS (UK) and von Thünen-Insitut (Germany) are the research institutes in charge of gathering biological data. There are no data collected on the quayside but some of the vessels participate in an observer program where technicians collect basic data (length, weight) and otoliths for age determination. Weight- at-age is thus regularly recorded and can be formally incorporated into ICES assessments (11,12). 3. Fisheries-independent stock data Aside from CPUE, stock abundance data and biological data are also gathered by annual scientific surveys (see rationale for 1.2.4 for details). 4. Uncertainties in data North Sea Stock Maturity and fecundity-at-age are not regularly monitored. This is important because the maturity ogive may have changed (see 1.1.1 for more details). North Sea stock productivity is declining and remains an issue. Large uncertainties also exist in the

2187R01C 64

prediction of the recruitment, because surveys have had difficulty in evaluating year classes 0-3 (31). North-East Arctic stock Discarding is illegal, but is known to occur in some fisheries. There are no estimates of discarding available for assessment. For both stocks there is monitoring of environmental parameters; however this is independent from the stock assessments, and the effect of the environment on stock productivity is not formally considered in the assessment (11). It is not possible to say that we have "a comprehensive range of information". Also, all information required by the harvest control rule is neither monitored with high frequency nor with a high degree of certainty. Most of the criteria for SG 100 are thus not fully met.

1.2.4 Assessment of stock status There is an adequate assessment of the stock status SG 60: The assessment estimates stock status relative to reference points. The major sources of uncertainty are identified. SG 80: The assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule, and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points. The assessment takes uncertainty into account. The stock assessment is subject to peer review. SG 100: The assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule and takes into account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the fishery. The assessment takes into account uncertainty and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. The assessment has been internally and externally peer reviewed.

North Sea stock North-East Arctic Global score (IIIa-IV-VI) stock (I-II) UK Fisheries 90 - 90 DFFU/Doggerbank 90 90 90

Rationale As explained in the rationale for PI 1.1.1, the stocks are scored separately. ICES working groups use two series of indices in the assessment: commercial fisheries catches per unit effort (CPUE) and scientific surveys (11,12).

2187R01C 65

For the North Sea stock, the 2009 assessment incorporates CPUEs from the French bottom trawl fishery (age range: 3-9, year range 1990-2008 – « FRATRB ») and the German bottom trawl fishery ( age range: 3-9, year range 1995-2008 – « GEROTB »). The Norwegian trawl fishery CPUEs were discarded in 2007 and again in 2009 (28,29). Scientific surveys include the Norwegian acoustic survey (age range 3-6, year range 1995-2008 – « NORACU ») and the bottom trawl survey IBTS (IBTS quarter 3, age range: 3-5, year range 1991-2008 – « IBTSq3 ») (28,29). Landings at age data by fleet are routinely supplied by Denmark, Germany, France, Norway, UK (England), and UK (Scotland) for Subarea IV and by the UK (Scotland) for Subarea VI. This provides a reliable time series, incorporated in the analytical assessment (28). For the North-East Arctic stock, the assessment uses the CPUE data from the Norwegian trawl fisheries (started 1994, age range 4-8) and the Norwegian acoustic survey (started 1994, age range 3-7) (29). Both stocks are assessed with a Sequential Population Analysis model (« XSA ») (11,12). Results are discussed in the ICES Working Groups on the assessment on demersal stocks, North-Sea and Skagerrak (WGNSSK) and Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG) and the Benchmark Workshop on Roundfish (WKROUND). Alternative tools and approaches are tested and discussed. Results are further peer reviewed by a Review Group, the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) composed of external scientists (28,29,34). The assessments provide a comprehensive vision of the stocks’ trends: spawning stock biomass, recruitment-stock relationships, fishing mortality. Data are related to the accepted reference points, in an analytical way. Despite the concerns raised (see PIs 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 above), the analyses appear robust. However, the strength of the assessments is limited by the use of commercial CPUEs, which may fail to track population trends. Catch rates may remain high even if the populations are declining as fishers know how to detect fish concentrations. For the North-Sea stocks, retrospective patterns in the analytical assessment remain low, which gives faith in the results. However, some uncertainties may arise as a result of the poor reliability of the recruitment data (age 3) (11). According to scientists, the quality of 2009 assessment is strongly affected by the uncertainty about the size of the strong 2004 year class (28). There are also reported to be questions around the assessment of longer- term trends in recruitment (35). Discards are not considered as a major problem is that area (11). In 2007, external reviewers raised the concern that measurement or implementation errors were insufficiently included within the analyses (28). For the North-East Arctic, retrospective pattern is high (29). In 2008, Scientists stated : « Difficulties in estimating initial stock size are the major problem in the forecast. This is due to widely divergent indices of abundance used in the tuning of the XSA, in addition to lack of reliable recruitment estimates. Prediction of catches beyond the TAC year will, to a large extent, be dependent on assumptions of average recruitment » (29). Discards are also considered to be non-trivial, and are not incorporated in the assessment (29).

2187R01C 66

No probabilistic approaches, such as risk analyses, are used in either assessment. Biological characteristics (other than size at age) are considered in the analysis but not formally incorporated in the assessment. The team considered that all the criteria in SG 80 were met. For SG 100, some of the additional criteria were met – the assessment is regularly tested and the North Sea assessment has been shown to be robust (the Arctic assessment less so). The assessments are regularly reviewed internally and externally. Overall, the team considered that a score of 90 was appropriate for both.

2187R01C 67

Principle 2

Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends.

2.1 Retained species

2.1.1 Outcome status

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species.

SG 60: Main retained species are likely to be within biologically based limits or if outside the limits there are measures in place that are expected to ensure that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding of the depleted species. If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected to result in the fishery not causing the retained species to be outside biologically based limits or hindering recovery.

SG 80: Main retained species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits, or if outside the limits there is a partial strategy of demonstrably effective management measures in place such that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding.

SG 100: There is a high degree of certainty that retained species are within biologically based limits. Target reference points are defined and retained species are at or fluctuating around their target reference points.

Score : UK Fisheries Ltd. 80 Score : DFFU and Doggerbank 85

Rationale

1. Scoring the Units of Assessment

Unlike Principle 1, which refers to the stock of the target species, Principle 2 refers to the specific fisheries under assessment. Thus for the PIs in Principle 2, the two Units of Assessment are scored separately.

2. ‘Retained’ species vs. by-catch species

The FAM makes a distinction between ‘retained species’ (species which are not targeted but if caught are retained and sold), and ‘by-catch’ species (species which are discarded if 2187R01C 68

caught). In practice, the same species may sometimes be retained and at other times discarded. However, the FAM defines all species that are ever retained as ‘retained species’ (i.e. these species are considered under PIs 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 2.1.3) and defines only those species which are never retained as ‘by-catch’ (i.e. to be considered under PIs 2.2.1, 2.2.2 and 2.2.3).

3. Definition of ‘main retained species’

Scoring guideposts 60 and 80 make reference to ‘main retained species’. The FAM (1) defines ‘main retained species’ as follows:

‘a species that comprises less than 5% of the catch by weight may normally be considered to be a minor species, i.e., not ‘main’, in the catch, unless it is of high value to the fisher or of particular vulnerability, or if the total volume of the fishery is large, in which case even 5% may be a considerable catch.’

The team decided that in order to be precautionary, any species comprising more than 5% of the catch would automatically be considered a ‘main retained species’. Species below this threshold were considered individually on the basis of the size of the catch, their value and their potential vulnerability to this fishery.

4. Sources of information on retained species

The main source of information on retained species are the vessels’ logbook data. These are cross-checked against sales data, and the team was confident that the data were accurate. For the Farnella, additional information was available in the form of two Fisheries Science Partnership project report (6,7), while for DFFU / Doggerbank, seven observer reports were available (all for DFFU vessels) (8).

5. Scoring for DFFU and Doggerbank

For the North Sea, DFFU and Doggerbank landings data showed that no species apart from saithe comprises more than 5% of the catch. The retained species were redfish, cod, haddock, ling and hake. The catch and percentage of these species are given in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Landings of retained species by DFFU and Doggerbank vessels 2007-2009 (tonnes). Figures in brackets are the percentage of the catch for that company and year. DFFU Doggerbank Total 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 07-09 redfish 2 (0.11) 0 0 0 1 (0.23) 0 3 (0.4) cod 0 0 4 (0.21) 0 0 0 4 (0.06) haddock 11 (0.59) 11 (0.92) 10 (0.52) 8 (1.43) 3 (0.69) 4 (0.54) 47 (0.7) other 3 (0.16) 3 (0.25) 0 2 (0.36) 1 (0.23) 1 (0.13) 10 (0.15)

2187R01C 69

For DFFU, ‘other’ comprises Atlantic habitat, ling, pollack, wolffish, blue ling, silver smelt (argentine) and tusk (Norwegian waters) and ling and hake (EU waters. For Doggerbank, ‘other’ comprises ling and Atlantic halibut. When these catches are combined, ling and hake dominate, with other species a smaller proportion of the total of ‘other’.

Out of these species, redfish and cod could be classified as vulnerable, but the team decided that this catch rate was too low for these species to be considered as main retained species. Therefore for the North Sea, the team considered that there were no main retained species for this fishery.

For the Northeast Arctic, cod is also a target species for this fishery, making up 63.4% of the catch in 2009. Haddock made up 8.6% of the catch and redfish 1.3%. Other species (Greenland halibut, blue whiting, wolffish, ling, Atlantic halibut and pollack) each make up <1% of the catch for each year – usually <0.1%. Thus cod and haddock (Northeast Arctic stocks) were defined as main retained species. Redfish was also included as a main retained species because while catches are below 5% it is both valuable and potentially vulnerable.

The Northeast Arctic stocks of haddock and cod are both within biologically based limits, according to the most recent ICES assessments (36,37).

The redfish stock (mainly golden redfish, Sebastes marinus) appears to be outside biologically-based limits (15). However, at the level of the stock there is a partial strategy in place to support recovery and rebuilding (area closures, by-catch limits and quotas). The fishery participates in this strategy by respecting the regulations associated with it. It is also clear that DFFU and Doggerbank are not targeting redfish, since they only caught 14% of their quota in Norwegian waters in 2009 (95 tonnes out of 691 tonne quota). In total in 2008, DFFU and Doggerbank’s catch of 53 tonnes made up 0.27% of the total landings from this stock (20 000 tonnes according to ICES – 15) (total catch data for 2009 not yet available at time of writing). Given this low percentage, it is not considered likely this fishery will hinder recovery and rebuilding.

Thus overall, the team considered that SG 80 was met.

SG 100 requires that there be a ‘high degree of certainty’ for all retained species. The information, management and stock status of the retained species for DFFU is given in Table 2.

Table 2. Stock status and management of the retained species for DFFU and Doggerbank

Stock ICES Management plan Stock Ref. ref advice? or actions? status points North Sea cod Y Cod Recovery Plan poor Y 14 North Sea haddock Y TAC OK Y 38 2187R01C 70

NE Arctic cod Y TAC OK Y 37 NE Arctic haddock Y TAC OK Y 36 hake northern stock Y TAC OK Y 39 Greenland halibut Y TAC poor N 40 blue whiting Y TAC OK Y 41 wolffish N N unknown N ling Y N unknown N 42 Atlantic halibut N N unknown N pollack N N unknown N redfish Y area closures poor N 15,16

Thus out of 12 stocks forming the retained species by-catch for DFFU and Doggerbank, five appear to be within biologically-based limits (North Sea haddock, NE cod and haddock, hake and blue whiting – although for blue whiting and hake fishing mortality is above the management target).

On this basis, the team considered that SG 100 was met for a minority of stocks, giving an overall score for DFFU and Doggerbank of 85.

6. Scoring for UK Fisheries Ltd.

Catches of the Farnella in 2009 from logbook and sales data are given in Table 3 below. The team verified that 2008 catches were similar in magnitude.

Table 3. Catch data for 2009 for the Farnella (tonnes live weight, excluding saithe). Species are shown in the order of their percentage contribution to the 2009 total catch by the Farnella (including saithe).

Species IVa (EU) IVa VI Total % catch (Norway) cod 25.0 33.1 3.92 62.1 2.24 haddock 22.6 27.6 1.29 51.5 1.86 ling 24.4 1.46 25.9 0.93 monkfish 13.2 2.93 1.13 17.2 0.62 pollack 4.72 8.18 12.9 0.47 hake 9.37 2.26 0.437 12.1 0.44 whiting 8.07 0.722 8.79 0.32 wolffish 1.72 3.60 5.33 0.19 megrim 3.22 0.032 0.270 3.52 0.13 tusk 3.54 3.54 0.13 lemon sole 0.576 0.758 1.33 0.048 Greenland halibut 0.391 0.855 1.25 0.045 redfish 0.514 0.514 0.019 plaice 0.087 0.310 0.397 0.014

2187R01C 71

witch 0.179 0.207 0.386 0.014 squid 0.331 0.030 0.361 0.013 turbot 0.161 0.207 0.367 0.013 other 0.218 0.109 0.327 0.012 dogfish 0.040 0.040 0.0014 Atl. halibut* 0 0 conger* 0 0

* included on the list because of small catches in some previous years

North Sea cod comprised ~2.2% of landings in 2008 and 2009. However the team decided that it should be included as a main retained species because it is both valuable and vulnerable. Haddock likewise comprised ~2% in 2009 and ~3% in 2008, and is valuable. However, it does not appear to be vulnerable (ICES advice suggests it is sustainably fished in Subarea IV where nearly all the catch comes from - 38). On this basis the team decided not to include it as a main retained species. The other retained species each comprised <1% of the catch and were not included as main retained species.

North Sea cod was considered to meet SG 80, because while the stock is outside biologically based limits, there is a management strategy in place (the Cod Recovery Plan - 19) which appears to be effective. ICES evaluated the management plan in 2009 and considered it to be consistent with precautionary approach as long as it is implemented and enforced adequately and discarding does not increase (14). Farnella is participating in this management plan by keeping within its quotas and by adhering to other cod recovery measures (e.g. days at sea limitations, real-time closed areas). The team noted that the mesh size used by the Farnella, as well as her high quota allocation (a legacy of other licences previously held by the company) means that she is highly unlikely to be discarding cod. Since North Sea cod is the only main retained species, SG 80 is met on this basis.

As noted above, SG 100 requires that there be a ‘high degree of certainty’ for all retained species. The information, management and stock status of the retained species for the Farnella is given in Table 4.

Table 4. Stock status and management of the retained species for the Farnella

Stock ICES Management plan Stock Ref. ref advice? or actions status points cod IV and VI Y Cod Recovery Plan poor Y 14 haddock IV Y TAC OK Y 38 haddock VI Y TAC poor Y 43 ling Y N unknown N 42 monkfish Y N unknown N 44 pollack N N unknown N hake northern stock Y TAC OK Y 39 2187R01C 72

whiting IV Y N poor? N 45 whiting VI Y N poor? N 46 wolffish N N unknown N megrim Y N unknown N 47 tusk Y N unknown N 48 lemon sole N N unknown N Greenland halibut Y TAC poor N 40 redfish Y closed areas poor N 17,18 plaice IV Y TAC OK Y 53 witch N N unknown N squid N N unknown N turbot N N unknown N dogfish N N unknown N

Only three of the stocks of retained species (North Sea haddock, hake and North Sea plaice) seem to meet SG 100, and the team decided that this was not sufficient to give a score higher than 80.

The overall score for UK Fisheries Ltd. for this PI was thus 80.

2.1.2 Management strategy

There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species.

SG 60: There are measures in place that are expected to maintain the main retained species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits, or to ensure the fishery does not hinder their recovery and rebuilding. The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (eg, general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species).

SG 80: There is a partial strategy in place that is expected to maintain the main retained species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits, or to ensure the fishery does not hinder their recovery and rebuilding. There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or species involved. There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully

SG 100: There is a strategy in place for managing retained species. The strategy is mainly based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved, and testing supports high confidence that the strategy will work. There is clear evidence that the

2187R01C 73

strategy is being implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring. There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective.

Score : UK Fisheries Ltd. 80 Score : DFFU and Doggerbank 85

Rationale

1. Main retained species

For definition of ‘main retained species’ see rationale for PI 2.1.1. Main retained species have been defined by the team for DFFU and Doggerbank as Northeast Arctic cod, haddock and redfish and for UK Fisheries Ltd. as North Sea cod.

2. DFFU and Doggerbank

For cod and haddock stocks in Subareas I and II there are management plans and ICES advice in place which aim to ensure sustainability at the stock level. The management plans have been reviewed by ICES and determined to be precautionary (36,37). For redfish, there is no overall management plan for the stock (which is poorly defined) but there is ICES advice which expresses some concern about the level of the SSB and suggests that there should be no directed fishery for the species (15,16).

At the level of the fishery (the appropriate scale for scoring this PI), these management plans are expressed mainly through quota allocations (except in Spitzbergen where there are no quotas for haddock or redfish). For redfish there are additional management measures in the form of closed areas. DFFU and Doggerbank catches and quotas for 2009, as well as total landings are given in Table 5.

Table 5. Quotas and catches for main retained species for DFFU and Doggerbank for 2009. All data is in tonnes live weight. The figure for quota may include some swaps.

species quota catch DFFU – Subarea I and IIb (excl. cod 3863 3814 Spitzbergen) haddock 571 510 redfish 353 68 DFFU – Subarea IIb cod 3634 3627 (Spitzbergen) haddock n/a 1355 redfish n/a 3 Doggerbank – Subarea I cod 913 911 haddock 130 130 redfish 433 27 Doggerbank – Subarea IIb cod 1380 1378 haddock n/a 270

2187R01C 74

redfish n/a 0

From Table 5 it is clear that DFFU and Doggerbank are not exceeding their quota allocations. It is also clear that they are not targeting redfish (as per the ICES advice – 15,16). Total catch of redfish in 2008 for Subareas I and II together (ICES provisional figure) was around 20 million tonnes, so it is clear that DFFU and Doggerbank catches are redfish are highly unlikely to have a significant impact on the stock.

On this basis, the team considered that SG 80 was met.

For SG 100, all retained species must be considered. From Table 2 (in rationale for PI 2.1.1 above) it is clear that there is a management plan or management actions in place for eight of the 12 retained stocks, with reference points defined for six (although the management only seems to be working in five cases). The team decided that this was sufficient for a score of 85.

The overall score for DFFU and Doggerbank was therefore 85.

3. UK Fisheries Ltd.

For UK Fisheries Ltd., the only main retained species was North Sea cod. The North Sea cod is subject to a management plan (the Cod Recovery Plan - 19) which has been evaluated by ICES as precautionary (14). There is some evidence that the stock is recovery, although anecdotal evidence suggests that the recovery may be slowing (see Annex 3) and there remain issues around estimates of discards (14). At the level of the fishery, the management plan is expressed via quotas, days at sea restrictions, gear restrictions and closed areas (5). The Farnella complies with all these requirements. The team concluded that SG 80 was therefore met. SG 100 is, however, not met, because while there is some kind of management strategy or actions in place for seven out of the twenty retained species, it only appears to be working in three cases (see Table 4 in PI 2.1.1).

The overall score for UK Fisheries Ltd. was therefore 80.

2.1.3 Information / monitoring

Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species

SG 60: Qualitative information is available on the amount of main retained species taken by the fishery. Information is adequate to qualitatively assess outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. Information is adequate to support measures to manage main retained species 2187R01C 75

SG 80: Qualitative information and some quantitative information are available on the amount of main retained species taken by the fishery. Information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main retained species. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy).

SG 100: Accurate and verifiable information is available on the catch of all retained species and the consequences for the status of affected populations. Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status with a high degree of certainty. Information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage retained species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Monitoring of retained species is conducted in sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities to all retained species

Score : UK Fisheries Ltd. 80 Score : DFFU and Doggerbank 80

Rationale

For the definition of ‘main retained species’ see rationale for PI 2.1.1 above.

Quantitative information on catches of most retained species by DFFU and Doggerbank and UK Fisheries Ltd. is available from logbooks. The logbook data are cross-checked against sales and data and is also verified by quayside inspections and at-sea inspections, and was considered by the team likely to be accurate and verifiable. This data is gathered together at national level and provided to the European Commission, and also feeds into ICES stock assessments and advice. On this basis, the team considered that SG 80 was met.

For SG 100, the team considered that the requirement for ‘accurate and verifiable’ information is probably not met even for the main retained species. For example, for North Sea cod estimates of discards have been problematic (14). STECF also reports that there may be questions about under-reporting of Northeast Arctic cod and haddock catches (34). For many other retained species no detailed information is available on population status, even when ICES advice is available. The team therefore decided that SG 100 was not met.

The overall score for DFFU and Doggerbank and UK Fisheries Ltd. was therefore 80.

2.2 By-catch

2.2.1 Outcome status 2187R01C 76

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the by-catch species or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted by-catch species or species groups.

SG 60: Main by-catch species are likely to be within biologically based limits, or if outside such limits there are mitigation measures in place that are expected to ensure that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected result in the fishery not causing the by-catch species to be biologically based limits or hindering recovery

SG 80: Main by-catch species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or if outside such limits there is a partial strategy of demonstrably effective mitigation measures in place such that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding

SG 100: There is a high degree of certainty that by-catch species are within biologically based limits

Score : UK Fisheries Ltd. 80 Score : DFFU and Doggerbank 80

Rationale

1. Definition of ‘by-catch species’ and ‘main by-catch species’

As described in the rationale for PI 2.1.1, species which are sometimes retained and sometimes discarded have been defined here as ‘retained species’. The only species discussed here are therefore those which are always discarded. Data on these species are not included in logbooks.

Three species of ray must under EU regulations be discarded. These are Dipturus batis (common skate), Raja undulata (undulate ray) and Rostroraja alba (bottlenosed skate or white ray) (5). Two of these species are IUCN Redlisted, one (D. batis) as critically endangered (9). D. batis and R. alba are also OSPAR protected species (50). The team decided that these two species would therefore be considered under the PIs on protected species (PIs 2.3.1, 2.3.2 and 2.3.3) while R. undulata is considered here.

As for retained species, the PIs on by-catch species require that ‘main’ by-catch species be defined. SGs 60 and 80 refer only to main by-catch species, while SG 100 refers to all by-catch species. As for retained species, the team considered that any by-catch species making up more than 5% of the catch would automatically be considered ‘main’, while species with a smaller catch would considered on the basis of catch size, vulnerability and value.

2. Sources of data

2187R01C 77

The DFFU / Doggerbank fishery has seven observer reports in total, covering two of the vessels (Baldvin and Kiel) (8). The Farnella participated in a Fisheries Science Partnership (FSP) project from 2007-2009, which included three observed trips, however data from only one trip was presented in the final report (6). Some data is also given from the other FSP project which tested the eliminator trawl (7) – this essentially confirms the same dataset although it is less quantitative. For more information see rationale for PI 2.2.3 below.

3. DFFU and Doggerbank

The team reviewed the seven observer reports to assess whether any species could be considered main. Table 6 shows the maximum percentage of any by-catch (i.e. discarded) species in any observer report.

Table 6. Maximum percentage of by-catch species in any DFFU / Doggerbank observer report. All other species never exceeded 1% of the total catch in any report.

species maximum % ICES Subarea ICES status ref redfish 2.34 IV see PI 2.1.1 argentine (Argentina no advice – not sphyraena) 1.87 IV generally targeted hake 1.65 IV stock status OK 39 American plaice or long no advice rough dab (Hippoglossoides platessoides) 1.57 IIb full reproductive 51 mackerel (Scomber capacity but scombrus) 1.55 IV overfished stock status 42 ling 1.01 IV unknown

Redfish is usually retained and is therefore discussed under retained species above (PIs 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 2.1.3). The team could find no evidence that any of the other species were particularly vulnerable; the fishing mortality on mackerel is considered by ICES to be too high, but the catch by this fishery is trivial compared to the catch by targeted fisheries (estimated at 611 000 tonnes in 2008 - 51). With the exception of redfish and hake, the other species listed above are not the main target species of fisheries. The team therefore concluded that there were no main by-catch species.

On this basis, the team concluded that SG 80 was automatically met.

SG 100 requires consideration of all by-catch species. Given the observer coverage (not 100%) and the low rate of discarding in this fishery, the team could not even be 100%

2187R01C 78

certain that all by-catch species were identified, and it is clear that for many of them, there is no ‘high degree of certainty’ about the biological status of the stock. Therefore no part of SG 100 was met.

The overall score for DFFU and Doggerbank was therefore 80.

4. UK Fisheries

A full list of discarded species from the FSP reports (6,7) is given in Table 7.

Table 7. Species discarded by the Farnella more than 95% of the time during observer trip in 2009 (data from 6,7). Note that the data are by number of fish rather than by weight – this will have the effect of exaggerating the percentage of smaller species caught relative to the other data presented in this report.

Species Number Number % catch by retained discarded number hake Merluccius merluccius 19 421 0.66 grey gurnard Eutrigla gurnardus 0 392 0.59 rabbitfish Chimaera monstrosa 0 358 0.53 mackerel Scomber scombrus 0 279 0.42 squid (unidentified) Ommastrephidae 0 221 0.33 cuckoo ray Raja naevus 0 77 0.12 witch Glypotocephalus cynoglossus 0 76 0.11 argentine Argentinidae 0 54 0.081 northern squid Loligo forbesi 0 50 0.075 greater forkbeard Phycis blennoides 0 49 0.073 round skate Rajella fyllae 0 36 0.054 starry ray Raja radiata 0 31 0.046 Norway pout Trisopterus esmarki 0 31 0.046 blue whiting Micromesistius poutassou 0 27 0.04 American plaice Hippoglossoides 0 26 0.039 platessoides herring Clupea harengus 0 14 0.021 Norway lobster Nephrops norvegicus 0 11 0.016 red gurnard Aspitrigla cuculus 0 5 0.0075 blackmouth dogfish Galeus 0 5 0.0075 melastomus

2187R01C 79

common dragonet Callionymus lyra 0 1 0.001 dab Limanda limanda 0 1 0.001 longnosed skate Dipturus oxyrinchus 0 1 0.001

Peer reviewer 2 was concerned about catches of D. oxyrinchus, which, while not protected is considered to be vulnerable and depleted in some areas (see references provided by peer reviewer 2). The team reviewed the relevant report and found that catches of D. oxyrinchus are so negligible in this fishery that the species did not merit consideration as a ‘main’ by-catch species.

No species represents more than 1% of the catch by number. The team decided that as for DFFU and Doggerbank, this fishery had no main by-catch species. Thus SG 80 is automatically met.

As for DFFU and Doggerbank, the information was insufficient both at the level of the fishery and the stocks, for any of SG 100 to be met – therefore the overall score for UK Fisheries Ltd. was 80.

2.2.2 Management strategy

There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations.

SG 60: There are measures in place, if necessary, which are expected to maintain main bycatch species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or to ensure that the fishery does not hinder their recovery. The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species).

SG 80: There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, for managing bycatch that is expected to maintain main bycatch species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or to ensure that the fishery does not hinder their recovery. There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved. There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully.

SG 100: There is a strategy in place for managing and minimising bycatch. The strategy is mainly based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved, and testing supports high confidence that the strategy will work. There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring. There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective.

2187R01C 80

Score : UK Fisheries Ltd. 85 Score : DFFU and Doggerbank 85

Rationale

For definition of ‘main by-catch species’ see 2.2.1. No main by-catch species have been defined for either fishery.

The team considered in general terms that there was a strategy for managing by-catch - the gear type (120mm mesh size) and the fishing technique (5) means that by-catch levels are minimal. The team considered that SG 80 was met because all necessary actions to minimise by-catch were in place, that the outcome was successful and that based on by- catch levels this fishery was highly unlikely to have any impact on populations of by- catch species. However, the strategy is general, rather than based on the particular fishery and species involved here, and it does not have particular objectives, nor has it been specifically tested. Therefore, only one element of SG 100 is met. This gives a maximum score of 85, which applies to both fisheries.

Therefore for both fisheries the score was 85.

2.2.3 Information / monitoring

Information on the nature and amount of bycatch is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch

SG 60: Qualitative information is available on the amount of main bycatch species affected by the fishery. Information is adequate to broadly understand outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. Information is adequate to support measures to manage bycatch

SG 80: Qualitative information and some quantitative information are available on the amount of main bycatch species affected by the fishery. Information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main bycatch species. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to main bycatch species (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy).

SG 100: Accurate and verifiable information is available on the amount of all bycatch and the consequences for the status of affected populations. Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits with a high degree of certainty. Information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage bycatch, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is 2187R01C 81

achieving its objective. Monitoring of bycatch data is conducted in sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities to all bycatch species.

Score : UK Fisheries Ltd. 80 Score : DFFU and Doggerbank 80

Rationale

No main by-catch species has been defined for either fishery.

1. DFFU and Doggerbank

For DFFU and Doggerbank, information on by-catch species comes from seven observer reports ranging in date from 2006 to 2009, all from either the Kiel or the Baldvin (8). The saithe fisheries of the two companies are grouped together as the ‘Deutsche Hochseefischerei’ for the purposes of the observer programme (as well as for quota allocation and other management purposes), and since Doggerbank until recently had observers on board regularly for its pelagic fishery, the saithe fishery observers have been concentrated on DFFU vessels to share out costs. In addition, at least one vessel (the Gerda Maria) has no space on board for observers, and clearly the vessels that entered the fishery recently (such as the Atlantic Peace) have had less opportunity for observer coverage.

The team considered that despite the lack of observer coverage of all vessels, sufficient quantitative information on by-catch was provided by the observer programme to assess by-catch in sufficient detail – particularly given the low by-catch rates and the fact that there are no main by-catch species. Since SG 80 refers only to ‘main’ by-catch species, the team considered that it was automatically met.

SG 100 requires that accurate and verifiable information is available on all by-catch in this fishery and on its consequences for population status. Given the limited observer coverage, this is clearly not the case for this fishery. In addition, the population status of all by-catch species is not known accurately – e.g. for small pelagic species where stock assessment is difficult. SG 100 is therefore not met in its main elements, and the team considered that the highest possible score was 80.

2. UK Fisheries Ltd.

For the Farnella, information on by-catch species comes from two observed trips as part of joint scientific projects (6,7). This is again a relatively low rate of coverage but the team considered that given the low by-catch rates and lack of main by-catch species it was sufficient. Since SG 80 refers only to ‘main’ by-catch species, the team considered it was automatically met. As for DFFU and Doggerbank, SG 100 was not met.

2187R01C 82

2.3 ETP species

2.3.1 Outcome status

The fishery meets national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

SG 60: Known effects of the fishery are likely to be within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. Known direct effects are unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species

SG 80: The effects of the fishery are known and are highly likely to be within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. Direct effects are highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species. Indirect effects have been considered and are thought to be unlikely to create unacceptable impacts

SG 100: There is a high degree of certainty that the effects of the fishery are within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. There is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental effects (direct and indirect) of the fishery on ETP species

Score : UK Fisheries Ltd. 75 Score : DFFU and Doggerbank 75

Rationale

1. Definitions

ETP species are defined by MSC as follows: ‘Endangered, threatened or protected species are those that are recognised by national legislation and/or binding international agreements (e.g. CITES) to which the jurisdictions controlling the fishery under assessment are party.’

* FAM (1), page 32, Section 7.1.1.

2. Protected species under the above definition

Table 8 below shows the species that might be relevant, according to the above definition. These are species which are present in the areas in which UK Fisheries Ltd and DFFU and Doggerbank saithe fisheries operate, and which are protected in some way. The sources of protection considered were i) EU legislation; ii) national legislation (Norway, UK, Germany); iii) binding international agreements (OSPAR, CITES)

2187R01C 83

Species were selected by the team to be relevant if there was any possibility of overlap with the UK Fisheries Ltd and DFFU and Doggerbank fishing operations by i) geographic distribution only (for terrestrial or pelagic species) or by i) geographic distribution and depth (for marine benthic species).

Table 8. Protected species that might interact with this fishery, based on geographic distribution.

Species Source of protection Ocean quahog Arctica islandica OSPAR (50) Cold water coral Lophelia pertusa OSPAR (52 - note: considered a habitat type), EU and Norwegian legislation (5) Basking shark Cetorhinus maximus OSPAR, UK legislation (53), EU regulation (5) White shark Carcharodon carcharias EU regulation Angel shark Squatina squatina OSPAR and EU regulation *Porbeagle Lamna nasus OSPAR *Common skate Dipturus (Raja) batis OSPAR, EU regulation *Spotted ray Raja (Dipturus) montagui OSPAR *Thornback ray Raja clavata OSPAR (North Sea only) *White skate Rostroraja alba OSPAR Whales (any species) CITES (11) Common or harbour seal Phoca vitulina UK legislation Grey seal Halichoerus grypus UK legislation Bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus CITES, ASCOBANS (54) Harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena CITES, OSPAR, ASCOBANS Sea birds UK legislation (53) bans intentional killing of wild birds *Note that the OSPAR listing states that OSPAR has no jurisdiction in relation to fisheries management for these species

3. Cetaceans, seals

The fishing companies both stated that there were never interactions with cetaceans and seals, although cetaceans were sometimes seen by fishing vessel crew. Negative interactions are in any case highly unlikely with this type of fishery. The team considered that SG 100 was met for this scoring element for both fisheries.

4. Seabirds

The team could find no evidence of significant negative interactions with seabirds, although one vessel captain reported that gannets would occasionally dive into the net or be injured by contact with cables – amounting to not more than an estimated 2 or 3 birds per year. This interaction was never recorded by observers. The team considered that this interaction was not significant and that SG 100 was met for both fisheries. 2187R01C 84

5. Sharks (excluding skates and rays)

None of the four sharks listed above were reported ever to be caught by any of the fishing vessels or observers. For the white shark, basking shark and porbeagle their pelagic habitat and ability to detect trawls from a distance makes negative interactions unlikely. The angel shark is most likely extinct in the North Sea (55) and does not occur in the Arctic (56), so this species does not overlap in geographic distribution with the fishery. The team therefore considered that SG 100 was met for this element for both fisheries.

6. Common skate

The common skate is a demersal species that lives mainly between 0 and 200 m depth, although it is occasionally found down to 600 m (57). These fisheries operate mainly between 150 and 300 m. Thus there is an overlap in depth range with these fisheries. In terms of geographic range, the common skate occurs in the North Sea and some distance up the coast of Norway, but not in the Arctic. Thus there is also a geographic overlap.

DFFU and Doggerbank: D. batis appears twice in the observers reports, with a total catch over all the observed trips of 250 kg (45 kg and 205 kg). 643 trawls in total were observed. These were discarded as required by EU legislation, however awareness about the details of the regulation (that they should be returned to the sea as quickly as possible with as little harm as possible) was low. It is thus possible that this fishery does not meet the full requirements of the regulation and is not doing as much as it could to reduce negative interactions with D. batis as far as possible. Overall, the team concluded that while the direct impacts were ‘likely’ not to cause harm to the species, the criterion of ‘highly unlikely’ was not met. Thus two parts of SG 80 were not met, giving a score of 70 for this fishery and scoring element.

UK Fisheries Ltd. The observed trip for the eliminator trawl trial (7) showed that some D. batis was caught – in total 15 animals of which 7 were caught in the control (standard) gear and 8 in the eliminator gear. These were discarded. The other observer report (6) does not include any catches of D. batis. In this case, a full identification key for skates and rays is on board, which includes an explanation of the regulation for this species. Again, however, the team concluded that more could probably be done to reduce negative interactions, and that the ‘highly unlikely’ requirement in SG 80 was not met, giving a score of 70 for this fishery and scoring element.

7. Other skates and rays

Other skates and rays reported by observers include Raja radiata, R. naevus and Rajella fyllae (both companies), Raja circularis, Bathyraja pallida (DFFU / Doggerbank – note: according to peer reviewer 2 this is likely to be a mis-identification) and Dipturus oxyrinchus (UK Fisheries Ltd.). None of these species are listed as protected on any of the lists consulted by the team.

2187R01C 85

8. Ocean quahog (Arctica islandica)

The distribution of Arctica islandica in UK waters is given in the map below (data from NBN gateway). Comparison with Figures 1 and 2 in the main report show that there might be some overlap between the fishery and the distribution of Arctica to the northeast of Shetland.

There is evidence that this species has been reduced in the southern North Sea due to beam trawling (58). However, the team also notes that populations of Arctica in the northern North Sea are considered high (59) – particularly in the Fladen Ground which is a very important area for Nephrops trawling.

The team therefore felt that there was no evidence that otter trawling posed a significant threat to this species. However, the team noted (following the comment of peer reviewer 1) that it is not possible to have a ‘high degree of certainty’ that this species suffers no damage from trawling, although given the nature of the gear (no tickler chain or beam), the team were relatively confident. This scoring element scores 90 for both fisheries.

9. Lophelia pertusa

Lophelia pertusa is considered by OSPAR as a threatened habitat rather than a protected species. However, it is protected in some areas of Norwegian and Scottish waters by a ban on trawling (5) which is respected by both fisheries. The team followed the lead of OSPAR in considering the wider distribution of Lophelia under habitats below.

2187R01C 86

10. Scoring

The overall score for each fishery cannot be higher than 75 because conditions need to apply to the common skate element (which scored 70 for both fisheries). However all the other scoring elements scored 100 for both fisheries, so the overall score for both fisheries is 75.

11. Conditions

This condition applies to the common skate Dipturus batis and to both DFFU and Doggerbank and UK Fisheries Ltd. Information on catches of common skate by these fisheries needs to be improved to the point where the impact of the fisheries on this species can be properly quantified. Catches of common skate must be dealt with in full accordance with the EU legislation, with the aim of minimising mortality as far as possible.

2.3.2 Management strategy

The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: - meet national and international requirements; - ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species; - ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and - minimise mortality of ETP species.

SG 60: There are measures in place that minimise mortality and injury, and are expected to achieve the ETP Outcome PI 80 level of performance or above. The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g. general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species).

SG 80: There is a strategy in place for managing the fishery’s impact on ETP species, including measures to minimise mortality, that is designed to achieve the ETP Outcome PI 80 level of performance or above. There is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved. There is evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully.

SG 100: There is a comprehensive strategy in place for managing the fishery’s impact on ETP species, including measures to minimise mortality, that is designed to achieve above the ETP Outcome PI 80 level of performance. The strategy is mainly based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved, and a quantitative analysis supports high confidence that the strategy will work. There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring. There is evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective.

Score : UK Fisheries Ltd. 80 2187R01C 87

Score : DFFU and Doggerbank 70

Rationale

A list of relevant ETP species is given in the rationale for 2.3.1 above.

From PI 2.3.1 above, the key relevant species is the common skate Dipturus batis. Since the other scoring elements in PI 2.3.1 scored 100 for both fisheries, the team decided that no further strategy was required to manage impacts, and the team have therefore scored with PI in relation to the common skate only.

As of 2009, a strategy for the management of interactions of this species with fishery has been put in place at EU level (5). The elements of the strategy are as follows:

• All rays and skate brought on board are required to be identified in logbooks to species level. • Three species, including the common skate, are required to be discarded alive as far as possible. Crews should take measures to maximise survival; i.e. rapid discarding in a careful fashion.

The team considered that this regulation comprised a strategy, and that there was an objective basis to think that it would work – rays and other elasmobranchs are usually regarded as quite robust, with handling mortality low if they are treated with care (60). The strategy is being fully implemented by UK Fisheries Ltd. on the Farnella – the vessel’s operating manual (seen by the assessment team) includes details of the strategy and identification sheets for ray and skate species. The issue has also been raised verbally with the relevant crew members (main and relief) on the Farnella by the vessel’s management company. The team was therefore satisfied that the strategy was being appropriately followed on board. However, the team did not consider that the regulations set out above of themselves constituted a ‘comprehensive strategy’ – so a score above 80 was not given.

The strategy is not being implemented as fully by DFFU / Doggerbank vessels, where awareness of the issue seemed to be low. The team considered that only two of the three elements of SG 80 are met for this fishery, leading to a score of 70.

Condition

This condition applies to DFFU and Doggerbank only. The EU regulation on common skate must be fully implemented on board all fishing vessels in the Unit of Certification.

2.3.3 Information / monitoring

2187R01C 88

Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, including: - 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.

SG 60: Information is adequate to broadly understand the impact of the fishery on ETP species. Information is adequate to support measures to manage the impacts on ETP species. Information is sufficient to qualitatively estimate the fishery related mortality of ETP species.

SG 80: Information is sufficient to determine whether the fishery may be a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species, and if so, to measure trends and support a full strategy to manage impacts. Sufficient data are available to allow fishery related mortality and the impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated for ETP species.

SG 100: Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status with a high degree of certainty. 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. Accurate and verifiable information is available on the magnitude of all impacts, mortalities and injuries and the consequences for the status of ETP species.

Score : UK Fisheries Ltd. 70 Score : DFFU and Doggerbank 70

Rationale

A list of relevant ETP species is given in the rationale for 2.3.1 above.

1. Species other than common skate

For all species except the common skate, the team was confident that, given the nature of the fishery and the species involved, the level of fishing mortality and the nature of the threat posed by this fishery could be confidently and quantitatively predicted. The team further considered that outcome status with regard to this fishery could be estimated with a high degree of certainty and that impacts could be minimised with a high degree of certainty. Some concern has been expressed about interactions of birds with trawlers (e.g. in the Southern Ocean) but the team were satisfied that these are minimal in this case (6,8).

2. Common skate

The team considered that semi-quantitative information on common skate was available from observer and scientific reports, sufficient to estimate the impact of the fishery on the population – i.e. SG 60 is met. This information may allow some analysis of trends, but is 2187R01C 89

not sufficient to carry out a proper quantitative assessment, so only part of SG 80 is met. This lead to a score of 70 for both Units of Certification.

3. Conditions

The companies need to provide sufficient information on their catches of common skate such that a quantitative analysis of the impact of the fishery on common skate is possible. This includes information on i) retained catches (including for consumption on board); and ii) discards, with information on date and location of the catch. The fishing company or a scientific body will review this data periodically to assess impacts and trends. This condition can be dealt with as a component of the condition for 2.3.1.

2.4 Habitat

2.4.1 Outcome status

The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function.

SG 60: The fishery is unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.

SG 80: The fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.

SG 100: There is evidence that the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.

Score : UK Fisheries Ltd. 90 Score : DFFU and Doggerbank 90

Breakdown of scores by species

Deep-sea Lophelia Modiolus Seapens Overall sponges reefs reefs and score burrowing megafauna DFFU / 80 80 100 100 90 Doggerbank UK n/a 80 100 100 90 Fisheries Ltd.

2187R01C 90

Rationale

1. Gear - action on bottom

The gear used by the fishery is a demersal ‘rockhopper’ otter trawl, with relatively large and heavy otter boards (3.6-5 tonnes depending on vessel and depth). The gear operates on or near the bottom, and may thus a priori be predicted to cause some damage to benthic habitats. The rockhopper type gear reduces damage relative to a simple tickler chain, but the contact of the trawl doors with the bottom causes a clear trail which can be seen, for example, using side-scan sonar (61). Demersal otter trawling is known to cause damage to benthic habitats (e.g. 62), and ICES estimate that otter trawling in the northern North Sea removes or kills approximately 25% of the standing crop biomass annually (63).

2. Fishing area

The main report gives fishing positions for the Farnella (from March 2007 to February 2009) (Figure 1) and for DFFU and Doggerbank vessels (Figure 2).

3. Distribution of sensitive habitats in relation to fishing activity

Information on sensitive habitats in the Northeast Atlantic is available from OSPAR (52). Map are available showing areas where a variety of threatened or declining habitats have been found to occur. These maps were examined by the team for possible overlaps with the maps above. Table 9 below shows the list of OSPAR habitats with their potential geographic and depth overlap.

Table 9. List of OSPAR sensitive habitats (some grouped together) and their possible geographic and depth overlap with the fisheries under assessment. A blank ( - ) means that the information was not searched for, since any overlap had already been ruled out. Data from reference 52.

Habitat type Geographic Depth overlap with Relevant? overlap with fisheries? fisheries? Carbonate mounds No No No Deep sea sponges Yes – DFFU and Yes – depth 250- Yes – DFFU / Doggerbank only 1300 m Doggerbank only Intertidal mudflats - No No Intertidal Mytilus - No No edulis Littoral chalk No - No Lophelia pertusa Yes – both fisheries Yes – depth 200- Yes – both fisheries reefs 2000 m Maerl beds - No No 2187R01C 91

Modiolus modiolus Yes – both fisheries Yes – down to Yes – both fisheries reefs 280m Hydrothermal vents No - No Ostrea edulis reefs No - No Sabellaria reefs No - No Seamounts No - No Seapens and Yes – both fisheries Yes – 15-200 m Yes – both fisheries burrowing megafauna Zostera beds - No No

4. Sensitive habitats in fishing area

From Table 9 we have the following list of sensitive habitats which potentially occur in the fishing area: i) deep-sea sponges; ii) Lophelia pertusa reefs; iii) Modiolus reefs and iv) seapens and burrowing megafauna.

4.1 Deep-sea sponges

The distribution of deep-sea sponges is shown in the map below (52).

2187R01C 92

Deep- sea sponge communities occur around the coast of central and northern Norway and are therefore relevant for DFFU / Doggerbank only. The depth range of this habitat is 250–1300 m. The fishery occurs down to 300m maximum, giving an overlap of approximately 5% of the habitat. On this basis the team felt that the fishery was highly unlikely to cause serious or irreversible harm, i.e. SG 80 is met. However, direct evidence is lacking so SG 100 is not met. The score for DFFU / Doggerbank for this element was therefore 80. For UK Fisheries Ltd. this habitat is not relevant.

4.2 Lophelia reefs

The distribution of Lophelia reefs is shown in the map below (52).

Lophelia reefs occur around the coast of Norway, in the northern North Sea and around the Shetland Islands, so may overlap geographically with both fisheries. The depth distribution of Lophelia pertusa is from 200 m to 2000 m (they can occur more shallowly, but rarely). This leads to an overlap of the fisheries with approximately 5% of the depth range of the habitat. In terms of geographic overlap, the fisheries were estimated by the team to covers approximately 10% of the distribution of Lophelia. Overall, the team therefore felt that the likelyhood of severe impact was highly unlikely – i.e. SG 80 is met for both fisheries. However again direct evidence is lacking so SG 100 is not met, giving an score of 80 for this element for both fisheries.

4.3 Modiolus reefs 2187R01C 93

The distribution of Modiolus reefs is shown in the map below (52).

Modiolus reefs occur around the Shetland Islands and the coast of Norway and Spitzbergen, so may potentially overlap with both fisheries. While Modiolus may occur as deep as 280 m (64), it is usually found much more shallow than this – basically shallower than 70 m (52) - even occasionally in the intertidal. The team therefore considered that this habitat was highly unlikely to overlap with the fisheries in any way. They considered the information on the ecology of Modiolus to be ‘evidence’ of this and on this basis considered that SG 100 was met for both fisheries.

4.4 Seapens and burrowing megafauna

Seapens and burrowing megafauna habitat occur in parts of the northern North Sea and around southern Norway – i.e. it potentially overlaps with both fisheries. However, a closer inspection of the distribution map below (Figure 1) shows that the habitat occurs in different areas to those used by this fishery – mainly in the Fladen Ground in the northern North Sea which is an important Nephrops fishing ground but not used by this fishery.

Figure 1. OSPAR distribution map for seapens and burrowing megafauna.

2187R01C 94

On this basis, the team considered that as for Modiolus, SG 100 was met by this fishery.

2.4.2 Management strategy

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types.

SG 60: There are measures in place, if necessary, that are expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance. The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/habitats).

SG 80: There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above. There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or habitats involved. There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully.

SG 100: There is a strategy in place for managing the impact of the fishery on habitat types. The strategy is mainly based on information directly about the fishery and/or 2187R01C 95

habitats involved, and testing supports high confidence that the strategy will work. There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring. There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective.

Score : UK Fisheries Ltd. 60 Score : DFFU and Doggerbank 60

Rationale

The team noted that there are several measures in place to avoid trawling by these fisheries in sensitive habitat areas. Areas with carbonate mounds have been closed to all bottom trawling (5), and the tracking of fishing vessels by VMS (position given every hour or two hours) make it highly unlikely that these rules are being breached. There are also some observer (or scientific research) reports for both fisheries (6,7,8) which do not suggest any negative habitat interactions, although this was not the main purpose of the observers. However, neither fishery has the VMS feed in their office, so they are not able to check in real time that their vessels are not having habitat impacts.

The team considered that the above can be considered ‘measures’, and that they were likely to work based on plausible argument. However, the team considered that they did not comprise a ‘partial strategy’, and that there was a lack of information directly about the interaction of these fisheries with habitats, so that SG 80 is not met. The overall score for both fisheries was 60.

Condition

This condition applies to both DFFU / Doggerbank and UK Fisheries Ltd. The fishing companies should develop a partial strategy to monitor habitats in their fishing area and avoid fishing in sensitive areas.

2.4.3 Information / monitoring

Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types.

SG 60: There is a basic understanding of the types and distribution of main habitats in the area of the fishery. Information is adequate to broadly understand the main impacts of gear use on the main habitats, including spatial extent of interaction.

SG 80: The nature, distribution and vulnerability of all main habitat types in the fishery area are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery. Sufficient data are available to allow the nature of the impacts of the fishery on habitat types to be identified and there is reliable information on the spatial extent, timing and 2187R01C 96

location of use of the fishing gear. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to habitat (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures).

SG 100: The distribution of habitat types is known over their range, with particular attention to the occurrence of vulnerable habitat types. Changes in habitat distributions over time are measured. The physical impacts of the gear on the habitat types have been quantified fully.

Score : UK Fisheries Ltd. 85 Score : DFFU and Doggerbank 85

Rationale

There are data on habitats for the fishing areas for each fishery. They are not very detailed, but compared to most marine areas the data coverage is reasonable (Figure 2). The datapoint densities for the North Sea (saithe fishing areas – see Figures 1 and 2 of the main report) and the Northeast Arctic areas are similar.

Figure 2. OSPAR map of sample density for habitat maps.

2187R01C 97

The impacts of otter trawls on benthic habitats are well known (e.g. 61,62). The timing, location and spatial extent of the use of fishing gear is known from VMS and logbook data. Increases in risk to habitat are considered by the team to be unlikely, but could be inferred from changes in fishing operations. ICES collects information on habitat impacts of fisheries on an ongoing basis (65).

Overall, given the habitat maps, VMS data and information on impacts of gears the team considered that SG 80 was met. For SG 100, the distribution of most habitats is probably known more or less over the range. However, there is no quantitative information on gear impacts or changes in habitat distribution over time, so most of SG 100 is not met, giving an overall score of 85 for both.

2187R01C 98

2.5 Ecosystem

2.5.1 Outcome status

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

SG 60: The fishery is unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm.

SG 80: The fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm.

SG 100: There is evidence that the fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm.

Score : UK Fisheries Ltd. 85 Score : DFFU and Doggerbank 85

Rationale

The North Sea ecosystem is relatively well-known compared to most other marine systems (e.g. CEFAS has constructed an ecosystem model – 33), and ICES takes ecosystem impacts into account in fisheries assessment and advice, in as far as this is possible (11,12). The Arctic ecosystem is less well known, although good information is available on key fish stocks, physical oceanography (e.g. temperature) and primary productivity (see over-view 95 and references therein).

The role of saithe in these ecosystems is also relatively well understood. Adult saithe are predators of other smaller fish – i.e. have a high trophic level (2,3). They are not major prey for any other predators, although they may be a minor component of the diet of sperm whales in some areas (they probably live too deep to be important prey for seals and small cetaceans). The fishery is quite monospecific, and the saithe stocks in question are in good condition (11,12), although saithe has declined in the North Sea over the last 120 years, according to CEFAS (66).

The status of the target stocks and the main retained stocks is good (see rationales for Principle 1 and PIs 2.1). The team considered that they would therefore be able to fulfill their ecological role in the system. These fisheries were thus unlikely to have ecosystem level impacts. In addition, the fisheries are not targeting juveniles in the middle of food chain – they are rather targeting adults which are not important prey species – i.e. they are at the top of food chain. Fishbase gives a high trophic level for saithe (4.38), cod (4.42) and haddock (4.09) (2,67,68).

2187R01C 99

The team considered that because the target stocks are in good condition, and the stocks of main retained and by-catch species are also in good condition, these stocks should be able to fulfil their ecological role without impacts from this fishery. For the Arctic fishery, the stocks of main retained species (cod and haddock) are also in good condition (36,37). For the North Sea fishery, cod stocks are, however, not in good condition (14), and cod is thus unlikely to be fulfilling its historic ecological role in the ecosystem. However, the by-catch of cod from this fishery is relatively low – as witness the derogation as to mesh size that the fishery enjoys in the North Sea. It is clear that benthic trawling has had major impacts on these ecosystems, particularly the North Sea, but also the Arctic (see comment by peer reviewer 2) over a century or more (see for example references given by peer reviewer 1). The team decided, however, that impacts should be considered on a fishery-by-fishery basis rather than considering fisheries impacts on the ecosystem as a whole. Habitat impacts were assessed to be at acceptable levels overall, although improved information on habitat impacts has been required as one of the conditions on the fishery for MSC certification.

Overall, the team considered that the fishery was highly unlikely to disrupt key elements of ecosystem structure and function; i.e. that SG 80 was met. There is some evidence, as set out above, but the conclusion in the main comes from inference – i.e. SG 100 is not met in full. The team decided an overall score of 85 was appropriate.

2.5.2 Management strategy

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

SG 60: There are measures in place, if necessary, that take into account potential impacts of the fishery on key elements of the ecosystem. The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (eg, general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/ ecosystems).

SG 80: There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that takes into account available information and is expected to restrain impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem so as to achieve the Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance. The partial strategy is considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (eg, general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/ ecosystems). There is some evidence that the measures comprising the partial strategy are being implemented successfully.

SG 100: There is a strategy that consists of a plan, containing measures to address all main impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem, and at least some of these measures are in place. The plan and measures are based on well-understood functional relationships between the fishery and the Components and elements of the ecosystem. This plan 2187R01C 100

provides for development of a full strategy that restrains impacts on the ecosystem to ensure the fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm. The measures are considered likely to work based on prior experience, plausible argument or information directly from the fishery/ecosystems involved. There is evidence that the measures are being implemented successfully.

Score : UK Fisheries Ltd. 80 Score : DFFU and Doggerbank 80

Rationale

There are a series of measures in place which consider the impacts of fisheries on ecosystem structure and function, which the team considered comprised a ‘partial strategy’. This includes i) a consideration of ecosystem elements in ICES assessments and advice, as required by the Common Fisheries Policy (e.g. 11); and ii) other legislation such as the OSPAR Convention and the Habitats Directive (52,69). The team considered that this strategy was likely to work in avoiding significant ecosystem impacts of these fisheries, and that there was evidence that the strategy is being implemented (e.g. closed areas in sensitive habitats (5), ICES advice is being followed). The team had a query about the possible ecosystem impacts of discarded waste from onboard processing, which has been shown to have some ecosystem-level impacts: however they did not consider that this issue merited a reduction in the score below 80.

SG 100 requires a strategy for the fishery based on well-understood functional relationships. The team considered that this did not exist, therefore SG 100 is not met. The overall score for both fisheries was therefore 80.

2.5.3 Information / monitoring

There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem.

Information is adequate to identify the key elements of the ecosystem (e.g. trophic structure and function, community composition, productivity pattern and biodiversity).

SG 60: Main impacts of the fishery on these key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, but have not been investigated in detail.

SG 80: Information is adequate to broadly understand the functions of the key elements of the ecosystem. Main impacts of the fishery on these key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, but may not have been investigated in detail. The main functions of the Components (i.e. target, by-catch, retained and ETP species and habitats) in the ecosystem are known. Sufficient information is available on the impacts of the fishery on these Components to allow some of the main consequences for the 2187R01C 101

ecosystem to be inferred. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures).

SG 100: Information is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem. Main interactions between the fishery and these ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, and have been investigated. The impacts of the fishery on target, by-catch, retained, ETP and habitats are identified and the main functions of these Components in the ecosystem are understood. Sufficient information is available on the impacts of the fishery on the Components and elements to allow the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. Information is sufficient to support the development of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts.

Score : UK Fisheries Ltd. 95 Score : DFFU and Doggerbank 95

Rationale

The team considered that information, as outlined above (see rationale for 2.5.1 and 2.5.2) is sufficient to understand key elements of ecosystem structure and function, and that the impacts of the fishery on these key elements can be inferred. The role of main retained and by-catch species in the ecosystem, and the impacts of the fishery on these, as well as on ETP species and habitats, is also broadly understood (see for example ICES advice for retained species – 11,12,12,14,15,16,36,37,38 etc. – see rationales for Component 1 of Principle 2). The team considered that this information was sufficient to infer the ecosystem-level impacts of the fishery, and to support a strategy to manage these impacts. Most of the elements of SG 100 are thus met, except that the interactions of the fishery with key ecosystem elements have not been specifically investigated. The interaction of the fishery with the common skate is also not very well understood (see PI 2.3.3). The team therefore gave a score of 95.

Principle 3

The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable

2187R01C 102

3.1 Governance and policy

3.1.1 Legal and/or customary framework

The management system exists within an appropriate and effective legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: - Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2; - Observes the legal rights created explicitly or by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and - Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework.

SG 60: The management system is generally consistent with local, national or international laws or standards that are aimed at achieving sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2. The management system incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes arising within the system. Although the management authority or fishery may be subject to continuing court challenges, it is not indicating a disrespect or defiance of the law by repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery. The management system generally recognises and respects the legal rights created explicitly or by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. SG 80: The management system is generally consistent with local, national or international laws or standards that are aimed at achieving sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2. The management system incorporates or is subject by law to a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes which is considered to be effective in dealing with most issues and that is appropriate to the context of the fishery. The management system or fishery is attempting to comply in a timely fashion with binding judicial decisions arising from any legal challenges. The management system observes the legal rights created explicitly or by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. SG 100: The management system is generally consistent with local, national or international laws or standards that are aimed at achieving sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2. The management system incorporates or is subject by law to a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes that is appropriate to the context of the fishery and has been tested and proven to be effective. The management system or fishery acts proactively to avoid legal disputes or rapidly implements binding judicial decisions arising from legal challenges. The management system is formally committed to the legal rights created explicitly or by custom on people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. Score: UK fisheries 95 Score: DFFU and Doggerbank 95

2187R01C 103

Rationale The North Sea (IIIa-IV-VI) saithe is a shared stock and jointly managed by the European Union and Norway (70,71). The North East Arctic (I-II) saithe stock is managed by Norway. From the point of view of European-registered fishing vessels, the European Common Fisheries (CFP) is the overarching governance framework for both the North Sea and the North East Arctic saithe fisheries. According to the main objectives of the CFP, fishing opportunities are set at levels which ensures sustainable exploitation of resources in environmental, economic and social terms (basic fisheries regulation (2371/2002) (72)). In Norwegian waters, the North Sea and the North East Arctic saithe fisheries are governed by the Norwegian management system of policies and instruments, especially the 2009 Marine Resources Act that replaced the Seawater Fisheries Act of 1983 (73), which is based on established principles for international fisheries management cooperation. The Norwegian legislation imposes stricter technical measures in its waters than those applying in European waters. In particular, it requires that trawlers use mesh sizes of 120mm or more, and that no commercial fish species be discarded. All vessels in the unit of certification carry nets with a cod end mesh of 125-128mm to comply with these requirements when they fish in Norwegian waters. Norway and the European Union ratified the 1982 UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (74) in 1996 and 1998 respectively, and have also played an active part in the development of three instruments that frame their fisheries management systems: - the Agreement to promote compliance with international conservation and management measures by fishing vessels on the high seas, adopted by the FAO in 1993 (75), - the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, adopted by the FAO Conference in November 1995 (76), - the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the Convention relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (in force from 11 December 2001) (77). Both the European Union and Norway are also active partners of a number of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs), created to guarantee the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fish resources in the open seas, play a key role in combating illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU) and destructive fishing practices, which damage fragile habitats, in particular seamounts and cold water corals (see 5). Norway is a member of the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) to the same extent as all European member states involved in the saithe fisheries and

2187R01C 104

participates in its work through collaborative research programmes such as stock assessment working groups, and in NEAFC and NAFO at a management level. The CFP and Norwegian fisheries management systems are explicitly aimed at achieving sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2. The vessels are registered in the UK, Germany and Poland. Furthermore, they land their catch in Denmark, Scotland (UK), Germany, and sometimes in Iceland. The North Sea fishery takes place outside territorial waters. Therefore, national legal instruments apply with respect in particular to fishing authorisation, quota administration and management, and to the monitoring and surveillance of activities and landings, namely:

• UK: Fishing quotas are allocated annually by UK Fisheries Ministers, who make the allocation on the basis of the Fixed Quota Allocation (FQA) units associated with individual fishing vessel licences. The detailed allocation are reviewed by the UK Fisheries Administrations each year through a consultation process with the UK fishing industry (78). o The Marine Management Organisation (MMO), recently created by the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, co-ordinates an enforcement programme for monitoring, control and surveillance of all sea fishing activity within British fishery limits around the coast of England, and UK vessels operating outside those waters (79), o Marine Scotland has responsibility for fisheries issues in Scotland including the enforcement of marine and fisheries law such as the Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Quota and Third Country Fishing Measures and Restriction on Days at Sea) (Scotland) Order 2009 No. 317, regarding the Powers of British sea-fishery officers in relation to fishing boats, Community quota measures, By-catch quota (skates and rays), regulated gear, Submission of logbook at designated port; • Germany: The legislation that relates to CFP quota for saithe is implemented by the Federal Agency for Agriculture and Food (the BLE, Bundesantalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung). BLE requires the client to prepare an annual ‘Catch Plan’ for each of its fishing vessels, broken down by target species and ICES area. Inspections are carried out by the BLE to ensure compliance with this plan, and also with other legislation, such as the CFP. BLE is collecting logbooks and landing reports and is also responsible for operating the VMS system. • Poland: The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Department of Fisheries in the Ministry are the competent bodies for fisheries management in Poland. The three Regional Inspectorates of Fisheries, located in Szczecin, Slupsk and Gdynia, are responsible for management, monitoring and surveillance of fisheries at territorial level. Established in 2004, the Fisheries Monitoring Centre in Gdynia is responsible for operating the VMS (Vessel Monitoring System) and fisheries reporting system (catch and landings reports). The national legislative frameworks comply with the CFP in all matters of fisheries management for the North Sea saithe and the North East Arctic saithe fisheries. Rules 2187R01C 105

relating to the fishery are clearly set out and communicated to the participants in the fishery (5). Non-compliance is dealt with through established enforcement mechanisms, such as financial penalties and confiscation of illegal fishing gear and catch. Legal proceedings are carried out through the justice system, which provide the opportunity for defence against allegations and appeal against rulings through domestic courts and ultimately the European Court of Justice. The management systems are supported by transparent negotiation mechanisms for the resolution of legal disputes at national level. However, the breakdown of the EU-Norway negotiations in December 2009 after months of negotiations led to a two-months delay in the saithe allocations indicates some weakness of the dispute resolution mechanism for quota allocation between EU and Norway. The Common Fisheries Policy sets out a formal commitment to the legal and customary rights of people dependent on fishing (72), but these do not directly apply to the North Sea saithe fisheries, which are caught offshore. Those that apply to the North East Arctic saithe fishery are upheld prior to granting quota to third countries in the Norwegian fisheries policy and are clearly codified in the Act of 26 March 1999 relating to the Regulation of the Participation in Fisheries. There is clear and evident division of responsibility between EU, ICES (ACFM) and the national institutions and authorities. The management systems of both saithe fisheries are considered to be entirely consistent with the multi-national nature, scale and intensity of the fisheries. The management systems are well established, transparent, tried and tested, and therefore meet all of the SG80 requirements and the first two of the SG100. But, the lengthy negotiations of quota shares between the EC and Norway in 2009 suggest that it cannot always find rapid solutions. Finally, the management systems are committed to the legal rights of people depending on fishing. This indicator gets a score of 95.

3.1.2 Consultation, roles and responsibilities

The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties.

SG 60: Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are generally understood. The management system includes consultation processes that obtain relevant information from the main affected parties, including local knowledge, to inform the management system. SG 80: Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for key areas of responsibility and interaction. The management system includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge. The management system demonstrates consideration of the information 2187R01C 106

obtained. The consultation process provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved SG 100: Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction. The management system includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge. The management system demonstrates consideration of the information and explains how it is used or not used. The consultation process provides opportunity and encouragement for all interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement. Score: UK fisheries 95 Score: DFFU and Doggerbank 95

Rationale

The overarching framework for the governance for the vessels in the unit of certification in both fisheries is the same. The management system for this fishery involves scientists, stakeholders and fisheries managers in a consultative process that explicitly defines and explains the respective roles of all parties in all areas of responsibility. Scientific advice from ICES forms the core of the management system. The advice is scrutinised by the STECF an expert group of government and independent economic and management advisors nominated for three years. STECF also advises the EC on fisheries- specific aspects. One example, that illustrates an efficient flow of information and representation of fishing companies’ interests is the exemption of the Polonus FV (DFFU/Doggerbank) “a group of vessels consisting of one vessel targeting saithe in the North Sea with bottom trawls of mesh size equal to or larger than 100 mm” from measures aimed at protecting North Sea cod set out in the 2010 TAC Regulation. On the basis of information provided by Poland and assessed by STECF, the Regulation preamble (80) states that “it can be established that the cod catches, including discards, of those groups of vessels do not exceed 1.5 % of their total catches. Having moreover regard to control and monitoring measures in place ensuring the monitoring and control of the fishing activities of those groups of vessels and considering that the inclusion of these groups would constitute an administrative burden disproportionate to the overall impact of that inclusion on cod stocks, it is appropriate to exclude those groups of vessels from the application of Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008, thus allowing to establish the effort limits for the concerned Member States accordingly.” In addition to the representations fishing companies make to their national governments, there are several means of wider consultation established at European level, namely:

• The ICES Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (ACFM) has a contact group for all stakeholders at national and regional levels. 2187R01C 107

• The Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) - the North Sea (NSRAC - ICES area IV (EC waters) and IIIa) and Long Distance (LDRAC) – with their the General Assembly, Executive Committee and Working Groups allow, in addition to the fishing industry, a wide range of people to become involved including scientists, fishers, environmental specialists, economists and others. Observers attend the meetings of the Executive Committee and may include representatives of the Member States and the Commission, and participants from adjacent countries - for the NSRAC with an interest in the fisheries of the North Sea, for example Norway. The meetings of the General Assembly are open to the public (81). The activities of the RACs are open and transparent. • The Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture (ACFA) set up in 1971, to represent the main stakeholders in the common fisheries policy (CFP) including organisations from outside the industry, and enable the Commission to canvas their views on CFP issues and have an ongoing dialogue with all interested parties (82). The outcome of meetings of the Council of Ministers demonstrates that all relevant information are taken into account, and explains how decisions are made (83,84). The annual consultation process for TACs and the decadal consultation on the review of the CFP provide opportunities for stakeholders to engage directly in the management process, and this involvement is facilitated at the EC and national levels (72). At a national level, administrations operate formal consultation procedures. The saithe quota belong to (or are swapped by – in the case of Poland) each member state and are distributed among the POs based on customary rights. POs distribute their quota among their member vessels. While quotas transferred between members of a PO, they cannot be directly swapped between POs in different Member States. Such transfers have to be channelled through the BLE for Germany, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development for Poland and the MMO for England. The management system meets all of the SG80 and most of the SG 100 requirements. However, the management system does not explain how information from the consultation process is used or not used (2nd guidepost) and can therefore not score more than 95.

3.1.3 Long-term objectives

The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making that are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach

SG 60: Long-term objectives to guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach, are implicit within management policy.

2187R01C 108

SG 80: Clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach, are explicit within management policy. SG 100: Clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach, are explicit within and required by management policy Score: UK fisheries 90 Score: DFFU and Doggerbank 90

Rationale The management systems have clear long-term objectives set out in their respective management plans. The management plan for the Northeast Arctic saithe was implemented in 2007 (13). The North Sea saithe management plan agreed by the EU and Norway in 2004 (12,29) was reviewed by ICES in 2007 (85). It forms an integral part of the EU-Norway agreement (70). Both plans set long-term objectives for the target species and also impose constraints on management measures (such as a limit on the amount that the TAC may be increased annually). ICES takes ecosystem-level questions into account in its stock assessments for these stocks, to the extent that this is possible (11,12). At an operational level short-term objectives are represented when setting annual TACs. Achievement against these annual targets is monitored at national level on a monthly basis. The ICES ACFM presents advice on stock management based on its current understanding of the state of stocks taking into consideration its knowledge of the stocks and any decision-control rules that have been adopted for these stocks (11,12). The precautionary approach is required by the CFP, but in practice not all management plans fully include it in its long-term objectives depending on the stock and data available. In its review of the North Sea management plan for saithe, the STECF concluded that “the 15% TAC change constraint is likely to be invoked in ~50% of the years in which the harvest control rule is applied. The risk of SSB declining below Blim and F exceeding Flim is estimated to be very low in the short term. […] The median equilibrium yield from the saithe stock is fairly insensitive to the [15% change] TAC constraint.” However, the STECF could not fully evaluate the plan’s conformity with the precautionary approach for the long-term because of a lack of manpower (34). The final score is therefore 90 for both companies.

3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing 2187R01C 109

The management system provides economic and social incentives for sustainable fishing and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing

SG 60: The management system provides for incentives that are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2. SG 80: The management system provides for incentives that are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2, and seeks to ensure that negative incentives do not arise SG 100: The management system provides for incentives that are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2, and explicitly considers incentives in a regular review of management policy or procedures to ensure that they do not contribute to unsustainable fishing practices. Score: UK fisheries 80 Score: DFFU and Doggerbank 80

Rationale Economic and social incentives are provided by the management regimes through the allocation of resources (quota) at a level compatible with sustainable fishery management (11,12). These measures are supported by a legal regime and a system of penalties that can be imposed for non-compliance with the CFP. Administrative, technical and quota- related offences can all result in legal action, prosecution and fines. These measures all contribute to sustainable fishing and ecosystem management, and are regularly reviewed as part of the ongoing process of fisheries management established by the CFP. The EC, European Member States and Norway provide funding to support their fishing industry, and fishing fuel are still largely duty exempt in the European Economic Area. European-registered vessels could apply for support via the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG), replaced by the European Fisheries Fund (EEF) from 2007 (86). Environmental NGOs have repeatedly raised concerns that some measures especially those regarding vessel purchase, replacement and modernisation in FIFG (87,88) represented a subsidy to the industry. Vessel subsidies were phased out, in favour of “promoting environmentally-friendly fishing and production methods”. Thus, the EFF is now consistent with MSC Principles and provides incentive for sustainable fishing. As regards Principle 2 specifically, the European management system provides significant incentives to reduce impacts to the wider ecosystem. For example, vessels in the saithe fishery have a derogation for their trawl mesh size in EU waters (from 120 mm to 100mm) because of the low cod by-catch. Maintaining this derogation has provided an incentive for saithe fisheries to work hard on reducing cod by-catch. For the Polonus (DFFU/Doggerbank) specifically, evidence showing that the percentage of cod catches does not exceed 1,5 % of the total catches on an annual basis has led to further

2187R01C 110

exemptions regarding days at seas limitations (80). The management systems for both fisheries also provide for areas of important seabed habitat to be closed to trawling (5). Some commentators (89) have considered that the system of ‘red diesel’ (low tax diesel) available to fishing, farming and some other industries in the EU constitutes a subsidy that encourage unsustainable fishing. Similarly, fishing quotas are provided free of charge and the costs of fisheries management, monitoring, research and enforcement are not charged to fishing companies and could also be interpreted as a subsidy. This point is arguable (many NGOs agree – 90) but MSC convention to date has been that these types of elements do not constitute a subsidy to fisheries. It is also not likely that these elements provide encouragement for unsustainable fishing – from the perspective of stock and ecosystem conservation at least (a wider view of sustainability taking in carbon emissions might find otherwise but this is not the place for such an analysis). Although the management system “provides incentives that are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principals 1 and 2, and seeks to ensure that negative incentives do not arise” it does not “explicitly consider incentives in a regular review of management policy or procedures”. This indicator therefore cannot be scored more than 80.

3.2 Fishery-specific management system

3.2.1 Fishery-specific objectives

The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.

SG 60: Objectives, which are broadly consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are implicit within the fishery’s management system. SG 80: Short and long term objectives, which are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery’s management system. SG 100: Well defined and measurable short and long term objectives, which are demonstrably consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery’s management system Score: UK fisheries 90 Score: DFFU and Doggerbank 90

Rationale 2187R01C 111

Short and long-term objectives are devised by Norway for the North East Arctic saithe stock, and jointly with the EU for the North Sea stock. The fisheries-specific management objectives for both North Sea and North East Arctic are set out in the EC Common Fisheries Policy and the bilateral agreement between the EC and Norway for managing the fisheries (71,72), and summarised annually in the ICES Fisheries Advice (11,12). For Principle 1, sustainable use is framed by setting annual and multi-annual TAC for the fishery (11,12,31). The single-stock and species assessment is imbedded by ICES into a comprehensive framework for an ecosystem approach, which is consistent with a precautionary approach and designed to ensure a rational exploitation pattern and provide for stable and high yields. The TACs for 2010 are entirely consistent with the ICES advice and are thus appropriate for the current stock levels (11,12). For the North East Arctic saithe, Harvest Control Rules (HCR) set by the Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs estimate an average TAC level for a rolling 3- year period. A rule that the TAC should not be changed by more than +/-15% compared with the previous years TAC can be set aside if the SSB levels below the precautionary biomass level. For the North Sea saithe, the European system has been based on similar HCR in place since 2004. The North Sea saithe management plan is updated during the annual EU-Norwegian consultations and will be reviewed as part of the CFP reform before end of 2012 (28,29). For Principle 2, the Norwegian Marine Resources Act (78) stresses the importance to ensure that “harvesting methods and the way gear is used take into account the need to reduce possible negative impacts on living marine resources” and is able to set more ambitious fishery-specific objectives than the CFP through its framework for the “conduct of harvesting operations and other utilisation of wild living marine resources, including the by-catches of other marine organisms, including plants, marine mammals and seabirds, or a duty to provide reports on such by-catches” (Chapter 4). For the North Sea saithe fishery in EC waters, the CFP provides piecemeal measures regarding by-catch species through a number of fisheries management advice, including for skates and rays and the cod recovery plan. Both Norway and the CFP have long-term objectives to increase the number and spatial coverage of Marine protected areas. Short and long term objectives are explicit within the fisheries management system but they are not all “measurable” and “demonstrably consistent”. The SG80 requirements are fully met but only a part of the SG100 requirements. Therefore a score of 90 is given.

3.2.2 Decision-making processes The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives

2187R01C 112

SG 60: There are informal decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. Decision-making processes respond to serious issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take some account of the wider implications of decisions. SG 80: There are established decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. Decision-making processes respond to serious and other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. Explanations are provided for any actions or lack of action associated with findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. SG 100: There are established decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. Decision-making processes respond to all issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. Formal reporting to all interested stakeholders describes how the management system responded to findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity Score: UK fisheries 90 Score: DFFU and Doggerbank 90

Rationale The setting of annual TACs are compatible with precautionary reference points (71,72), and are based upon the best available information provided by ICES and stakeholder groups. Tried and tested procedures exist to reduce harvest in response to annual scientific advice and ongoing monitoring results. The outcome of meetings of the Council of Ministers clearly demonstrates that all of this information is taken into account, and explains the basis for management actions. This information is formally reported and readily accessible on the EC website (83,84). Both the EC’s CFP and the EC-Norway Agreement represent established decision making processes that result in measures and strategies to deliver fishery-specific objectives. Performance of the fisheries relative to these objectives is measured on a monthly basis through landings data, which provides near real-time recording of catch levels and quota uptake. The ICES reports on performance of the fishery relative to SSB and F annually, as well as issues of unrecorded mortality.

2187R01C 113

The decision making process provides a mechanism for responding to all relevant issues, with a number of opportunities for timely stakeholder engagement. Measures can be quickly implemented. As well as adjusting quota, Norway, the EC and national administrations can restrict close specific areas to fishing if necessary. The decision-making process is well established and uses the precautionary approach. It does, not however, respond to all issues identified nor is it guaranteed that all interested stakeholders get a formal report on how the management system responded. Thus the score cannot exceed 90.

3.2.3 Compliance and enforcement Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s management measures are enforced and complied with. SG 60: Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms exist, are implemented in the fishery under assessment and there is a reasonable expectation that they are effective. Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and there is some evidence that they are applied. Fishers are generally thought to comply with the management system for the fishery under assessment, including, when required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery SG 80: A monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery under assessment and has demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are consistently applied and thought to provide effective deterrence. Some evidence exists to demonstrate fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, when required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery. There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance SG 100: A comprehensive monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery under assessment and has demonstrated a consistent ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are consistently applied and demonstrably provide effective deterrence. There is a high degree of confidence that fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery. There is no evidence of systematic non- compliance. Score: UK fisheries 90 Score: DFFU and Doggerbank 90

Rationale There are two enforcement regimes at sea, in Norwegian waters and in European waters.

2187R01C 114

In Norwegian waters, technical fisheries conservation measures (e.g. smaller mesh size, sorting grid, discard ban) are generally more stringent. In the saithe fisheries, controls at sea are reported to be much more frequent in Norwegian waters than in European waters. In European waters, Member States cooperate to make sure that the rules agreed under the CFP are enforced. Fisheries controls play a central role in encouraging compliance, deterring fraud and ensuring sustainable fishing. Enforcement measures include the use of satellite VMS und VHF-communication, patrol vessels and aerial surveillance, checked against data and logbook and landings records. In European waters, the Community Fisheries Control Agency (CFCA) is in charge of the operational coordination of fisheries control and inspection activities by Member States, and helps them cooperate to ensure its effective and uniform application of the CFP rules (91). There are systems in place for imposing corrective actions. Compliance with management measures is reported on the EC website (92). Non-compliance is dealt with by the relevant national authorities through their criminal justice systems, following agreed procedures. All vessels in the two Units of Assessment (UK Fisheries Ltd. and DFFU/Doggerbank) are registered in European Member States. The standard procedure is for any fisheries infringement procedure other than a verbal warning, whether established at sea (in European, Norwegian or International waters) or on landing (including in Iceland) by any European or national authority, to be immediately copied to the national authority where the vessel is registered. The MFA (now MMO) in UK, and the BLE in Germany have all confirmed that the vessels had no records of infringements. We have no report from the Polish Department of Fisheries. The Fisheries Regulations Section of the Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries in Bergen also confirmed that none of the vessels (including the Polish-registered vessel Polonus) was on the Norwegian Black List or on their IUU-list for having taken part in fishing operations that contravene regulatory measures in international waters, and that none had pending infringement procedures regarding their fishing in Norwegian waters. However, the team notes that both companies have had compliance issues in regard to the regulation requiring immediate discarding of several species of skate (see PI 2.3.1 above). This is not for any sinister reason, but rather because of a lack of awareness by companies and vessel skippers. A condition has already been included to correct this situation. Overall, while the team had a high degree of confidence that all vessels comply with the management systems broadly and as regards the most important issues such as quotas, gear restrictions, closed areas etc. the team felt that the maximum score could not be given here. Both units of certification score 90.

3.2.4 Research plan The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of management

2187R01C 115

SG 60: Research is undertaken, as required, to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Research results are available to interested parties. SG 80: A research plan provides the management system with a strategic approach to research and reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Research results are disseminated to all interested parties in a timely fashion. SG 100: A comprehensive research plan provides the management system with a coherent and strategic approach to research across P1, P2 and P3, and reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Research plan and results are disseminated to all interested parties in a timely fashion and are widely and publicly available. Score: UK fisheries 80 Score: DFFU and Doggerbank 80

Rationale For the North East Arctic saithe, Norway coordinates research activities to inform the development of its management plan within the Norwegian Sea Ecosystem Programme. The Institute of Marine Research (IMR) collects the data needed to perform stock assessments and provides scientific advice. It also hosts the national Norwegian Marine Data Centre that collects, quality-assures and stores all of the data on marine environment and fish and makes it available to scientists. The research results and fisheries assessment for the North East Arctic saithe are shared and discussed at ICES (Arctic Fisheries Working Group - AFWG) and the management plan is reviewed annually by the STECF. The IMR also establishes management for species identified as retained and as by-catch and has an extensive programme of seabed and benthic habitat surveys in support of OSPAR’s Biodiversity Committee marine habitat mapping efforts that are consistent with MSC Principle 2. To conclude, the research plan provides the management system with a strategic approach to research in reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. The ICES has organised the International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) in the North Sea during January/February in each year since about 1970. Through ACOM and WGNSSK (Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak) ICES coordinates and pools national efforts, including the deployment of scientific observers that underpin the assessment of the North Sea saithe fishery and its effect on the ecosystem. From the point of view of UK Fisheries, England (Cefas) and Scotland (FRS) Fisheries Research Institutes contribute research in the UK. The Farnella (UK Fisheries) led in two Fisheries Science Partnership (FSP) projects with Cefas in 2008- 2009 (6,7). For DFFU/ Doggerbank, the Institute of Sea Fisheries of the Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institute (previously the Bundesanstalt für Fischerei) is involved in Germany and organises targeted data collection with on-board scientific observers (8). Poland does not have a North Sea saithe quota and therefore does not have a national research programme on Saithe in the North Sea. 2187R01C 116

The ICES WGNSSK gathers and analyses information on stock status each year, and investigates specific aspects such as recruitment, larval survival, growth and fecundity. The ICES working group WKROUND (Benchmark Workshop on Roundfish for North East Arctic saithe (Subareas I and II) in 2009-2010) develops and reviews assessment methodologies. Commercial fish species, including those identified as main retained and by-catch species, are treated in the same way. The ICES reports on the current status of fish stocks and also identifies areas requiring further investigation (e.g. 28,29). The annual publication of these reports provides a strategic framework for the coordination of fisheries research plans. Other issues such as climate change, associated changes in plankton, habitats and ecosystem effects of fisheries are also investigated by ICES study groups and workshops (93). With respect to P3, the long-term management plans are discussed and prepared at inter- governmental level, and include provisions for requesting and/or integrating ICES scientific advice. For all European vessels, the North East Arctic saithe and North Sea saithe research results are disseminated through ICES to all interested parties in a timely fashion through reports and publications. Observer reports are not publicly available, but ICES finalised reports can be readily obtained from the ICES website (93). Overall, the research undertaken by Norway, the UK and Germany and others within ICES is adequate to underpin the management of the fish stock, but does not appear to provide the management systems with a coherent and strategic approach, hence a score of only 80.

3.2.5 Monitoring and management performance evaluation

There is a system for monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system. SG 60: The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate some parts of the management system and is subject to occasional internal review. SG 80: The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate key parts of the management system and is subject to regular internal and occasional external review. SG 100: The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate all parts of the management system and is subject to regular internal and external review.

Score: UK fisheries 90 Score: DFFU and Doggerbank 90

2187R01C 117

Rationale The North East Arctic saithe fishery is entirely managed by Norway. The performance of the management system devised by the IMR is monitored and subjected to internal and external reviews, including by the Parliament. Evaluations of the North East Arctic saithe and the North Sea saithe fisheries are also based on the monitoring and evaluation of the EU agreement. Finally, the process of sharing and discussing scientific advice at ICES is a form of external scientific review of the data, methods and analyses of the Institute of Marine Research. The management regime of the North Sea saithe fishery in European waters allows for review of both the agreement with Norway, and the CFP management measures. This occurs at every level of the system with policy documents formulated by the European Commission and contributions from the European Parliament as a result of initiatives at international, European, national and sub-national levels. These policies and resulting operational plans and measures are subject to wide consultation before adoption, and to monitoring and evaluation processes once they are in force. Both the EU-Norway agreement and the European fisheries management systems include formal consultation and review processes involving all EC Member State fisheries administrations, and committees such as ACOM (the body through which ICES provides formal advice), STECF (the committee by which the European Commission seeks expert opinion on fisheries management), the ACFA (dealing with industry concerns at a European / “horizontal” level), and the Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) dealing with regionally specific technical issues (of which the body specifically incorporating saithe industry interests is the North Sea RAC for sub area IV, and the Long Distance RAC for areas I and II) (72,94). There is also on-going and extensive review of stock assessment and data gathering methodologies at ICES level and at the level of the contributing research laboratories and institutions. Within ICES, the methods working groups WGNSSK and WKROUND keep fish stock assessment methods under regular review. In addition, other study and working groups review survey design and results, the implementation of the precautionary approach, discards, biological sampling, reference points, and recruitment variability (93). By contrast, formal reviews external to ICES are limited. ICES can, and does, involve external scientists in extensive review of its methodologies if considered necessary. The CFP itself or some of its key policies (e.g. fleet structure) may be scrutinised by the European Court of Auditors. However there is no clear external review of all management systems. Currently, the review of the CFP for 2012 is providing opportunities for external participation in the review of the management systems, with formal consultations and regional conferences. Management plans are modified on an annual basis, and on balance, the current review processes do ensure that the systems adapt to changing circumstances including environmental change, and are subject to critical inspection. EC data collection requirements, carried out by Member States, are reviewed each year. Each member state also reports annually on control matters, and fisheries inspectors from the Community 2187R01C 118

Fisheries Control Agency monitor national enforcement activity. Within nation states, internal audits also occur, reviewing the nature and efficacy of implementation and control measures. Thus there are numerous checks in place for both the Norwegian and European fisheries management systems, to evaluate key but not all parts of the management systems, but there is a regular internal and external review. This results in a score of 90.

2187R01C 119

Annex 2 – References

1. MSC 2008. Fisheries Assessment Methodology and Guidance, version 1, 12 June 2008. 2. Miller P.J. and Loates M.J. 1997. Fish of Britain and Europe. Harper Collins, London. 3. FishBase entry for saithe http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?id=1343 and saithe ecology http://www.fishbase.org/Ecology/FishEcologySummary.php?StockCode=1361&Gen usName=Pollachius&SpeciesName=virens 4. Du Buit, M.H. 1991. Food and feeding of saithe (Pollachius virens L.) off Scotland. Fisheries Research 12, 307-323. 5. EC 2010. Council Regulation No 53/2010* of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required. Official Journal of the European Union L 21, 1-120. *initially labelled 23/2010 cf. Corrigenda L 24/14 Official Journal of the European Union 28.1.2010 6. FSP, 2009. Northern North Sea Saithe (and cod)). “A self-sampling project” Robert Enever and the Skipper and crew of MFV “Farnella”, Final report v1.4, 28pp. 7. FSP, 2009. Trials with an Eliminator-type trawl in the North sea Saithe Fishery, S. Reeves and F. Armstrong, Final report 14pp. 8. Institute für Seefischerei: Bericht über eine Fangbeprobung. Various reports for the Baldvin and the Kiel. Available on request. 9. IUCN listing for Dipturus batis: see http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/39397/0 10. UNEP-WCMC. Searchable database of CITES-listed species. http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/species.html 11. ICES 2009. Advice Book 6, 6.4.12: Saithe in Subarea IV (North Sea), Division IIIa (Skagerrak) and Sub-area VI (West of Scotland and Rockall). 12. ICES 2009. Advice Book 3, 3.4.4: Saithe in Subareas I and II (Northeast Arctic), 10pp. 13. Moody Marine 2008. Certification Report for Norwegian saithe fishery. See http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/north-east-atlantic/norway-north-sea- saithe 14. ICES 2009. Advice Book 6, 6.4.2: Cod in Subarea IV (North Sea), Division VIId (Eastern Channel) and IIIa (West Skagerrak). 15. ICES 2009. Advice Book 3, Section 3.4.6 – Stock summary: Golden Redfish (Sebastes marinus) in Subareas I and II. 2187R01C 120

16. ICES 2009. Advice Book 3, Section 3.4.5 – Stock summary: Beaked Redfish (Sebastes mentella) in Subareas I and II. 17. EC 1980. Council Regulation 2214/1980. 18. EC 2002. Council Regulation 2731/2002. 19. EC 2008. Council Regulation No 1342/2008 of 18 December 2008 establishing a long-term plan for cod stocks and the fisheries exploiting those stocks and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2004 20. Information on real-time closures in Scotland is available at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/Sea-Fisheries/17681/closures 21. http://www.fisheries.no/Ecosystems-and-stocks/Marine-protected-areas/coral_reefs/ 22. http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/coldwatercoral.pdf 23. EC-Norway 2008. Agreed record of conclusions of fisheries consultations between Norway and the European Community for 2009. Oslo, 10 December 2008. 24. See for example http://www.fisheries.no/info/ancient_traditions_harvesting+_sea.htm 25. ICES 2009. Advice Book 2, 2.4.4: Saithe in Division Va (Icelandic saithe). 26. ICES 2009. Advice Book 4, 4.4.4: Faroe saithe in Division Vb. 27. ICES 2009. Advice Book 5, 5.4.27: Saithe in Subarea VI (West of Scotland and Rockall). 28. ICES 2009. Saithe in Subarea IV, VI and Division IIIa. Report of the working group on the assessment of demersal stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak. ICES WGNSSK Report 2009, section 11. 29. ICES 2009. Saithe in Subareas I and II (Northeast Arctic). Report of the Arctic fisheries working group (AFWG). ICES AFWG Report, section 5. 30. ICES. 2006. Report of the Arctic Fisheries working Group (AFWG). ICES Advisory Committee on Fishery Management ICES CM 2006/ACFM:25 31. ICES 2008. Advice Book 6, 6.4.12: Saithe in Subarea IV (North Sea), Division IIIa (Skagerrak) and Subarea VI (West of Scotland and Rockall). 32. ICES 2010. ICES WKROUND Report 2010 ICES Advisory Committee ICES CM 2010/ACOM:36 Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Roundfish (WKROUND) 9– 16 February 2010 Copenhagen, Denmark, 183pp. 33. Worm B. et al. 2009. Rebuilding global fisheries. Science 325, 578-585. 34. EC, 2009. Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) Review of the Scientific Advice for 2010, Part I, 169pp. 35. MEP 2010. Euronor MSC assessment final report – comments of peer reviewer 2. 36. ICES 2010. 3.4.4 Advice for Northeast Arctic haddock (Subareas I and II)

2187R01C 121

37. ICES 2009. Advice Book 3, Section 3.4.1 - Stock summary: Cod in Subareas I and II (Northeast Arctic cod). 38. ICES 2009. Advice Book 6, 6.4.3 - haddock in Subarea IV and Division IIIa, corrected Nov. 2009. 39. ICES 2009. Advice Book 9, 9.4.1 - hake (northern stock). 40. ICES 2009. Advice Book 3, Section 3.4.7 – Stock summary: Greenland halibut in Subareas I and II. 41. ICES 2009. Advice Book 9, 9.4.4 - blue whiting I-IX, XII and XIV 42. ICES 2010. Advice Book 9, 9.4.10.1 – ling in Subareas I and II 43. ICES 2009. Advice Book 5, 5.4.23 - haddock in Division VIa 44. ICES 2009. Advice Book 5, 5.4.69 – anglerfish in IIa, IIIa, IV and VI 45. ICES 2009. Advice Book 6, 6.4.5 - whiting in IV and VIId 46. ICES 2009. Advice Book 5, 5.4.25 - whiting in Division VIa 47. ICES 2009. Advice Book 5, Section 5.4 28 – Stock summary: Megrim (Lepidorhombus spp) in Subarea IV (North Sea) and VI (West of Scotland and Rockall). 48. ICES 2009. Advice Book 9, 9.4.12.5 – tusk in other areas 49. ICES 2009. Advice Book 6, 6.4.9 - plaice in Subarea IV 50. Richardson E.A., Kaiser M.J., Hiddink J.G., Galanidi M. and Donald E.J. Developing scenarios for a network of marine protected areas. DEFRA Research and Development Contract CRO 0348 - Final report. University of Wales Bangor. 51. ICES 2009. Advice Book 9, 9.4.2 – mackerel in the northeast Atlantic 52. OSPAR: Distribution maps for threatened or declining habitats. http://data.nbn.org.uk/hosted/ospar/ospar.html 53. List of taxa listed on Schedule 5 of the UK Wildlife and Countryside Act available here: http://www.naturenet.net/law/sched5.html 54. Agreement on the conservation of small ceteceans of the Baltic and North Sea. 17 March 1992. Available at http://www.service- board.de/ascobans_neu/files/agreement1992.pdf 55. ICES 2008. Advice book 6, 6.4.30 – demersal elasmobranchs in the North Sea, Skagerrak and Eastern English Channel. 56. Fishbase entry for angelshark Squatina squatina - http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/speciesSummary.php?ID=736&genusname=Squat ina&speciesname=squatina&lang=English 57. UK Biodiversity Action Plan – listing for common skate http://www.ukbap.org.uk/UKPlans.aspx?ID=543

2187R01C 122

58. Witbaard, R., and Klein, R. 1994. Long-term trends on the effects of southern North Sea beamtrawl fishery on the bivalve mollusc Arctica islandica L.(Mollusca, Bivalvia). ICES journal of marine science. London, 51: 99-105 59. Witbaard R and Bergman M.J.N. 2003. The distribution and population structure of the bivalve Arctica islandica L. in the North Sea: what possible factors are involved? Journal of Sea Research 50, 11-25. 60. Enever R., Catchpole T.L., Ellis J.R. and Grant A. 2009. The survival of skates (Rajidae) caught by demersal trawlers fishing in UK waters. Seafish, UK. 61. Humborstad, O.-B., Nøttestad, L., Løkkeborg, S., and Rapp, H. T. 2004. RoxAnn bottom classification system, sidescan sonar and video-sledge: spatial resolution and their use in assessing trawling impacts. ICES Journal of Marine Science 61, 53-63. 62. Hiddink, J. G., Jennings, S., Kaiser, M. J., Queiros, A. M., Duplisea, D. E., and Piet, G. J. 2006. Cumulative impacts of seabed trawl disturbance on benthic biomass, production and species richness in different habitats. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 63: 721-736. 63. Greenstreet, S. P. R., Robinson, L. A., Piet, G. J., Craeymeersch, J., Callaway, R., Reiss, H., Ehrich, S., et al. 2007. The ecological disturbance caused by fishing in the North Sea. FRS Collaborative Report, 04/07. 169 pp. 64. Marine Life Information Network (MarLIN) : Species information for Modiolus modiolus : http://www.marlin.ac.uk/speciesinformation.php?speciesID=3817 65. ICES 2009. Advice Book 9, Section 9.3.2.1. NEAFC request to continue to provide all available new information on distribution of vulnerable habitats in the NEAFC Convention Area and fisheries activities in and in the vicinity of such habitats – ICES response. 66. CEFAS study on the history of North Sea fish stocks – see http://www.cefas.co.uk/news-and-events/news-releases/news-releases-2004/what- happened-to-north-sea-fish.aspx 67. Fishbase entry for cod Gadus morhua - http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/speciesSummary.php?ID=69&genusname=Gadus &speciesname=morhua&lang=English 68. Fishbase entry for haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus - http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?ID=1381 69. EC 1992. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, Official Journal L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7) 70. EC 1980. Council Regulation No 2214/80 of 27 June 1980 on the Conclusion of the Agreement on Fisheries between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway. Official Journal of the European Union L 226, 47-50. 71. EC 2010. Agreed Record of Conclusions of Fisheries Consultations between the European Community and Norway for 2010. 43pp. (26.01.10)

2187R01C 123

72. EC 2002. Council Regulation No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy. OJ L 358, 59-80.

73. Norway, 2009. Marine Resources Act, 1January2009. Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affair, translation, 17pp. From http://www.ub.uio.no/ujur/ulovdata/lov- 20080606-037-eng.pdf 74. UNCLOS 1982. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982. From http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_conventi on.htm 75. FAO 1993. Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas. 76. FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries – see http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/v9878e/v9878e00.htm 77. UNCLOS 1982. The United Nations Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (in force as from 11 December 2001) 78. Rules for the Management of the UK’s fisheries quota in Areas I, II, IV, VI & VII (and associated areas) and in Faroese waters (Vb) for 2010. Issued by The Fisheries Administrations in the UK. From http://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/fisheries/management/quotas.htm 79. Marine Management Organisation (MMO) – see http://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/fisheries/index.htm 80. TAC Regulation 53/2010 Preamble art.20. Council Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required and amending Regulations (EC) No 1359/2008, (EC) No 754/2009, (EC) No 1226/2009 and (EC) No 1287/2009. From http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/tacs/index_en.htm 81. The role of a Regional Advisory Council (RAC) is described in European Council Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002 of the 20th December 2002, and the subsequent Fisheries Council Decision 2004/585/EC-establishing Regional Advisory Councils under the Common Fisheries Policy. For NS RAC see http://www.nsrac.org/ 82. For original and amending legislation, see http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/maritime_affairs_and_fisheries/fisheries_sect or_organisation_and_financing/c11129_en.htm 83. EC 2009. Council Meetings. From http://www.consilium.europa.eu/showPage.aspx?id=1281&lang=EN

2187R01C 124

84. EC 2009. Council Meetings. From http://www.consilium.europa.eu/App/newsroom/loadbook.aspx?BID=100&LANG=1 &cmsid=355 85. ICES 2008. Advice Book 6, 6.3.3.3 Norway and EC request on management plan for saithe in the North Sea and West of Scotland, 7pp. 86. EC 2006. Council Regulation No 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006 on the European Fisheries Fund. Official Journal of the European Union L 223, pp. 1-44 87. Brown J. 2006. Evolution of the EU Fisheries Subsidy Regime: Drivers and Approaches. Paper presented to OECD Workshop on Subsidy Reform and Sustainable Development, Helsinki, Finland 20-21 June 2006. IEEP, London. 88. Sporrong, N. and Bevins, K. 2002. Subsidies to the European Union Fisheries Sector. IEEP, London. 18 pp. 89. Ludwig, D., Hilborn, R., and Walters, C. 1993. Uncertainty, Resource Exploitation, and Conservation: Lessons from History. Science, 260: 17&36.

90. Album G. 2008. Fuel subsidies and CO2 emissions in the fishing fleet. Memo – Friends of the Earth, Norway. 91. CFCA (2009). View at http://cfca.europa.eu 92. EC 2009. Infringement control. Viewed at http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/control_enforcement/infringements_control_en.htm 93. ICES website www.ices.dk 94. EC 2009. Common Fisheries Policy. Viewed at http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp_en.htm 95. http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/marine-barents.shtml 96. ICES 2010. North Sea and Skaggerak Demersal Fisheries Working Group report. Available at www.ices.dk. 97. ICES 2010. Arctic Fisheries Working Group report. Available at www.ices.dk.

2187R01C 125

Annex 3 – Summary of stakeholder comments received during information gathering The information gathering phase has two roles: the first is for the team to understand fully the fishery and the second is to allow stakeholders to raise any issues that might be of interest or concern to the team, as well as to put their opinion on the companies, fisheries and assessment. MSC requires that the issues raised by stakeholders in this latter category are summarise in this report. They are listed below, not in any order of priority. Where a response from the MEP team appears necessary, this is added in square brackets. • Trials with the eliminator trawl suggest that it is not very effective at catching saithe. [This is borne out by the experimental evidence – see ref 7. If the North Sea cod recovery does not continue and the eliminator trawl is put forward as a means of avoiding cod catches while continuing to fish saithe, this may become an issue for this certification, although it is not at present.] • No evidence of infringements or investigations against any of the vessels in the Unit of Assessment. • Boarding at sea in UK waters is random – there is no targeting of specific vessels by fishery, nationality etc. • North Sea saithe fishery overlaps with cod in depth range and geographic location – some concern about impacts, particularly if recovery flattens out. [North Sea cod was made a ‘main retained species’ on this basis – at present catches are low enough for derogations on fishing days to be applied under the Cod Recovery Plan, but this is certainly an issue that will need to be monitored.] • Bird mortality not considered to be an issue in this fishery by any stakeholder. • No evidence of benthic interactions (corals, sponges etc.) according to German researchers. • Saithe fishery is ‘unproblematic’ according to German authorities. • Suggestion that CCTV could be installed on fishing vessel decks as a check on discarding. [Since discarding appears not to be an issue in this fishery, and the team was satisfied that checks are sufficient, this requirement was not included in the report.] • Concern about general ICES approach to setting reference points – do they take ecological requirements into account sufficiently? [Again, the team was happy with ICES approach and with the stock status in regard to these stocks specifically, so this was not incorporated into the assessment.] • Concern about bycatch of spurdog (Squalus acanthius). [The stock is depleted according to ICES, but the team found no evidence that it is ever caught in this fishery.]

2187R01C 126

• Concern about bycatch of common skate (Dipturus batis). [This issue is addressed extensively in Principle 2 Component 3, and is the subject of several conditions on the fishery (two on UK Fisheries Ltd. and three on DFFU and Doggerbank.] • Suggest using benthic cameras on fishing vessels to find areas of high habitat value. [The management of interactions with habitats was also the subject of a condition on both fisheries, and this would be one option for them to address it.] • Concern about data on habitats. [This is indeed an issue – see rationale for PI 2.4.3.]

2187R01C 127

Annex 4 – Peer reviewer reports with MEP responses

Report of Peer Reviewer 1

The report of Peer Reviewer 1 is presented below in full, with responses from the MEP team in boxes.

Review of Public Comment Draft Report UK Fisheries Ltd. / DFFU / Doggerbank saithe (Pollachius virens) fishery

Overall, this is a thorough report that gives a good idea about the stock, ecosystem impacts and management of the saithe fishery. In general, this report is well presented and well argued. Most relevant information is present, and the scoring in Annex 1 is clearly justified. The scoring of the different principles seems generally fair. The report provides more quantitative information and maps for P2 than previous reports that I have seen and this is particularly commendable as it allows a more objective assessment of the scorings. I particularly value the inclusion of Figure 1 and 2.

Unfortunately, many fishing companies don’t allow these sorts of map to be published, although they are usually made available to the assessment teams. Luckily this is not the case here.

Scoring of the principles

I did not identify any problems in the scorings for Principle 1. The stock is obviously in very good shape.

Principle 2.

The client action plan for condition for 2.4.2 specifies a periodic review of latest habitat information. What will the source of this information be?

DFFU and Doggerbank, are receiving support from the Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institute in Hamburg, while UK Fisheries Ltd. have good connections with CEFAS. OSPAR is another source of data on habitats, although it is not clear how often their habitat maps are updated.

2.1.1 Outcome status. North Sea cod comprised ~2.2% of landings in 2008 and 2009 and the team decided that it should be included as a main retained species even though it comprises <5% of the catch because it is both valuable and vulnerable. I would just like to say that I think this is a sensible approach as I feel that the >5% limit is sometimes interpreted too strictly. 2187R01C 128

2.1.2 Management strategy. It is written that DFFU and Doggerbank are not exceeding their quota allocations, but in fact the cod quota in Doggerbank – Subarea IIb was exceeded by a small fraction.

? According to Table 5 the catch was 2 tonnes less than the quota. It is true, however, that quota management is more of an art than a science, and even the best fishing companies do from time to time exceed their quotas by a small amount. When this happens, producer organisations or national authorities may keep a small reserve that can be used to ‘top up’ their quota to keep them legal (at a cost to the company in some form, and on the basis, obviously, that the system is not abused). Otherwise they may exchange quota at the company or PO or national level (depending on the country concerned).

By-catch species

2.2.3. No mention of by-catches of invertebrate species are made in this report. It seems unlikely that no invertebrates are ever caught, and therefore to me this seems to be a lack of even qualitative information on the amount of by-catch. This information needs to be included in the report or the scores adapted.

Invertebrates are never mentioned in the observer reports, and the vessel captains also denied catching invertebrates – although this does not necessarily constitute proof that it never happens. However, with rockhopper gear with large discs (such as used in this fishery) it is perhaps quite unlikely, relative to an otter trawl with tickler chain or a beam trawl? Although the disks roll along the bottom, the ground rope is actually held some tens of centimetres above the bottom. The main benthic impacts (according to the trails visible on side scan sonar) come from the doors touching the bottom – this might be quite unlikely to left invertebrates into the net? In addition the mesh size in use is pretty large. So overall, it probably is not surprising that no invertebrates are brought up in the gear.

2.3.1 Outcome status. This section specifies the number of common skates that have been recorded by observers. Please specify the number of trawls that was examined, as it is difficult to otherwise assess how significant these catches are. What was done with the skates that were caught by UK Fisheries Ltd.?

Added – 643 hauls were observed in total. They were discarded.

The discussion of the impact of the fishery on Arctica islandica could have been more detailed. I would like to see a proper distribution map of Arctica (e.g. using records from the NBN gateway), which shows that there is some overlap between this fishery and the distribution of Arctica north-east of Shetland.

The existing literature shows that two passes of an otter trawl cause an 8% mortality of Arctica islandica on silty sediment (Bergman & van Santbrink, 2000). Whether this 8% mortality is a significant threat depends on the overlap of the fishery with the bivalves. As these bivalves can be very long-lived (>400 years), even a low additional mortality 2187R01C 129

may cause population declines, but without some population dynamic analyses using the actual trawling frequency of the fishery it is not possible to ascertain that a significant threat does not exist. I think that therefore a score of 100 is too generous.

As noted above, given the gear type, we felt that signficant impacts on Arctica from this fishery were not likely – however as you point out, it is perhaps too much to suggest that there is a ‘high degree of confidence’ as required by SG 100. The score has been reduced to 90. As regards the map, the NBN gateway includes only UK waters, which only covers part of the fishery, however, it has been included.

2.4.1 Outcome status. Table 9 is a very useful first step in assessing the effect of these fisheries on protected habitats. Figure 1 on the OSPAR distribution map for seapens and burrowing megafauna is very useful, and I would like to see these maps included for all protected habitats.

Added.

The assessment for sponges and Lophelia identifies a geographic and depth overlap between the habitats and the fishery. These trawls are likely to damage sponge habitats where they are fishing. Whether a removal of this sponge habitat in 5% of the area comprises ‘serious or irreversible harm’ is a subjective assessment. In this 5%, it is likely that habitat structure and function is reduced to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. The assessment is supposed to occur at ‘a regional or bioregional basis’, and I think a threshold for what this comprises needs to be defined by the MSC. If no such threshold is defined, the assessors need to define one based on the ecology of these habitats. A quick glance at the online maps suggests that there may be considerable overlap between sponge and Lophelia habitats and the fisheries and a more detailed analyses of the haul records and habitat records may be informative in assessing the actual rather than estimated overlap of this fishery with these habitats.

Hopefully this information will come out of the implementation of the client action plan, and assessment of this element will be based on more explicit and detailed information in the future.

The report is not explicit about whether for Lophelia the assessors are multiplying the 5% depth overlap with the 10% distribution overlap in their assessment to come to an ‘impact’ of 0.5%.

I’m not sure we had anything quite so quantitative in mind. The MSC scoring guideposts are framed more in qualitative, probabilistic language – ‘unlikely’, ‘highly unlikely’ etc. It’s more of a subjective judgement.

2187R01C 130

My final concern here is not a critique of this report, but a critique on the MSC accreditation process. Individual fisheries can be certified when they do not have serious effects on the ecosystem, ETP species etc. However, the cumulative effect of different fisheries is not being assessed. This is the 3rd accreditation report that I am reviewing for saithe fisheries in the same general area. It is therefore possible that these 3 fisheries are all being accredited, and although they may individually not deemed to have a significant effect, cumulatively they may. There are obvious problems in assessing cumulative effects, but not assessing these cumulative effects may results in many accredited fisheries together resulting in an unsustainably exploited and degraded ecosystem.

The other peer reviewer made the same point.

2.5.1 Outcome status

Demersal otter trawl have been shown to cause a significant mortality of benthic invertebrates on the seabed (Kaiser et al., 2006) and this causes changes in the functioning of benthic ecosystems, for example a reduce secondary production (Hiddink et al., 2006b) and reduced bioturbation rates (Widdicombe et al., 2004). The extent to which this fishery is likely to cause serious and irreversible harm to these ecosystem functions depends on the sensitivity of the habitats fish and the trawling frequency in these habitats (Hiddink et al., 2006a). This information needs to be included here and the scores adapted accordingly. If this information cannot be given, the score for 2.5.3 needs to be lowered to represent this.

The rationale for PI 2.5.1 has been reviewed and expanded in response to this and to the comments of the other peer reviewer, who also found it unsatisfactory. We have tried to address these points better.

It is hard to know (as the reviewer notes above) the extent to which a given fishery should be penalised for the actions of other fisheries in the same area, or (in this case) actions over previous decades. So, for example, the North Sea has famously been trawled intensively for more or less 100 years now, and its ecosystem is clearly going to be dramatically altered as a result – in terms of benthos, fish species composition, the nature and energy flow through food webs etc. etc. On the one hand, this is not the fault of UK Fisheries Ltd., DFFU and Doggerbank, operating now. On the other hand, the logical end point of this position is that cumulative and long-term ecosystem impacts are ignored.

For better or worse, the team has chosen to take a rather more reductive view of ‘ecosystem impacts’ than implied above – this is following the precedent of other MSC assessments. So, rather than asking the question implied by the reviewer: ‘have there been any ecosystem changes for which fishing (in general) could be a cause?’ we have asked the question: ‘are there any ecosystem changes likely to be associated with the current saithe fishery of which these companies are a part?’. On this basis, we considered questions such as whether there are trophic interactions which are threatened by the fishery, whether the gear has particular impacts that other fisheries don’t have, and so on. 2187R01C 131

Principle 3.

Quotas are provided free of charge, and this could also be interpreted as a subsidy to the fishers. Additionally, the costs of fisheries management and enforcement is not charged to the fisheries, and this can also be interpreted as a subsidy. A short discussion of whether these are subsidies and whether they provide disincentives for sustainable fishing would be useful.

Added.

No other problems were identified here.

Conclusion

I agree with the majority of the scorings in this report. In some cases, additional information needs to be provided to allow a proper assessment of the criteria. If the additional information that I have asked for can be provided, I expect that some of the scores may need to be lowered. If the information cannot be provided, is may be necessary to set some additional conditions that require the collection of this information. In my opinion, the conditions that have already been set are fair.

Minor comments and queries

o I would appreciated the inclusion of a map of the ICES fishing areas, as frequent reference is made to these areas. This could be included in Figure 1 and 2.

Added.

o Table 1. Why is the length of the Farnella not given?

Added.

o Figure 1. The 200m bathycline shows an area rather than a line. What depth interval does this area cover?

It’s a good question. The figure comes from reference 6 and the legend is the same as in the reference – however, the blue area is obviously not exactly showing only the 200m bathycline. Nonetheless, it does show accurately where the 200m bathycline is – for example the blue area off southern Norway is the ‘Norway deeps’ and the line follows accurately the 200m contour around Shetland and northern Scotland. On this basis, for the purposes of this report we have left it how it is.

o Figure 2. What do the differently coloured records mean?

2187R01C 132

We don’t know. Again, for the purposes of this report, we only wanted to show fishing locations.

o Caption of table 8. How is a ‘low catch’ defined? Any quantitative indication of catches, however variable, would be more informative than just the subjective ‘low’ label.

The other peer reviewer made the same point. As noted in that response, we do to some extent quantify ‘low’ in the rationale for PI 2.2.1 (see for example Table 6 page 69 and associated comments). The team was reluctant to make any extrapolations about total catches of these species, because the high variability in the data would make them likely to be rather inaccurate, and because we did not wish to give the impression of quantitative data were none really exists.

o Page 18-19. Interactions between fisheries. Please define what a low, medium and strong interaction is.

This is an ICES definition and we are not exactly clear how it is defined.

o Page 21. What does the Polonus exchange saithe quota for?

This quota exchange occurs at government to government level not on the level of individual POs, companies or vessels.

o Table 16. ‘mangement’

oops.

o Table 6. What is ‘maximum %age’?

As explained in the legend, it is the maximum percentage of the total catch represented by that species in any single observer report – i.e. it is the highest percentage catch of that species in any of the observed trips. Hope this is clear. It has been changed to maximum %.

o Page 82. Please specify what is meant by ‘Seapens and burrowing megafauna’. What species are included in this group by OSPAR?

The habitat type is defined as follows by OSPAR:

Plains of fine mud, at water depths ranging from 15-200m or more, which are heavily bioturbated by burrowing megafauna with burrows and mounds typically forming a prominent feature of the sediment surface. The habitat may include conspicuous populations of seapens, typically Virgularia mirabilis and Pennatula phosphorea. The 2187R01C 133

burrowing crustaceans present may include Nephrops norvegicus, Calocaris macandreae or Callianassa subterranea. In the deeper fiordic lochs which are protected by an entrance sill, the tall seapen Funiculina quadrangularis may also be present. The burrowing activity of megafauna creates a complex habitat, providing deep oxygen penetration. This habitat occurs extensively in sheltered basins of fjords, sea lochs, voes and in deeper offshore waters such as the North Sea and Irish Sea basins. These definitions have not been included in the text, for brevity (!), but they are cited.

2187R01C 134

2 Report of peer reviewer 2

The report of Peer Reviewer 2 is presented below in full, with responses from the MEP team in boxes.

In providing these comments I have reviewed the PCDR for the UK Fisheries Ltd. / DFFU / Doggerbank saithe (Pollachius virens) fishery and the literature cited below. I am content that all the main issues have been investigated and that adequate levels of information are presented in relation to Principle 1. I have some difficulty with the scoring of Principle 2 in relation to the importance of the potential impact on sensitive habitats but accept that MSC convention may have set a precedent on this. Principle 3 has been dealt with in great detail although I was not able to concur with some of the rationale.

The conditions suggested by the assessors should, if implemented thoroughly, provide a reasonable degree of protection for the ETP species of concern, though I have suggested one or two slight improvements. The three Companies will need to engage in further work in order to acquire sufficient information for their implementation, in particular the distribution of sensitive habitats. This will be an on going activity, so that the most up to date information is utilised in fishing operations. Increased observer coverage or other means of independent monitoring may be required to cover all vessels.

Additional maps and other pieces of information have been included in these comments as useful references.

Principle 1. Retained species “In the North Sea, the most significant interaction of the saithe fishery is with cod (an important retained species under strict quota control), and ICES considers that the intensity of that interaction is medium (14). In the Arctic, interaction is considered high with cod (target species) and medium with redfish”. Both Companies appear to hold higher levels of quota for North Sea cod and redfish than they currently utilise. Both these stocks are overexploited as a component of mixed fisheries, or as directed fisheries in the case of redfish (?) and so catches should be kept as low as possible. Should the advice from ICES change, the Companies will need to review their policies with regard to the harvesting of these species.

This is true, and is an important point to keep an eye on during annual audits and future re-assessments.

P62 “North Sea cod was considered to meet SG 80, because while the stock is outside biologically based limits, there is a management strategy in place (the Cod Recovery 2187R01C 135

Plan - 19) which appears to be effective.” It is too early to tell if it has actually been effective. ICES suggest “By-catch of other demersal fish species occurs in the trawl fishery for saithe. This should be considered especially for the cod management plan” (WGMIXEDFISH, 2009)

This is also true, although the saithe fishery in most parts of the North Sea is acknowledged to be rather clean of by-catch (hence for example the mesh size derogation). Up till now the Cod Recovery Plan appears to have been effective, but recent information may suggest that the newest recruitment data is less positive. This information (so far anecdotal and post-dating the scoring of this fishery) will of course come into play during annual audits and re-assessments, and the scoring of retained species in relation to North Sea cod will have to be considered carefully each time.

P60 The Northeast Arctic stocks of haddock and cod are both within biologically based limits, according to the most recent ICES assessments (36,37). ICES 2010 NE Arctic cod- “Surveys indicate that cod recruitment will be below the average in 2010-2012. Data on discarding are scarce, but attempts to obtain better quantification continue.”

Indeed. But from the same document ‘The SSB has been above Bpa since 2002 and is now near its record high. Fishing mortality was reduced from well above Flim in 1999 to below Fpa in 2007 and is now close to its lowest value.’

Target stocks “For the North Sea stock, the most recent cohort for which the biomass has been estimated is thus the 2004 cohort, which is considered to be among the strongest in the last 20 years; although since 1987, recruitment has been on average low (in common with other gadoid stocks) (11). It was reported to the team by a stakeholder that recruitment in 2008 was low. For the Arctic stock, recruitment in 2002 was estimated to be the highest in the time-series, while 2003 was the lowest (12). …there are more concerns about medium and long term forecasts for the Arctic stock”. …This score is justified and as long as the management measures follow the future scientific advice for the stock, longer term predictions for the health of the stock seem fairly safe.” There appears to be some contradiction here.

The concern is for the accuracy of the forecasts (as regards the NE Arctic stock) rather than the status of the stock per se. The stock is well above both limit and target reference points, so there is considerable margin for error in the stock assessment – however, the stock assessment is difficult because of problems in estimating biomass of the pre-recruit year classes.

ICES WGNSSK 2010 report “No medium-term or long-term forecasts were carried out…but there are also claims that the abundance of saithe has been reduced in the 2187R01C 136

most recent years, and that young saithe cannot be found at the traditional grounds. Given the relatively low productivity of saithe (low mean recruitment and low weight‐at‐age) in recent times, the limited treatment of measurement errors in the assessment, and implementation errors in the fishery, the harvest control rule should be reviewed again within 4 years after the evaluation.” ICES Advice 2010 Saithe in subareas 1, 11. Lack of reliable recruitment estimates is a major problem. Prediction of catches beyond the TAC year will, to a large extent, be dependent on assumptions of average recruitment. Maturity estimates are not weighted by stock abundance and probably results in biased estimates of maturity ogive. SSB has decreased since 2005. No attempts were made to set MSY reference points (FMSY and MSY Btrigger). Work is in progress to evaluate the current management plan in relation to the MSY framework. Discarding is illegal, but is known to occur in some fisheries. There are no estimates of discarding available for assessment.” I have added these statements from ICES to add balance to the rationale but do not expect it to affect the scoring of P1.

Noted.

Table 1 needs some units of measurement included. tonnes – it’s in the legend.

Table 2 retained species-southern blue ling seasonal closure of spawning grounds in areas V1a. Include in table.

Blue ling is caught by this fishery incredibly rarely (see Tables 4 and 6). Also, they do not fish in Subarea VIa.

Principle 2. ETPs P74 Table 8 relevant national legislation missing from Norway, Germany, UK from ‘Source of Protection’ column, also international agreements concerning sharks (which includes skates and rays) such FAO’s IPOA, the EC Community Action Plan and the UK Action Plan.

The MSC definition of ‘ETP species’ as those with legal protect precludes us from considering non-binding agreements such as those listed above.

2187R01C 137

A review of Norwegian legislation (see http://www.environment.no/Topics/Biological- diversity/Protected-species/) and German legislation (see for example http://www.animalinfo.org/country/germany.htm did not turn up any additional species to add to the list.

P75 DFFU and Doggerbank: “D. batis appears twice in the observers reports, with a total catch over all the observed trips of 250 kg (45 kg and 205 kg). These were discarded as required by EU legislation, however awareness about the details of the regulation (that they should be returned to the sea as quickly as possible with as little harm as possible) was low. It is thus possible that this fishery does not meet the full requirements of the regulation and is not doing as much as it could to reduce negative interactions with D. batis as far as possible. Overall, the team concluded that while the direct impacts were ‘likely’ not to cause harm to the species, the criterion of ‘highly unlikely’ was not met. Thus two parts of SG 80 were not met, giving a score of 70 for this fishery and scoring element.” Given the level of catch in the relatively few observer reports available, it appears possible that direct harm or hindrance to recovery might occur as a result of the fishery. It would be difficult to say with certainty that harm was not likely.

Indeed. This is a judgement about the probability of harm, and as such it is hard to say anything with certainty. It is definitely appropriate to put a condition here to ensure that D. batis are handled appropriately at all times, and this should lead to reasonable post- capture survival.

UK Fisheries Ltd. The observed trip for the eliminator trawl trial (7) showed that some D. batis was caught – in total 15 animals of which 7 were caught in the control (standard) gear and 8 in the eliminator gear. The other observer report (6) does not include any catches of D. batis. In this case, a full identification key for skates and rays is on board, which includes an explanation of the regulation for this species. Again, however, the team concluded that more could probably be done to reduce negative interactions, and that the ‘highly unlikely’ requirement in SG 80 was not met, giving a score of 70 for this fishery and scoring element. This seems a high figure for one observer trip. It suggests that mis-identification is giving under estimates of the number of animals caught. No information is given on ‘what more could have been done’ to reduce negative impacts which might have been useful.

Mis-identification is definitely a problem for the vessel crew, but perhaps not so likely from trained observers? Also, mis-identification could go either way – it may be that the animal identified as D. batis were mis-identified? The team decided that if we considered all these possibilities we would go mad, and it would be better to take the observer data at face value. As far as what could be done to reduce negative interactions, the main proposed action at present by the regulating authorities is of course to handle with care and release as quickly as possible, as per the EU regulation. Skates and rays are known to be robust and have relatively good post-capture survival although of course it will not be 100%.

2187R01C 138

Bycatch “Three species of ray must under EU regulations be discarded. These are Dipturus batis (common skate), Raja undulata (undulate ray) and Rostroraja alba (bottlenosed skate or white ray) (5). Two of these species are IUCN Redlisted, one (D. batis) as critically endangered (9). D. batis and R. alba are also OSPAR protected species (50). The team decided that these two species would therefore be considered under the PIs on protected species (PIs 2.3.1, 2.3.2 and 2.3.3) while R. undulata is considered here.” For information; Rostroraja alba is listed within the Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks in UK Waters JNCC 2004. as being in decline, protected under Annex 3 of the Barcelona Convention, Annex 3 of the Bern Convention, UK Quinquennial Review 2001 and with an OSPAR nomination 2002. It is described as ‘Probably extirpated’, large bodied and vulnerable to overexploitation by fisheries. Long nosed skate Dipturus oxyrinchus is described in the same report as ‘Nearly extirpated’ and proposed for legal protection in British waters. It is large bodied and vulnerable to overexploitation by fisheries. The status of the undulate ray, the sand ray and the round ray is not known. “Other skates and rays reported by observers include Raja radiata, R. naevus and Rajella fyllae (both companies), Raja circularis, Bathyraja pallida (DFFU / Doggerbank) and Dipturus oxyrinchus (UK Fisheries Ltd.). None of these species are listed as protected on any of the lists consulted by the team.” B pallida- Only six specimens of B. pallida have been captured since the original description of the species in 1967. Usually found 2600 – 3200m deep. http://www.mar- eco.no/mareco_news/2005/bottomliving_top_predators_of_the_deep_atlantic_the_shark s,_skates,_rays_and_chimaeras This could have been a blond ray which is described by JNCC 2004 as depleted, large bodied and vulnerable to overexploitation by fisheries. R radiata= Amblyraja radiata, R naevus=Leucoraja naevus R circularis=Leucoraja circularis no known threats exists for these last three species.

The reference to B. pallida does certainly sound like a mis-identification. We have noted this in the report.

The FSP report from the Farnella (reference 6) shows that one individual of D. oxyrinchus was discarded during the survey. Because it is not (so far) formally protected as far as we can discover, we consider the species in more detail under by-catch, but it has not resulted in a change to the score. Note that since none of the companies actual land this species, the condition to take more care over the handling and discarding of the three species required to be discarded will probably benefit this species to, to the extent that catches are significant. P 41. “The Camera feeds back instant images to the skipper on the bridge. This enables him to identify appropriately species caught and inform the crew immediately which to [discard] release while the species is still alive.* As well as this we complete haul by haul written sheets providing date, time, hauling position, selectivity devices used and catch retained onboard and discarded catch. Each species including the different types of 2187R01C 139

skate and rays must be identified by number and approx weight.” A description of how this is actually carried out during the landing of the catch would be useful. It may be difficult for the skipper to identify protected species via a camera so suggest that individual crew members are trained to identify such species. We passed this question on to the manager of the Farnella and received this response: ‘As well as having the cameras on the deck to monitor the fishing gear as is it is being lifted on board, there are also cameras in the factory which is the next port of call once the net in on the vessel. This gives the captain a clear view of the contents of the haul at all times. Added to this the mate, boson and fish room staff has been trained to identify protected stocks including skates and rays to ensure they are released at the earliest possible opportunity. On this basis, the team were satisfied with the actions proposed (and already taken) by UK Fisheries Ltd. For DFFU and Doggerbank Condition on monitoring and reporting. A further condition requiring the submission of logbook data in relation to skates and rays should be agreed. This will remove a further element of uncertainty and provide valuable information to the management authorities. You cannot use standard EU or Norwegian logbooks to record species which are discarded, because they are cross-checked against sales records and discrepancies can result in trouble. This is why separate logsheets have to be used to record anything that is required to be discarded. These are already proposed in the client action plan. P16 “Table 8. Discarded species by the Kiel and the Baldvin over three years of observer reports (excluding species which are sometimes discarded and sometimes retained). Numbers are highly variable from trip to trip, but the team was satisfied that catches of all these species are low.” Can the description of low be quantified? The omission of discarded/retained species is a little unfortunate as it adds and element of uncertainty, can a few examples be given? Some quantifiable measure of common skate discards would be helpful. A short note on why the discard ban was not applicable here might also be useful.

1. Species which are sometimes discarded and sometimes retained: There are wolffish (Anarhichas lupus), ling, tusk, hake, mackerel, whiting, pollack and blue whiting. They are not excluded from our review, but have been considered under retained species rather than by-catch – see the rationale for 2.1.1.

2. Quantifying by-catch for DFFU / Doggerbank This is done to some extent in the rationale for PI 2.2.1 (see for example Table 6 page 69 and associated comments). The team was reluctant to make any extrapolations about total catches of these species, because the high variability in the data would make them likely to be rather inaccurate, and because we did not wish to give the impression of quantitative data were none really exists.

2187R01C 140

3. Common skate discards are quantified in the rationale for PI 2.3.1.

4. This is a good point - it turns out that some discarding is permissable in the Svalbard zone, but not in the Norwegian Economic Zone.

P90 “The interaction of the fishery with the common skate is also not very well understood.” It might be more accurate to say that ‘post release survival rates for different species of skates and rays is not well understood.’ CEFAS are undertaking work in this area http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/marine/documents/science/mfsag/catchpole-skate- discard.pdf

This is true – the actual catches themselves are also not very well understood, as you rightly point out above.

Habitats Map of deep water sponge communities retrieved from OSPAR website. The following maps have been included as examples of the types of data available and to add clarity to the potential degree of exposure of sensitive habitats to trawling (assuming one supports the concept of extent v level of impact). If MSC convention has enabled a precedent to be set on the extent of an impact v weight in scoring, then provision ought to be made within the methodology for ‘in combination effects’ and cumulative impacts to be considered. Maps added. The other peer reviewer also wanted maps. Monitoring and information. 2.4.3. P86 Overall, given the habitat maps, VMS data and information on impacts of gears the team considered that SG 80 was met. For SG 100, 2187R01C 141

the distribution of most habitats is probably known more or less over the range. However, there is no quantitative information on gear impacts or changes in habitat distribution over time, so most of SG 100 is not met, giving an overall score of 85 for both. In relation to the limited extent of information known about deep water sponge communities, OSPAR reports “The extent to which the limited records of dense aggregations are an artefact (sic) of sampling programmes is not clear at the present time…. Despite this little is known about the vast majority of the sponges beyond the locality where they have been recorded and, in many cases, this may be the only record.” http://www.ospar.org/documents/DBASE/Publications/p00358_case%20reports%20spec ies%20and%20habitats%202008.pdf

Given this, it would be reasonable to conclude that the risk of further damage occurring in future (due a lack of awareness abut the location of sensitive habitats) is moderate to high.

Not really, given that there is hardly any depth overlap between the fishery and this particular habitat type.

ICES Special request from OSPAR on locations of deep water corals.

http://www.ngo.grida.no/wwfneap/Publication/briefings/OSPAR_2005_corals.pdf 2187R01C 142

WWF June 2005

Extent of vulnerable deep water biotopes within the area covered by the MAREANO project. The area to the south- east of Tromsøflaket, Troms III, had not yet been mapped when this map was produced. Includes sponges, sea pen communities and corals

http://www.imr.no/nyhetsarkiv/2010/april/sarbare_naturtyper_pa_dypt_vann/en

“Large parts of the OSPAR Maritime Area do however remain unexplored and it is therefore likely that both damaged and undamaged reefs have still to be discovered.” http://www.ospar.org/documents/DBASE/Publications/p00358_case%20reports%20spec ies%20and%20habitats%202008.pdf

Note that this fishery operates down to 300m maximum (below 250m is relatively rare), so its overlap with ‘deep-water’ habitats is limited, as noted in the report. The unexplored areas are basically below this depth, as far as we understand.

Client Action Plan from DFFU and Doggerbank. Condition 2.4.2. “The Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institute advices and supports the fisheries with the preparation of maps (as possible) of those marine areas with habitat that should be protected (e.g., corals) that fall within the main fishing grounds.” On what basis is this support and advice obtained- under contract? This is the action that the client has proposed to take to meet the condition – the contractual or financial basis of any agreement with the institute is not really our concern, although we are convinced that the institute is on board. If the condition is not met according to the timetable, this should be picked up in annual audits.

2187R01C 143

WWF produced a report in 2003 ‘The Barents Sea Ecoregion A Biodiversity Assessment’, which describes a number of areas of special importance in the region, 6 of which appear to be fished by the German vessels. The Røst Reef is of particular relevance for corals. Others include depth regulations and trawl free zones. The vessels in question should ensure that they are familiar with all spatial regulations in the region such as those relating to the North Western Shelf Edge, the Norwegian Coast and Tromso Bank and the Svalbard Coast which is protected out to 4nm. There are indeed quite a number of closed areas in north Norway waters for protection of benthic ecosystem. As with other Norwegian regulations, they are very well policed and it would be an extremely foolish EU fishing vessel that attempted to trawl in these areas (if they wanted to keep their licence). The team checked with the Norwegian authorities that there were no infringements outstanding or in the recent past by any of the vessels in the Unit of Certification.

Ecosystem. P87 2.5.1 Ecosystems effects “The North Sea ecosystem is relatively well- known compared to most other marine systems.” What about Norwegian/Barents Sea?. WWF report that in an area known as the North Cape Bank, 5 out of 7 stocks are outside safe biological limits. On the Polar Front, early succession species dominate the seafloor due to bottom trawling.

Good point – this rationale has been re-written and expanded. See also comment by other peer reviewer.

“The status of the target stocks and the main retained stocks is good (see rationales for Principle 1 and PIs 2.1).” Not so for cod. True – although this fishery catches very little North Sea cod and cod is included as a ‘main’ precisely because it is in a poor state. This is poorly expressed and has been re- written.

“The team had a query about the possible ecosystem impacts of discarded waste from onboard processing, which has been shown to have some ecosystem-level impacts: however they did not consider that this issue merited a reduction in the score below 80.” Did the team consider any effects of discarded waste in relation to seabirds? Can the amount of discarded waste be quantified?

We did consider this issue. Note that there are no items such as hooks in discarded waste that would pose a threat to seabirds – discarded waste would simply act as a food supplement for seabirds as well as for benthic scavengers. We considered that relative to the removal of biomass by this (or any) fishery, this issue was a minor one, since the volume of discarded waste is by definition a small proportion of the volume of the overall catch. On this basis we have not attempted to quantify it in detail.

2187R01C 144

Observers P14 “By-catch species (defined by MSC as non-target species which are discarded rather than retained) are not entered in logbooks so do not show up in catch data. Instead, they are usually identified via observer reports. Observer coverage in this fishery is present but somewhat patchy.” DFFU/Doggerbank P15 “The Farnella does not host observers onboard as part of a regular programme,” This should be amended as part of the certification P15 “For DFFU / Doggerbank, 10 trips were carried out with observers in the period 2007-2009, including six on the Kiel and four on the Baldvin (8). The observers were concentrated on these vessels for two reasons: i) some other vessels (such as the Atlantic Peace) only switched to saithe recently; ii) some vessels (such as the Gerda Maria) do not have suitable accommodation for an observer.” If observers cannot be carried other means of independent monitoring will be required.

Farnella now has a camera on board which monitors catch – see client action plan. While she does not host observers as part of a regular programme (this is a decision for the authorities not the fishing company) she has been active in collaborative research with CEFAS and has had several observed trips on that basis. For the Gerda Maria, we agree that the situation is not completely satisfactory, but since we could not identify any ‘main’ by-catch species for the fishery as a whole, we could not impose a condition on these PIs to require observers in some form. We would also note that in Norwegian waters, on board inspections while at sea are a relatively frequent occurrence.

Principle 3 3.1.1 Page 92 “The North Sea fishery takes place outside territorial waters.” The significance of this statement is a little unclear. Presumably the activities delegated to Member States as listed in the report, are applicable to both fisheries?

It is just to note that it is a shared stock with management coming under the CFP.

“The management systems are well established, transparent, tried and tested”. Negotiations with the EC are notoriously opaque hence the ‘question’ over the 2 month delay in the EU Norway negotiation. Minutes of Council meetings or other bilateral negotiations are not easily accessible. Much of the EC’s legislation is not fully tested e.g. fish recovery plans are not subject to SEA legislation for instance. Some of the scientific content of fisheries management plans may be evaluated by scientists but this may or may not be followed. There is clearly a discontinuity between a good deal of the scientific advice and management measures, evident in quota allocations for some of the bycatch/discards species. Many commercial stocks have no TACs set for them due to a lack of scientific data and or staff capacity.

2187R01C 145

We are not sure that this is entirely fair. For example, a record of the EU-Norway agreements for 2010 is available online here: http://www.nsrac.org/wp- content/uploads/2009/12/NSRAC-DWG-EU-Norway2010-signed1.pdf. Conclusions of EU Agriculture and Fisheries Council Meetings are available online here: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/App/newsroom/loadbook.aspx?BID=100&LANG=1&cms id=355 from July 2010 back to 1993. We would also question whether fish recovery plans should be subject to SEA legislation – this would certainly add complexity and make agreement more difficult, and would not add to transparency either. Fisheries management plans for the stocks under discussion here have been evaluated by ICES, and ICES is itself evaluated by STECF – scientists in both cases. We agree that in the past there has been a pattern of ignoring scientific advice, and we agree that for many stocks there is too little information to allocate quotas - but this does not seem to be the case for the key stocks under discussion here (i.e. target and main retained stock).

P3 Compliance and enforcement “The team therefore considered that SG 100 was met for this element for both fisheries.” Confirmation from observers and the crew that sharks are never caught would help confirm this score.

Catshark Squalus acanthius is caught as a bycatch species in minor amounts. But we are not reviewing enforcement in relation to one group of species in particular (and we note that it is not illegal to catch catshark) – but rather the system as a whole.

P93 Rules relating to the fishery are clearly set out and communicated to the participants in the fishery. Presumably this did not occur with the German fishery who were reportedly not complying with the EU regulation on Common skate.

They were complying in as much as they were discarding it, but it is true that awareness of the regulation was low, and the team were concerned that common skate was not being given the special consideration needed to ensure as high a survival as possible. The rules were communicated to the vessels in as much as copies of the most recent EU regulations are on board, but the regulation on common skate is one page buried in a rather long document – possibly this is the problem here. In any case, this does not have a direct bearing on the score for this PI.

In relation to subsidies Cappell, R., T. Huntington and G. Macfadyen (2010). ‘FIFG 2000- 2006 Shadow Evaluation’. Report to the Pew Environment Group. Reports “…funding was used by Spain, France, Portugal and Germany on potentially negative measures that could increase fishing capacity (such as construction of new vessels or vessel modernisation) than on positive measures (such as vessel scrapping). 38 percent of new vessels built with FIFG assistance being bottom otter trawlers, 5–6 percent of the United Kingdom’s, Portuguese and German fleets received FiFG funding.

2187R01C 146

In Spain, Germany and Portugal the funding of construction and modernisation exceeds funding for scrapping across all size categories. Both the UK and Poland spent more on scrapping than construction/modernization. Germany spent a far greater proportion on vessels over 24m >60% of the money received…. no attention is being paid to making the approval of FIFG support conditional on compliance with CFP regulations [except in the case of Poland]. Recipients of FiFG funding -UK5%, Germany 3%, Poland 3%, (as a proportion of total FiFG budget).” Greater clarity on the level of subsidies received (or not) by the Companies would be helpful.

As regards the use of FIFG funds for vessel construction / modernisation, the reference below suggests that aid for the construction of new vessels finished in December 2004. Subsidies for modernisation are intended for i) more selective gear; ii) improved health and safety; iii) improved processing / handling and iv) installation of VMS. Increased vessel capacity and gear replacement are both explicitly excluded. In any case, neither UK Fisheries Ltd. nor DFFU nor Doggerbank report receiving any FIFG funds for their vessels. Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance – Instructions for use. See http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/publications/ifop03_en.pdf

“Although the management system provides incentives that are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principals 1 and 2, and seeks to ensure that negative incentives do not arise it does not “explicitly consider incentives in a regular review of management policy or procedures”. This indicator therefore cannot be scored more than 80.” There appear to be few incentives provided for the protection of habitats. No – we are not sure what those would be. Perhaps incentives could be provided to change to fixed gear – but this is in practice extremely problematic, as shown in the report cited below. There are closed areas for habitat protection, with penalties in the case of violation, which could be construed as incentives for habitat protection. Gascoigne J.C. and Willsteed E.W. 2010. Moving towards low impact fisheries in Europe: policy hurdles and actions. Seas At Risk. Available at www.seaatrisk.org.

“Tried and tested procedures exist to reduce harvest in response to annual scientific advice and ongoing monitoring results. The outcome of meetings of the Council of Ministers clearly demonstrates that all of this information is taken into account, and explains the basis for management actions. This information is formally reported and readily accessible on the EC website (83,84).” The first reference was not accessible. Minutes of Council minutes could not be accessed. The second reference is a press release which describes the meeting agenda. Reference 83 was incorrect, as noted by the reviewer, and we have insert the correct reference instead. Reference 84 provides a summary of the discussion at each meeting and the conclusions reached, as well as a list of participants. Just as an example, at the most 2187R01C 147

recent available meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council (meeting 3026 of 12 July 2010), three fisheries-related items were discussed: the work programme for the Belgian presidency (including the ongoing CFP reform, TACs and quotas for 2011 and a mandate for dealing with bluefin tuna inside ICCAT); plus items relating to milk and alcohol.

3.2.3 Compliance and enforcement. “Therefore there is a high degree of confidence that all vessels comply with the management systems under assessment. Both units of certification score 100.” ICES report that discarding in the saithe fishery does occur (often as a consequence of it landed within a mixed fishery) but is not always reported especially in Norwegian waters. Levels of observer coverage are ‘patchy’. Compliance with the EU Regulation on skate discarding was not usually followed by the German vessels. Incentives to reduce non compliance such as the allocation of quotas or receipt of subsidies are only likely to exist with the Polish vessel.

Re discarding, ICES (2010 advice for saithe in I and II) says Discarding is illegal but may occur when trawlers targeting cod catch saithe without having a quota for saithe. In the purse-seine fishery, slipping has been reported, mainly related to minimum size of fish in the catch. Neither of these is the case here, and the fishing companies reported that as far as they were concerned, the penalties (potential blacklisting) and the probability of being caught (relatively high) meant that they would never contemplate any illegal actions in Norwegian waters.

However, in regard to skate, the reviewer has a good point – compliance has not always been perfect here due to a lack of awareness (even though the relevant species were in fact discarded sooner or later). The score has been reduced to 90 for both fisheries. Research Plan. “Overall, the research undertaken by Norway, the UK and Germany and others within ICES is adequate to underpin the management of the fish stock, but does not appear to provide the management systems with a coherent and strategic approach, hence a score of only 80.” Where funds permit, research into ETPs is ongoing amongst various research establishments. It is not clear as to how this will be utilised by the fishery. The fishery does not appear to have a research plan which can be evaluated. There are no specific ecosystem research programmes associated with the fishery. ICES has a strategic plan, a science plan and an action plan – see for example http://www.ices.dk/iceswork/AVisionWorthSharing2008.pdf. This includes Principle 2 type issues, including working towards ecosystem-based management. It is clear that these fishing companies have been supporters of this research agenda – notably the Farnella who has participated in several FSP projects – a websearch will bring them up. In the context of this fishery, it seemed to us that a coherent research plan made sense only at the ICES-type level – individual fishing companies, fisheries and countries were only part of an overall ecosystem-level picture. Individual research institution can, however, submit data to ICES and participate in their working groups, so various research efforts can provide input into the big picture at ICES / ecosystem level. September 6th 2010

2187R01C 148

Annex 5 – Stakeholder comments on the PCDR with MEP responses

MEP received one set of comments on the PCDR, from MSC. These comments are set out below, with MEP responses in boxes.

Comments from MSC on UK Fisheries Ltd. and DFFU / Doggerbank saithe fishery, received 11 November 2010, with responses by MEP.

1. Since this fishery overlaps with other MSC certified saithe fisheries (e.g. Norway saithe, Euronor saithe, Scapeche CPSM saithe), TAB D-015 on harmonisation will apply, and it is not clear in PI rationales whether harmonization was taken into account. Additionally the MSC recommends including mention of harmonization in this section This fishery overlaps with four other fisheries which are certified or in the process of becoming certified: i) Norway saithe (certified); ii) Germany Kutterfische saithe (certified); iii) Euronor saithe (certified) and iv) Scapêche-Compagnie de Pêche de St. Malo saithe (under assessment). Of these, the first two fisheries were assessed under the previous system (before the FAM came in), so the scores are not directly comparable. The other two fisheries have been assessed by MEP using a similar team to that used in this assessment (two out of three members the same). For these two fisheries, there are thus not likely to be any issues around harmonisation – and indeed a check suggests that the scores are consistent for these fisheries. For Principle 1, small differences in score related to the extent to which the fisheries use the two separate stocks (i.e. Compagnie de Pêche de St. Malo, DFFU and Doggerbank and Euronor fish on both stocks while Scapêche and UK Fisheries Ltd. fish only on the North Sea stock). For Principle 2, scores vary depending on whether the companies have good observer data, have been shown to catch endangered species such as common skate and subscribe to the VMS feed to keep track of their vessels in relation to protected habitat areas. For Principle 3, small variations are due to differences in and changes of national and company policy on various issues. As noted above, the other two certified fisheries are not directly comparable with the above assessments. Nonetheless, the issue of harmonisation with these assessments was extensively reviewed and addressed in relation to the Euronor assessment. Below we quote from this report as to the issues we identified and our response to them:

1.2.4 Stock assessment Both the German and Norwegian saithe fisheries, operating on the same stocks, are certified MSC. In these assessments, a condition was placed on the fisheries to address uncertainties in the stock assessment. In this fishery, no such condition has been required – the MEP team wish to note why this apparent discrepancy has occurred.

2187R01C 149

MEP considers that the condition imposed on the other fisheries arose as a consequence of the previous assessment methodology – specifically, the assessment tree used for this assessment contained a PI that put heavy emphasis on sources of uncertainty in the evaluation of the stock status. Under the system used for the Euronor assessment (the FAM version 1) [note: this assessment uses the FAM version 2, but the same comment applies], there is no PI in exactly that form, and the MEP team considered that SG 80 was met or exceeded for all the PIs in Principle 1 for both stocks, including the PI on stock assessment under discussion here. Therefore, no condition was put on the Euronor fishery [or this fishery] to improve the stock assessment. In addition it is worth noting that recent ICES advice (2009 – not of course available for the previous assessments) for the NE Arctic stock suggests that the problem of retrospective bias has been to some extent addressed and improved, while for the North Sea the problem of retrospective bias is not considered significant.

2.1.3 Retained species information For MSC certification, a condition was imposed on the German and Norwegian saithe fisheries to improve their reporting of North Sea cod by-catch. In this fishery, no such condition was imposed. The MEP team notes that since these previous assessments, significant strides have been made in implementing new measures to support the recovery of North Sea cod stocks (e.g. mandatory real-time area closures, eliminator trawls or chalut à cordes, very tight TACs and quotas). These measures appear to have been successful in that the early signs of recovery noted by the German saithe assessment team have continued and accelerated. In the case of Euronor, the MEP team were confident that i) North Sea cod catches were low and discarding of cod minimal and ii) that Euronor was operating well within its permitted cod quotas and had measures in place should the quota come close to being finished [note: the same applies to this fishery]. MEP also had confidence in the data provided by Euronor on cod by-catch (retained and discarded) [note: the same applies to this fishery]. They therefore decided that in the light of this new situation, no conditions were required.

2.2.3 By-catch information On the German and Norwegian MSC certified saithe fisheries, a condition was imposed requiring an improvement of observer data on by-catch species. In this assessment, no such condition has been imposed, as described above, despite the fact that the observer programme which includes Euronor (run on behalf of the French national marine science institute Ifremer) provided up till the point of scoring significantly less coverage than the equivalent German or Norwegian programmes (although the team notes that since the scoring meeting coverage of Euronor has improved and this extra data was used to produce this revised Public Comment Draft report). [Note: the UK Fisheries Ltd. fishery has less observer coverage than the French or German fisheries, although the data provided by the observers is more detailed; the DFFU and Doggerbank fisheries have good observer data for some vessels but none for others. Overall, the same comment

2187R01C 150

applies here as for Euronor.] However, the team noted that to score 80 under PI 2.2.3 of the FAM (by-catch species information), it was not required that there be ‘statistically robust estimates of the by-catch of all species’ (as required in the condition imposed on the Norwegian and German certifications) – only that there be ‘qualitative and some quantitative information on the amount of main by-catch species’. The team found that this requirement was met by the existing observer programme and on this basis could not find grounds for scoring lower than 80, so no condition was imposed.

2. PI 1.1.2: No justification is provided in the rationale for how TRP is such that “the stock is maintained at a level consistent with BMSY or surrogate with similar intent or outcome” as required by SG80. Please see PA12 for further detail PA12 came out after the scoring of this fishery, but nonetheless requires that scores are retrospectively re-assessed to consider more explicitly the relationship of the target reference point to BMSY. We therefore reviewed the scoring of this PI for both stocks in this light. For this, we used the 2010 ICES advice, which was not available at the time of initial scoring but which has been produced since. In general, we note that ICES has not in the past taken an ‘MSY’ approach to providing advice on the level of target biomass and fishing mortality reference points – these have instead been set at a ‘precautionary’ level based on the probability of the stock biomass falling below a certain level. However, in the last couple of years, ICES has started to review all their stock assessments with the objective of moving towards on approach based on stock productivity as well as probability of collapse. Nonetheless, for most stocks, this process is still in its early stages. Here we consider the process in detail as it applies to the two saithe stocks in assessment here: North Sea stock: Initial work was done by the North Sea and Skaggerak demersal fisheries working group in 2010 to estimate FMSY using a variety of methods (two models, three stock recruit curves and different ways of treating the input data and the bootstrapping). The outcome was sensitive to some of these variations, so that more work remains to be done to get a robust estimate of FMSY. The most robust methodology was considered to be the CEFAS ADMB model with a hockey stick recruitment curve. This gave a median bootstrap estimate of 0.3 (5% percentile 0.13, 95% percentile 0.54). Thus while work clearly remains to be done, the best estimate of FMSY at present is identical to the level of fishing mortality already enshrined in the management plan. Equilibrium landings were also estimated, and overall, the ICES working group considered that ‘the stock is currently harvested at an optimal level’. The figure below is taken from the working group report (Figure 11.9.4b), and shows equilibrium landings in relation to fishing mortality rates, calculated from the above modeling exercise. While there is clearly considerable uncertainty in the data and modeling at present, it is clear that F=0.3 appear appropriate from the point of view of maximising stock productivity (equilibrium landings) as well as for minimising risk.

2187R01C 151

Figure 1. Figure 11.9.4b from ICES North Sea and Skaggerak demersal fisheries working group report 2010, showing estimates of equilibrium landings (y-axis) in relation to fishing mortality rates (x-axis). The left-hand figure shows the median of 1000 resamples in blue, with percentiles in red, plus the actual assessment data points in black, while the right-hand figure shows 100 illustrative resamples. Northeast Arctic stock: Work on the MSY approach for the northeast Arctic stocks is less well advanced, and has up till now focussed on the cod stock (by far the largest stock and fishing in the area) (see ICES Arctic Fisheries Working Group report 2010). Work on the cod stock has found that long-term equilibrium yield from this stock is more or less stable for a range of fishing mortality rates from 0.25 to 0.6 (due to strong density-dependent effects including from cannibalism). We note that saithe are also a cannibalistic species so a similar range for FMSY may apply, although saithe biomass may be more dependent on cod biomass (due to predation) than on population-level density-dependent effects (as is known for haddock in the same area). For the saithe stock itself, no explicit work on determining appropriate levels for MSY-based reference points has yet been done. However, the harvest control rules has been assessed in terms of long-term equilibrium yield, which was obtained at F=0.32. This is certainly consistent with the current Fpa under the management plan, which is set at 0.35. Overall, the team was happy from this review that the reference points are consistent with maintaining high stock productivity as well as reducing risk. The team felt that there was thus no need to change the scores given to each stock for PI 1.1.2. However, the rationale for PI 1.1.2 has been revised to include the above analysis. Two new references (the two 2010 ICES working group reports) have also been added to the reference list.

3. Condition wording (section 8.2) does not follow the narrative of the performance indicator or scoring guidepost. The conditions are set out below: Condition for 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome

2187R01C 152

This condition applies to the common skate Dipturus batis and to both DFFU and Doggerbank and UK Fisheries Ltd. Information on catches of common skate by these fisheries needs to be improved to the point where the impact of the fisheries on this species can be properly quantified. Catches of common skate must be dealt with in full accordance with the EU legislation (5), with the aim of minimising mortality as far as possible. For this PI, SG 80 requires the following: SG 80: The effects of the fishery are known and are highly likely to be within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. Direct effects are highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species. Indirect effects have been considered and are thought to be unlikely to create unacceptable impacts. Comments: The problem here is that i) common skate is rare, and catches of common skate are even rarer; ii) information on catches of common skate for both fisheries is not complete and amounts to just a few animals; and iii) common skate have not until recently (2009) been required to be properly identified in data. Therefore, the first element in SG 80 ‘effects of the fishery are known’ is not met, and the second and third elements ‘highly likely to be within limits …’ and ‘direct effects are highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts …’ cannot therefore be evaluated. (Indirect effects are not relevant here.) We decided that the EU legislation, requiring common skate to be discarded rapidly and with due care, would lead to impacts being kept at acceptable levels, given the known robustness of these species to discard mortality, as long as catch data was improved and kept under review. This is made clear in the rationales for 2.3 (see below). Thus the condition addresses these two elements: i) improving information and ii) ensuring compliance with the existing rules. No change was therefore made to the condition or to the client action plan. Condition for 2.3.2 – ETP species management This condition applies to the common skate Dipturus batis and DFFU and Doggerbank only. The EU regulation on the immediate discard of common skate must be fully implemented on board all DFFU and Doggerbank vessels in the Unit of Assessment. The companies should produce evidence that the relevant individuals on board each vessel are fully aware of the regulatory requirements. For this PI, SG 80 requires the following: SG 80: There is a strategy in place for managing the fishery’s impact on ETP species, including measures to minimise mortality, that is designed to achieve the ETP Outcome PI 80 level of performance or above. There is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved. There is evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. Comments: Our reasoning here was that the EU regulation in force for dealing with common skate (the only ETP species of relevance) constituted a ‘strategy’, and we accepted (see above) that there was objective basis for thinking that the strategy would work, given that we know that i) catches are low; and ii) that skate in general have good discard survival. This is made clear in the wording of the rationale, as follows: 2187R01C 153

‘The team considered that this regulation comprised a strategy, and that there was an objective basis to think that it would work – rays and other elasmobranchs are usually regarded as quite robust, with handling mortality low if they are treated with care (60).’ We assume that the conditions are read in conjunction with the rationales, although they are summarised in the main report for convenience. We therefore made no change to the wording of the condition. Condition for 2.3.3 – ETP species information This condition applies to the common skate Dipturus batis and to both DFFU and Doggerbank and UK Fisheries Ltd. The companies need to provide sufficient information on their catches of common skate such that a quantitative analysis of the impact of the fishery on common skate is possible. This condition can be dealt with as a component of the condition for 2.3.1 and does not require separate actions. For this PI, SG 80 requires the following: SG 80: Information is sufficient to determine whether the fishery may be a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species, and if so, to measure trends and support a full strategy to manage impacts. Sufficient data are available to allow fishery related mortality and the impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated for ETP species. Comment: As we note, this condition is essentially a subset of the condition set under PI 2.3.1 above – which is logical since PI 2.3.1 requires that ‘the effects of the fishery are known’. Nonetheless, we accept that the wording here of ‘a quantitative analysis of the impact of the fishery on common skate’ is perhaps a bit vague, and we have revised it as follows (new part underlined): This condition applies to the common skate Dipturus batis and to both DFFU and Doggerbank and UK Fisheries Ltd. The companies need to provide sufficient information on their catches of common skate such that a quantitative analysis of the impact of the fishery on common skate is possible. This includes information on i) retained catches (including for consumption on board); and ii) discards, with information on date and location of the catch. The fishing company or a scientific body will review this data periodically to assess impacts and trends. This condition can be dealt with as a component of the condition for 2.3.1 and does not require separate actions. The team felt that this element is met by both the Client Action Plans, so no change was required to them. Condition for 2.4.2 – Habitat management This condition applies to both DFFU / Doggerbank and UK Fisheries Ltd. The fishing companies need to develop a partial strategy to monitor habitats in their fishing area and avoid fishing in sensitive areas. The companies will need to show that they know where the vessels are fishing in relation to sensitive habitat areas, and that a system is in place to avoid damaging sensitive areas. For this PI, SG 80 requires the following:

2187R01C 154

SG 80: There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above. There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or habitats involved. There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. Comment: Here, the problem is that the companies lacked anything that could be considered a ‘partial strategy’. Clearly in this case, it is impossible to evaluation the second element (‘objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work’) until the partial strategy has been formulated and been implemented. Thus the condition focuses on this element, although the audits will clearly take into account whether the strategy is appropriate. The team considered that the approach proposed by the fisheries in the Client Action Plans was likely to lead to an acceptable partial strategy. No change was considered necessary to the condition.

4. A timeframe for the client to meet these conditions must be specified. While timeframes are noted in the Client Action Plan by the client in this report, these must also be included in the conditions themselves to ensure auditability The team considered, after review of the Client Action Plans, that the proposed timeframes were appropriate, and would clearly provide the basis for annual audits. We have reiterated these time frames in Section 8.2 as requested.

5. The assessment team has not described the system of tracking and tracing of fish and fish products in the fishery MEP have made comprehensive amendments to the traceability section of the report including the addition of a description of the tracking and tracing of fish and fish products in the fishery. Product will be eligible to enter further chain of custody at the point of sale by the clients.

6. The target eligibility date is limited to the month June 2010, but does not specify a date. The rationale for the date is not addressed MEP have amended the Target Eligibility Date to the date of certification. It has been confirmed that no use of ‘under MSC assessment’ product is planned or has been sold by the fishery to date.

2187R01C 155