MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

8950 Martin Luther King Jr. Street N. #202 St. Petersburg, Florida 33702-2211 Tel: (727) 563-9070 Fax: (727) 563-0207 Email: [email protected] President: Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D.

West Kamchatka Salmon Fisheries Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo

Public Certification Report 7 July 2020

Conformity Assessment Body (CAB) MRAG Americas, Inc. Assessment team Amanda Stern-Pirlot, Raymond Beamesderfer, Dmitry Lajus Fishery client Zarya, LLC and Kolpakovsky rybokombinat, LLC Assessment Type Initial Assessment

MRAG Americas – West Kamchatka Salmon Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo Final Report and Determination 1 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Document Control Record Document Draft Submitted By Date Reviewed By Date ACDR DL, RB 4/28/19 ASP, MC 5/1/19 CDR/PRDR RB, DL, ASP 28 Oct 19 ASP 17 Dec 19 PCDR RB, DL, ASP 21 April 2020 ASP 21 April 2020 FRD RB, DL, ASP 6 June 2020 EW 10 June 2020 PCR RB, DL, ASP 5 July 2020 ASP 6 July 2020

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 2 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

1 Executive summary ...... 6 2 Report details ...... 7 2.1 Authorship and peer review details...... 7 2.2 Version details ...... 9 3 Unit(s) of Assessment and Certification and results overview ...... 9 3.1 Unit(s) of Assessment and Unit(s) of Certification ...... 9 3.1.1 Scope of assessment in relation to enhanced or introduced fisheries ...... 10 3.2 Assessment results overview ...... 11 3.2.1 Determination, formal conclusion and agreement ...... 11 3.2.2 Principle level scores ...... 11 3.2.3 Summary of Conditions ...... 11 3.2.4 Recommendations ...... 12 4 Traceability and eligibility ...... 12 4.1 Eligibility date ...... 12 4.2 Traceability within the fishery ...... 12 4.3 Eligibility to enter further chains of custody ...... 13 4.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) ...... 14 5 Scoring ...... 15 5.1 Summary of Performance Indicator level scores ...... 15 5.2 Principle 1 ...... 16 5.2.1 Principle 1 background ...... 16 Overview of the fishery ...... 16 Pink Salmon ...... 43 Chum Salmon ...... 51 5.2.2 Catch ...... 56 5.2.3 Principle 1 Performance Indicator scores and rationales ...... 59 PI 1.1.1 – Stock status ...... 59 PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding ...... 64 PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy ...... 66 PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools ...... 69 PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring ...... 72 PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status ...... 74 PI 1.3.1 – Enhancement outcomes ...... 79 PI 1.3.2 – Enhancement management ...... 79 PI 1.3.3 – Enhancement information...... 80 5.3 Principle 2 ...... 82 5.3.1 Principle 2 background ...... 82 Primary Species ...... 83 Secondary Species ...... 94 ETP Species ...... 100 Habitats ...... 102 Ecosystem Structure and Function ...... 104 5.3.2 Principle 2 Performance Indicator scores and rationales ...... 106 PI 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome ...... 106 PI 2.1.2 – Primary species management strategy ...... 108

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 3 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

PI 2.1.3 – Primary species information...... 112 PI 2.2.1 – Secondary species outcome ...... 114 PI 2.2.2 – Secondary species management strategy ...... 116 PI 2.2.3 – Secondary species information...... 119 PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome ...... 121 PI 2.3.2 – ETP species management strategy ...... 124 PI 2.3.3 – ETP species information ...... 126 PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome ...... 128 PI 2.4.2 – Habitats management strategy ...... 130 PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information ...... 132 PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome ...... 134 PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management strategy ...... 136 PI 2.5.3 – Ecosystem information ...... 138 5.4 Principle 3 ...... 142 5.4.1 Principle 3 background ...... 142 Legal & Customary Framework ...... 142 Management Structure - Consultation, Roles & Responsibilities ...... 143 Fishery Objectives & Measures ...... 148 Enforcement ...... 152 Protected, Endangered, or Threatened Species ...... 154 Environmental protection ...... 155 Research plan ...... 156 International Management ...... 157 5.4.2 Principle 3 Performance Indicator scores and rationales ...... 159 PI 3.1.1 – Legal and/or customary framework ...... 159 PI 3.1.2 – Consultation, roles and responsibilities ...... 162 PI 3.1.3 – Long term objectives ...... 165 PI 3.2.1 – Fishery-specific objectives ...... 166 PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes ...... 168 PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement ...... 172 PI 3.2.4 – Monitoring and management performance evaluation ...... 176 6 References ...... 179 7 Appendices ...... 183 7.1 Evaluation processes and techniques ...... 183 7.1.1 Site visits ...... 183 7.1.2 Stakeholder participation ...... 184 7.1.3 Evaluation techniques ...... 184 7.2 Peer Review reports ...... 186 PR A general comments and team responses ...... 186 Peer reviewer B specific Performance Indicator comments and team responses... 200 7.3 Stakeholder input ...... 233 7.4 Conditions & Client Action Plan ...... 237 Condition 1 ...... 237 Condition 2 ...... 238 Condition 3 ...... 239 Condition 4 ...... 240 Condition 5 ...... 240 Условие 1 ...... 242

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 4 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Условие 2 ...... 243 Условие 3 ...... 244 Условие 4 ...... 245 Условие 5 ...... 246 7.5 Surveillance ...... 248 7.6 Harmonised fishery assessments ...... 249

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 5 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

1 Executive summary The assessment team was conducted by Amanda Stern-Pirlot, Ray Beamesderfer, and Dmitry Lajus using the MSC Fisheries Standard with the default assessment tree for salmon fisheries in the Fisheries Certification Process v2.1. The units of assessment and certification included pink salmon and chum harvested in and adjacent to the Icha, Oblukovina, Krutogorova, Kolpakova and Vorovskaya Rivers of western Kamchatka. These species are caught in the sea and target rivers with set (trap) nets, beach seines, and set gillnets (north of 54 degrees N latitude). The companies, Zarya, LLC and Kolpakovsky Rybokombinat LLC, process their catches at their own factories. Production is sold to Russian and international markets.

The site visit was conducted on site in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatka on June 24 – July 5, 2019. The materials were provided by the Client Fishing Companies included in a preassessment completed by the client’s consultant (ForSea Solutions), obtained from KamchatNIRO and also based on Internet search.

Pacific salmon are at historically high levels of production throughout Western Kamchatka. High productivity results from near-pristine habitat conditions in salmon production areas, which experience only quite low anthropogenic stress, favorable climate in freshwater and the ocean, curtailment of drift gill netting in the Russian Economic Exclusion Zone and effective management to protect spawning escapements. Changes in the commercial fishery management system in the 2000s have largely eliminated industrial scale illegal commercial fishing. Long-term lease agreements for fishing sites have provided strong incentives for fishing companies to protect spawning escapements and participate in stock assessment and enforcement programs. Transportation difficulties due to the remote location of the fishery preclude significant levels of other types of Illegal or unregulated harvest in this area.

The fishery is effectively regulated with a well-developed harvest reporting and management system. Catches, run composition and spawning escapement are assessed in-season and used for regulating effort and harvest according to abundance. Annual spawning escapements are monitored throughout the fishery area using aerial surveys. These stock assessments have demonstrated that current fisheries consistently produce significant spawning escapements. Continuing high annual harvests demonstrate the efficacy of the current system. The use of terminal fisheries and scheduled weekly “passing days” when the fishery is closed is central to the effectiveness of the harvest control rules. This system ensures significant escapement even in the absence of intensive in-season stock assessment and management such as is typically practiced in North American commercial salmon fisheries. The scale of the stock assessments is generally appropriate to the extensive management practice of the fishery.

While historical monitoring and sustainable harvest outcomes has demonstrated that current fishery strategies are effective, stock assessments have suffered reductions in recent years due government funding cutbacks. In particular, spawning surveys are much reduced. Historical information is sufficient to support the sustainability of the fishery under conditions of continuing high salmon productivity and consistent levels of fishing effort. However, the recent lack of information will risk future sustainability in the event of changes from the current equilibrium, necessitating several conditions on this assessment.

All principle scores exceeded 80 but four performance indicators scored between 60 and 80. As a result, five conditions were identified as specified in the tables below. On the basis of this assessment of the fisheries, the Assessment Team recommends that the fisheries be certified. Following this recommendation of the assessment team, review by stakeholders and peer- reviewers, and the conclusion of the objection period MRAG Americas has decided to certify this fishery as sustainable according to the MSC Fisheries Standard.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 6 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

2 Report details 2.1 Authorship and peer review details Ms. Amanda Stern-Pirlot (Team Leader) is an M. Sc graduate of the University of Bremen, Center for Marine Tropical Ecology (ZMT) in marine ecology and fisheries biology. Ms. Stern-Pirlot joined MRAG Americas in mid-June 2014 as MSC Certification Manager (now Director of the Fishery Certification Division) and is currently serving on several different assessment teams as team leader and team member. She has worked together with other scientists, conservationists, fisheries managers and producer groups on international fisheries sustainability issues for over 15 years. With the Institute for Marine Research (IFM-GEOMAR) in Kiel, Germany, she led a work package on simple indicators for sustainable within the EU-funded international cooperation project INCOFISH, followed by five years within the Standards Department at the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) in London, developing standards, policies and assessment methods informed by best practices in fisheries management around the globe. Most recently she has worked with the Alaska pollock industry as a resources analyst, within the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council process, focusing on bycatch and ecosystem-based management issues, and managing the day-to-day operations of the offshore pollock cooperative. She has co-authored a dozen publications on fisheries sustainability in the developing world and the functioning of the MSC as an instrument for transforming fisheries to a sustainable basis.

Mr. Ray Beamesderfer, M.Sc., Senior Fish Scientist, Fish Science Solutions, USA. Mr. Beamesderfer holds a bachelor's degree in Wildlife and Fisheries Biology from the University of California, Davis, and a Master's in Fishery Resources from the University of Idaho. As a consultant, Ray has completed a wide variety of projects in fishery management, biological assessment, and conservation/recovery planning. He is the author of numerous reports, biological assessments, management plans, and scientific articles on fish population dynamics, fish conservation, fishery, and hatchery management, sampling, and species interactions. Ray has served on MRAG and other fishery assessment teams for salmon fisheries in Alaska, Japan and Russia and brings perspective and harmonization between salmon fishery assessments in the Pacific.

Dr. Dmitry Lajus, Associate Professor in the Department of Ichthyology and Hydrobiology of St Petersburg State University. Dmitry holds a BS and MS from St. Petersburg University, and a PhD from the Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Dr. Lajus has conducted multiple MSC pre-assessments and full assessments for a number of fisheries in the European and Asian parts of Russia. He also provides consultations to fisheries in their MSC certification projects in Russia and EU. Dmitry’s research interests include population biology of marine fish and invertebrates, population phenogenetics, stress assessment, history of fisheries, fisheries management, historical ecology, and population dynamics. He authored numerous peer-reviewed research articles and book chapters.

Peer Reviewers Two peer reviewers were assigned to this assessment, and for anonymity, the peer reviewers were not confirmed. Below is the list of proposed peer reviewers from the MSC Peer Review College:

Al Cass has almost 50 years of experience in fisheries stock assessment in British Columbia, Canada. Key stocks include Pacific groundfish species, BC salmon and recently as a member of a Pacific herring technical working group to advise on technical issues related to a management strategy evaluation of BC herring fisheries. Nearly 35 years of experience was with Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). In addition to extensive fisheries stock assessment experience, Mr Cass was head of the regional DFO peer-review science advisory process (2002-2009) in support of fisheries management in Canada (Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS). During 2009-

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 7 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

2011 he also participated as the science lead and member of the DFO Pacific Cohen Commission of Inquiry into the decline of Fraser sockeye to: 1) coordinate Science sector staff contributions to the Inquiry; 2) participate in Team activities in an advisory capacity on Science and Department activities related to the Inquiry. Mr Cass retired from DFO in 2011 and has participated in fisheries science and management issues as a private fisheries consultant since then including as a team member of the MSC assessment of BC salmon fisheries (certified in 2016). He has also contracted with the Fisheries Sustainability Partnership Foundation (BC salmon) and Global Trust (Alaska salmon).

Hal Michael retired in 2010 from the Washington Dept of Fish and Wildlife, following 34 years in life history and population dynamics research, front-line commercial and recreational fisheries management, environmental law compliance, and design and implementation of restoration programs primarily focused on Pacific salmon primarily in the eastern Pacific with an emphasis on Washington and British Columbia. The primary focus of research and program development in the later years was examination of the ecological relationships between spawning salmon and ecosystem (terrestrial and aquatic) that they affected. Fisheries management activities were primarily development and implementation of mathematical models to estimate stock size and then participate in the scheduling of fisheries. Management was complicated by the need to meet both International and Internal sharing of catch in addition to meeting spawner escapements that maintained the longterm productivity of each stock. Hal worked extensively in salmonid aquaculture, particularly in the environmental siting and management of facilities. He produced and edited journal articles, reviews and book chapters on fisheries and ecosystem publications. In recent years, Hal has been working with the Sustainable Fisheries Foundation and Ecologists Without Borders on various projects.

Dr Jocelyn Drugan has over 12 years of fisheries science experience, having received her B.Sc. In Ecology and Evolutionary Biology from Yale University and her M. Sc. and Ph.D. in Fisheries Science from the University of Washington. Her graduate work focused on populations genetics and ecoevolutionary dynamics of wild salmon populations. In 2013 she was a postdoctoral research associate at the NOAA Alaska Fisheries Science Center in Seattle, developing a model for simulating effects of fish movement on population genetic structure in five groundfish species. She is currently a fisheries scientist with Ocean Outcomes, a global fishery improvement organization that works with high-risk fisheries that face big conservation challenges. She has participated in MSC pre-assessments of two Russian salmon fisheries and assessed U.S. West Coast and British Columbia salmon fisheries for the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch Program. She has also evaluated the sustainability of eleven important fishery species in Japan. In addition to native proficiency in English, Jocelyn has language skills in Japanese and Mandarin Chinese.

Dr Rob Blyth-Skyrme has worked in aquaculture and then in marine fisheries science, management and policy since 1996. Following his PhD which focussed on fisheries management and the environmental effects of fishing, he worked at the Eastern Sea Fisheries Joint Committee, the largest inshore fisheries management organization in England, where he became the Deputy Chief Fishery Officer. He then became a senior advisor to the UK Government on marine fisheries and environmental issues, leading a team dealing with fisheries policy, science and nationally significant fisheries and environmental casework. Rob now runs Ichthys Marine Ecological Consulting Ltd., a marine fisheries and environmental consultancy. As well as working for Government and industry on fisheries science and management issues, he has undertaken all facets of MSC work as a Lead Assessor, expert team member and peer reviewer across a wide range of fisheries.

Steve Nelson has about 25 years of experience in coastal and fishery management. During this time, he has worked in management, scientific, and communication roles for US and international

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 8 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

programs sponsored by federal, state, and local governments, academic institutions, NGOs, and private companies. He has technical expertise in fishery management, stock assessment, coastal ecology, biodiversity conservation, GIS and spatial analysis, climate change adaptation and resource economics. He is competent using state-of-the art methods, models and tools relevant to these disciplines and stays current with ongoing learning. He has experience working in the seafood industry with expertise in sustainability certification and product traceability. He was the fishery team leader for the MSC full assessment of the Bratsk Reservoir perch fishery. He also served as client advisor for MSC certifications of the Russian Alaska pollock fisheries in the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk and a reviewer of the Lake Peipus perch and pike perch fishery in Estonia. Moreover, he assessed and peer reviewed numerous fisheries certified under the FAO Responsible Fishing Management label for stocks in Alaska, Iceland, and Gulf of Mexico. He earned a BA in economics from the University of Virginia and an MS in environmental biology (estuarine ecology) from George Mason University plus additional training in stock assessment.

A discussion between team members regarding conflict of interest and biases was held and none were identified.

2.2 Version details Table 1. Fisheries program documents versions

Version Document number MSC Fisheries Certification Process Version 2.1 MSC Fisheries Standard Version 2.01 MSC General Certification Requirements Version 2.4 MSC Reporting Template Version 1.1

3 Unit(s) of Assessment and Certification and results overview 3.1 Unit(s) of Assessment and Unit(s) of Certification MRAG Americas has confirmed that this fishery is within scope for MSC fisheries certification through the following determinations (FCP v2.1:7.4):

7.4.2.1 The following taxa are not target species under Principle 1: a. Amphibians b. Reptiles c. Birds. d. Mammals 7.4.2.2 The fishery does not use poisons or explosives.

7.4.3 The fishery is not conducted under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement.

7.4.4 No member of the client group has been successfully prosecuted for a forced or child labour violation in the last 2 years.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 9 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Note the units of assessment and units of certification are identical for this fishery, thus they have ben combined into Table 2 below.

Table 2. Unit(s) of Assessment and Certification (UoA and UoC)

UoA 1 Description Species Pink (humpback) salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha Populations of pink salmon spawning along the west coast of Kamchatka Stock and adjacent rivers whose populations can be intercepted by the fishery. The western coast of Kamchatka, the Sea of Okhotsk, included in the Kamchatka-Kuril - 61.05.4 and Western Kamchatka subzones - 61.05.2 Geographical area (Sobolevo Management Unit of Kamchatka Territory); and salmon producing rivers; including the Icha, Oblukovina, Krutogorova, Kolpakova and Vorovskaya Rivers Harvest method / Coastal trap nets, beach seines and set gillnets. gear A collective of companies headed by Zarya, LLC comprising Zarya, LLC; Khangar, LLC; Crystal Fish, LLC; and, Zapadny Bereg, LLC Client group A collective of companies headed by Kolpakovsky rybokombinat, LLC including: Kolpakovsky rybokombinat, LLC; Icha-Fish, LLC; Krutogorovskoe, LLC; and Skit, LLC Vityaz-Avto, LLC Other eligible fishers Kolkhoz Oktyabr, Ltd Kamchatmoreproduct LLC UoA 2 Description Species Chum (dog) salmon Oncorhynchus keta Populations of chum salmon spawning along the west coast of Kamchatka Stock and adjacent rivers whose populations can be intercepted by the fishery. The western coast of Kamchatka, the Sea of Okhotsk, included in the Kamchatka-Kuril - 61.05.4 and Western Kamchatka subzone - 61.05.2 Geographical area (Sobolevo Management Unit of Kamchatka Territory); and salmon producing rivers; including the Icha, Oblukovina, Krutogorova, Kolpakova and Vorovskaya Rivers Harvest method / Coastal trap nets, beach seines and set gillnets. gear A collective of companies headed by Zarya, LLC comprising Zarya, LLC; Khangar, LLC; Crystal Fish, LLC; and, Zapadny Bereg, LLC Client group A collective of companies headed by Kolpakovsky rybokombinat, LLC including: Kolpakovsky rybokombinat, LLC; Icha-Fish, LLC; Krutogorovskoe, LLC; and Skit, LLC Vityaz-Avto, LLC Other eligible fishers Kolkhoz Oktyabr, Ltd Kamchatmoreproduct LLC

3.1.1 Scope of assessment in relation to enhanced or introduced fisheries

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 10 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

The stocks under the assessment are not enhanced. The stocks under the assessment are native.

3.2 Assessment results overview 3.2.1 Determination, formal conclusion and agreement MRAG Americas has determined that Zarya and Kolpakovsky Rybokombinat West Kamchatka pink and chum fisheries should be certified as sustainable against the MSC standard. Sockeye and Coho fisheries do not meet the MSC standards and thus are not certified. This is a determination and not a final certification decision.

3.2.2 Principle level scores Salmon Species Principle Pink Chum Principle 1 – Target Species 83.1 83.1 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 83.7 Principle 3 – Management System 81.0

3.2.3 Summary of Conditions Condition Performance Timeline for Condition number Indicator compliance Provide sufficient information on wild spawning 4thsurveillance escapement for a representative range of wild pink and chum populations in the unit of certification to support the harvest strategy and demonstrate that wild abundance is 1 1.2.3 regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule and precautionary management in light of impact of mining activities on habitat quality in the Icha River watershed.

Provide quantitative information on escapement of 4th 2 2.1.3 Sockeye and coho salmon adequate to assess the surveillance impact of the UoA with respect to status.

Provide quantitative information on the use and/or catch 3rd of coastal set gillnets, incidence of loss and potential for surveillance 3 2.1.3 impact of gear loss and unaccounted mortality on coho salmon.

Demonstrate that information on fishery performance and 3rd management action is available on request, and surveillance explanations are provided for any actions or lack of 4 3.2.2 action associated with findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity.

Demonstrate that a monitoring, control and surveillance 3rd system has been implemented in the fishery and surveillance associated enhancement activities and has demonstrated 5 3.2.3 an ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules, and that sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are consistently applied and thought to provide effective deterrence.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 11 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

3.2.4 Recommendations See detailed condition descriptions

4 Traceability and eligibility 4.1 Eligibility date The eligibility date is the date of issuance of the fishery certificate. This date has been chosen because it is the date of certification, and before the start date for the 2020 fishing season. In order to sell fish caught in this fishery, the processing plants will require chain of custody certification.

4.2 Traceability within the fishery Daily catch of salmon from traps is delivered by boats to the shore, where it is weighed and reloaded to mobile containers that transport chilled fish. Catch from beach seines and gill nets is brought ashore by the nets and loaded to mobile containers that transport chilled fish. Ice is used for cooling the fish. While the catch is transported, it is accompanied by a document specifying the place and the crew that captured it, the weights of the transported fish, and the processing facility where the catch is being delivered. Upon delivery, the fish are weighted again by the processing facility and then the catch is sent for processing. The processing plants track numbers of salmon by species by day for each fishing parcel. Transhipment does not occur. Arriving catch is recorded in the log of the processing facility. The processing plants track numbers of salmon by species by day for each fishing parcel. The record contains the location of the catch and company which submits catch. Both the companies' logs and the processing facilities' logs are regularly checked by SKTU inspectors, sanitary-epidemiological control and territorial RosPrirodNadzor. The facts of such inspections are also being recorded in appropriate logs. All fish delivered from landing sites have documentation that shows date, location, volumes, species, and fishing operator. Since each operator has a commercial fishing permit that also identifies gear type, documentation of the different gear types and operators would prevent substitution at delivery. Subsequent chain of custody would assure separation after the initial delivery. Some risk occurs that illegally harvested fish or fish harvested by a company not under the certificate sharing agreement could be accepted at a processing facility as certified. Substantial efforts by the certificate holders -sharing companies to enhance enforcement activities by supplying personnel, equipment, and funding to the authorities minimizes the opportunity for illegal harvest in the beach regions where legal fishing occurs. These companies also support enforcement activities in rivers to minimize the opportunity of illegal harvest of roe. Therefore, the likelihood is low of illegal product entering the processing facilities with the proper documentation and weights that would pass inspections by the authorities. MSC traceability requirements cover only salmon landed at authorized fishing parcels by the legally permitted and certificate-holding fishing company in the Unit of Certification and delivered to processing facilities, where the landings can be monitored in accordance with MSC chain of custody requirements. The certified fishing company in the Unit of Certification may use the certificate and apply the MSC logo if they deliver to a processing facility that holds MSC chain of custody certification. The occurrence of illegal fishing in the Russian Far East suggests a need for robust chain of custody to mitigate the risk of product from a non-certified source entering the supply chain. Chain of custody would begin at the point of delivery of product from the certified company in the Unit of

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 12 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Certification to a processing facility, whether the facility is owned by the participating company or by another entity. Table 3. Traceability within the fishery

Factor Description

Will the fishery use gears that are not part Not present. All gears employed in the fishery are in the of the Unit of Certification (UoC)? assessment. Not present – Vessels are owned by the companies and are assigned to the active fishing parcels. Vessels could Will vessels in the UoC also fish outside the not obtain fish from beyond company fishing parcels UoC geographic area? without detection because the plants and government inspectors compare logbook records from parcels with landings at the plant. Not present. All fish delivered from landing sites must Do the fishery client members ever handle have documentation that shows data, location, volumes, certified and non-certified products during species and fishing operator. Each operator has a any of the activities covered by the fishery commercial fishing permit that identifies the gear type. certificate? These documents prevent substitution of fish at delivery. No at-sea transhipment. Appropriate systems and records are in place at: (1) the point of landing, (2) reloading, (3) boxing into container and (4) transport to processing facility to ensure traceability back to UoC. Does transshipment occur within the Further while there is no transhipment prior to point of fishery? landing, there is also no transhipment from point of reloading to the start of CoC (i.e. processing facility). Only salmon harvested in the UoC are processed in the fishing company’s facilities in Western Kamchatka. Are there any other risks of mixing or substitution between certified and non- Not present. certified fish?

4.3 Eligibility to enter further chains of custody The product of the fishery is eligible to be sold as MSC certified or carry the MSC ecolabel. Zarya, LLC and Kolpakovsky rybokombinat, LLC are eligible to use the fishery certificate, and sell product as MSC certified. These companies process their catches at their own factories. Production goes to the Russian market and is also sold to international markets.

Acting as a client for the current certification, these companies may share certification with another fishing company or companies operated in the UoC on terms of Certificate Sharing Agreement. The current list of companies and their fishing parcels eligible for the current fishery certification will be published at the MSC website and may be changed. Salmon species specified in the UoC of the assessment, harvested by the companies of the Client Group with gears allowed in the Fishing Rules (as specified in this unit of certification),, and landed from authorized parcels in the rivers listed in the UoAs are eligible to enter further chains of custody. The landing points are fish-processing facilities belonging to the Clients of the certification and are situated in the Sobolevsky administrative district of Kamchatka Krai. This is a point from which subsequent Chain of Custody certification is required. Chain of custody begins at delivery of salmon to a processing facility in the client group or at a point of change in ownership of the fish, whichever comes first.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 13 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Members of the Client Group own the fish they catch, commencing at the point of fish catch. Fishing sites are leased and operated by the members of the Client Group, which also operate the processing plants. Documentation of the fish is sufficient such that chain of custody is not necessary for transport of wholly owned fish from the point of catch to delivery at the processing plant. Should other companies share the certificate at some point in the future and sell fish to the client group or other companies holding chain of custody, chain of custody would start at the point of sale, but no later than delivery to a processing plant. Any companies buying from processing facilities that receive certified product are required to have chain of custody certification for further sale and distribution. This certification did not evaluate other landing sites that are not part of the certification determination or subsequent distribution for chain of custody. To use the MSC logo, subsequent links in the distribution chain must enter into a separate chain of custody certification that proves they can track the salmon product to a chain of custody holder or the certified fishery. In summary, this fishery certificate covers the fish from the point of harvest through transport, to delivery at the processing plants owned by the same companies who catch the fish. If the fish is to be sold to another party prior to processing, the fishery certificate extends only to the point of sale. 4.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) No IPI stocks are identified in this assessment.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 14 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

5 Scoring 5.1 Summary of Performance Indicator level scores

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 15 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

5.2 Principle 1 5.2.1 Principle 1 background Overview of the fishery The fishery occurs in the western part of Kamchatka Peninsula on the Sea of Okhotsk. The fishery includes five target rivers: the Icha, Oblukovina, Krutogorova, Kolpakova and Vorovskaya Rivers. Pink salmon is the main commercial species harvested from Western Kamchatka in odd years and chum salmon in even years.

The region is remote with limited road connection to city of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, the Administrative Center of Kamchatka Kray, and largely undeveloped. Watersheds are in excellent condition and salmon habitat diverse and highly productive. The human populations are concentrated in small remote communities such as Sobolevo and Kirovsky located along the coast. Local populations have been declining in the post- Soviet period due to limited economic opportunity in the region. Fishing companies bring in workers from other parts of Russia to support their operations during the fishing season. The rivers in this area are all considered remote as they are not accessible by main roads.

There are three legal categories of salmon fishing that take place in the Western Kamchatka Subzone: Figure 1. Western Kamchatka region of the fishery assessment. commercial fishing by fishing Names of rivers included in the Unit of Assessment companies (which are also are underlined. processing companies); recreational (sport and amateur fishing) and indigenous fishing for traditional economic activities

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 16 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

by communities, clan associations and personal consumption by individual representatives of indigenous populations of the North, Siberia and the Far East. The large majority (99%) of the salmon harvest occurs in the commercial fishery (Bugaev et al. 2018). Fishing is and has long been the primary occupation of people of Kamchatka including indigenous peoples. Industrial salmon fisheries have operated in Kamchatka since the beginning of 20th century. The fishing industry expanded during the Soviet period, although catches began to decrease in the 1950s due to Japanese driftnet fishing and unfavourable ocean conditions for salmon production. A series of events fundamentally changed the fishery situation by the early 1990s. The collapse of the Soviet Union led to economic crisis. At the same time, salmon returns increased considerably following improvements in ocean conditions for salmon throughout the North Pacific during the 1980s and an international ban in 1993 on unregulated high seas drift net fishing outside of the Russian Exclusive Economic Zone. Fishing parcels and fishing rights were also redistributed during the economic crisis. Until Perestroika, fishing was conducted by very few governmental enterprises. After 1990, commercial fishery access was leased to small private companies. Eventually, number of owners and companies reduced, and redistribution of fishing parcels took place in 2008. Before this time salmon fisheries were under TAC regulation, but after that they are regulated with recommended catch which made the management more time efficient. Commercial Fishing Methods Coastal trap nets typically consist of a mesh lead set perpendicular to shore to guide fish into one or more mesh wing-style traps where narrowing mesh fykes make it difficult for fish to exit (Figure 2). The mesh lead or “fence” is usually 1100 -1300 m in length and 11-15 m deep at low tide. The mesh size of the central net and the traps is being chosen to prevent fish from being gilled in the net cells. Traps are constructed of net mesh on a steel frame, typically have a wall height of 9 m and do not reach bottom. Coastal trap nets are effective because tidal amplitude is relatively small and coastal areas are wide and gradually-sloped. This type of fishing is passive and catch per unit effort is related to the fish abundance. Coastal trap nets are operated from small boats. Catch is typically taken from traps and dip netted into the boats for transport a short distance to shore or the fish processing plant where they are off-loaded by crane or hand at the beach.

Beach seines are long nets used to encircle and crowd fish toward shore where they can be captured (Figure 3). These seines are typically 200 m in length. Seines are fished in the shallow waters of the lower river where the current is relatively slow and the river is shallow. Seines are set from small skiffs and hauled from shore with vehicles and by hand.

Set gillnets have the property of catching fish that get caught in the mesh while trying to swim through the net. The movement of the gear is controlled via the leader rope from the anchored vessel. The gear floats in the water with the help of multiple buoys attached to the top of net (Figure 4). The fishers use them in the coastal waters. Such gear, according to fishing rules, are allowed to be used to the north from 54 latitude only on the West Kamchatka coast and with the following limitations (section 32.25 of the Fishing Rules of the Far Eastern basin):

- not to be used at the same time with other fishing gear at the same fishing parcel; - length of nets not more than 120 m and depth not more than 9 m;

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 17 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

- distance between the nets not less than 120 m; - number of nets in the same fishing parcel cannot exceed 20; - nets cannot be set up in a checkerboard order.

Figure 2. General view of a coastal trapnet as used by the commercial fishing companies. Source: http://textarchive.ru/c-1661274-pall.html.

Figure 3. Beach seine 1 – ground warp, 2 - leader, 3 - shoulder, 4 – “shirt”, 5 – seine sack.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 18 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Figure 4. General view of a coastal set gillnet similar to those utilized by the participating companies. 1 – mesh, 2 – ropes, 3- leader, 4 – buoy with flag. Fishery Location Administratively, the fishing areas are parts of Kamchatka Kray of Far East Federal Region of the Russian Federation. For fishery management purposes, the Kamchatka peninsula coastal zone is subdivided into several subzones (Figure 5). For the purposes of this assessment, the SMU/UoA is defined as the Western Kamchatka subzone (05.2). A small part of the fishery also belongs to the Kamchatka-Kuril Subzone.

Zarya and Kolpakovsky Rybokombinat operate in the Sea of Okhotsk along the western coast of Kamchatka from the Vorovskaya River north to the Icha River (Figure 6). There are 83 commercial fishing parcels located in the UoA (Bugaev et al. 2018), including 64 marine parcels and 19 river parcels (three each in the Icha and Krutogorova Rivers, four each on the Oblukovina and Kolpakova Rivers and five on the Vorovskaya River).

The two fishing cooperatives combined lease 68 commercial fishing parcels in Western Kamchatka. The cooperative headed by Zarya, LLC leases 27 parcels: 21 marine; and 6 river all located in the Western Kamchatka fisheries subzone (Table 4). The cooperative headed by Kolpakovsky rybokombinat, LLC leases 41 parcels: 30 marine; and 11 river all located in the Western Kamchatka subzone except for three marine parcels in the Kamchatka-Kuril subzone (Table 5).

Each sea fishing parcel is 300 m wide (measured from the base point) and 2 km in length (set perpendicular to shore) unless otherwise noted. In river fishing parcels vary in size and may include one or both shores. The parcel permit is leased to fishing companies under a twenty-year lease. Fishermen are hired by contract – they receive a salary and then receive extra pay based on their catch. In addition to employing the local inhabitants in fish processing factories, the companies also pay considerable attention to investing in community development projects of the settlements where they are based.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 19 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Fishery area

Figure 5. Fishing management units (fishing subzones) for Kamchatka peninsula.

Figure 6. The area of Western Kamchatka covered showing locations of commercial fishing parcels and rivers included in this assessment.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 20 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Table 4. Fishing parcels leased by companies in the collective headed by Zarya, LLC in the Western Kamchatka Subzone. Source: Zarya, LLC. Parcel # Parcel Latitude Longitude Location description type Leased by Zarya, LLC The Sea of Okhotsk 300m along the 41 sea 55º12´38" N 155º33´24" E shore, extending 2000m to sea

The Sea of Okhotsk 300m along the 42 sea 55º06´09" N 155º34´30" E shore, extending 2000m to sea

The Sea of Okhotsk 300m along the 48 sea 55º00´07" N 155º35´39" E shore, extending 2000m to sea

The Sea of Okhotsk 300m along the 49 sea 54º59´02" N 155º35´56" E shore, extending 2000m to sea

55º27´16" N 155º34´11" E 55º26´45" N 155º34´05" E The Sea of Okhotsk bounded within 1102 sea 55º26´48" N 155º32´51" E the coordinates, 130 ha 55º27´20" N 155º32´57" E 55º23´35" N 155º33´36" E 55º23´02" N 155º33´32" E The Sea of Okhotsk bounded within 1104 sea 55º23´06" N 155º32´18" E the coordinates, 130 ha 55º23´38" N 155º32´22" E 55º22´14" N 155º33´25" E 55º21´41" N 155º33´20" E The Sea of Okhotsk bounded within 1105 sea 55º21´43" N 155º32´06" E the coordinates, 130 ha 55º22´15" N 155º32´11" E 55º10´10" N 155º33´48" E 55º09´38" N 155º33´50" E The Sea of Okhotsk bounded within 1106 sea 55º09´33" N 155º32´37" E the coordinates, 130 ha 55º10´06" N 155º32´34" E 54º54´29" N 155º36´59" E 54º53´57" N 155º37´06" E The Sea of Okhotsk bounded within 1111 sea 54º53´49" N 155º35´54" E the coordinates, 130 ha 54º54´22" N 155º35´46" E Oblukovina river, 6000m from mouth & 670 river 2000 m upstream Oblukovina river, 9000m from mouth & 671 river 1000 m upstream Krutogorova river, 2000m from mouth 674 river & 700 m upstream

Krutogorova river, 8000m from mouth 675 river & 2000 m upstream

Leased by Crystal Fish, LLC 69 sea 54º15´26" N 155º47´54" E

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 21 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

The Sea of Okhotsk 300m along the shore, extending 2000m to sea

The Sea of Okhotsk 300m along the 72 sea 54º11´40" N 155º49´19" E shore, extending 2000m to sea

The Sea of Okhotsk 300m along the 75 sea 54º09´33" N 155º50´07" E shore, extending 2000m to sea

690 river Vorovskaya River Leased by Khangar, LLC 55º08´53" N 155º33´59" E 55º08´21" N 155º34´04" E The Sea of Okhotsk bounded within 1107 sea 55º08´17" N 155º32´51" E the coordinates, 130 ha 55º08´49" N 155º32´46" E 55º07´36" N 155º34´07" E 55º07´04" N 155º34´12" E The Sea of Okhotsk bounded within 1108 sea 55º06´59" N 155º32´59" E the coordinates, 130 ha 55º07´32" N 155º32´54" E 54º57´23" N 155º36´18" E 54º56´51" N 155º36´27" E The Sea of Okhotsk bounded within 1109 sea 54º56´44" N 155º35´14" E the coordinates, 130 ha 54º57´16" N 155º35´06" E 54º55´56" N 155º36´38" E 54º55´23" N 155º36´45" E The Sea of Okhotsk bounded within 1110 sea 54º55´16" N 155º35´34" E the coordinates, 130 ha 54º55´49" N 155º35´27" E Leased by Zapadny Bereg, LLC The Sea of Okhotsk 300m along the 57 sea 54º37´41" N 155º40´57" E shore, extending 2000m to sea

54º50´14" N 155º37´59" E 54º49´41" N 155º38´07" E The Sea of Okhotsk bounded within 1091 sea 54º49´37" N 155º37´12" E the coordinates, 100 ha 54º50´09" N 155º37´03" E 54º48´53" N 155º38´19" E 54º48´21" N 155º38´26" E The Sea of Okhotsk bounded within 1092 sea 54º48´16" N 155º37´30" E the coordinates, 100 ha 54º48´49" N 155º37´23" E 54º47´34" N 155º38´40" E 54º47´01" N 155º38´47" E The Sea of Okhotsk bounded within 1093 sea 54º46´57" N 155º37´51" E the coordinates, 100 ha 54º47´29" N 155º37´44" E 54º53´02" N 155º37´20" E 54º52´30" N 155º37´29" E The Sea of Okhotsk bounded within 1112 sea 54º52´23" N 155º36´16" E the coordinates, 130 ha 54º52´56" N 155º36´08" E Kolpakova river, 6000m from mouth & 680 river 2000 m upstream

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 22 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Table 5. Fishing parcels leased by companies in the collective headed by Kolpakovsky rybokombinat, LLC in the Western Kamchatka and Kamchatka-Kuril Subzones. Source: Kolpakovsky rybokombinat, LLC. Parcel # Parcel Latitude Longitude Location description type Leased by Icha Fish, LLC 38 sea 55º17'01" N 155º33'14" E Sea of Okhotsk, Western Kamchatka Subzone 1087 sea 55º42'52" N 155º37'55" E Same as above 1088 sea 55º36'37" N 155º36'37" E Same as above 1090 sea 55º11'28" N 155º33'31" E Same as above 1096 sea 55º35'16" N' 155º36'21" E Same as above 1097 sea 55º33'57" N 155º36'01" E Same as above 1098 sea 55º32'35" N 155º35'41" E Same as above 1099 sea 55º31'17" N 155º35'16" E Same as above 1100 sea 55º29'57" N 155º34'52" E Same as above 1101 sea 55º28'37" N 155º34'34" E Same as above Icha River, 3000m from mouth & 1500 m 665 river upstream 1094 river Icha River Leased by Krutogorovskoe, LLC 39 sea 55º14'48" N 155º33'16" E Sea of Okhotsk, Western Kamchatka Subzone 40 sea 55º13'43" N 155º33'20" E Sea of Okhotsk, Western Kamchatka Subzone 43 sea 55º05'00" N 155º34'46" E Sea of Okhotsk, Western Kamchatka Subzone 44 sea 55º03'60" N 155º34'52" E Sea of Okhotsk, Western Kamchatka Subzone 45 sea 55º01'43" N 155º35'18" E Sea of Okhotsk, Western Kamchatka Subzone 1095 sea 55º38'47" N 155º36'59" E Sea of Okhotsk, Western Kamchatka Subzone 1113 sea 54º42'22" N 155º39'53" E Sea of Okhotsk, Western Kamchatka Subzone Icha River, from the mouth of the Nizhona 666 river River downstream 1000m Oblukovina River, 1000m from mouth & 668 river 2000 m upstream Oblukovina River, 4000m from mouth & 669 river 1000 m upstream Krutogorova River, 3700m from mouth & 673 river 1000 m upstream Leased by Kolpakovsky rybokombinat, LLC 51 sea 54º45'04" N 155º39'16" E Sea of Okhotsk, Western Kamchatka Subzone 54 sea 54º40'44" N 155º40'11" E Sea of Okhotsk, Western Kamchatka Subzone 55 sea 54º39'50" N 155º40'25" E Sea of Okhotsk, Western Kamchatka Subzone

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 23 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

58 sea 54º34'24" N 155º41'51" E Sea of Okhotsk, Western Kamchatka Subzone Kolpakova River, 1000m from mouth & 678 river 1000 m upstream Kolpakova River, 3000m from mouth & 679 river 2000 m upstream Kolpakova River, 9000m from mouth & 681 river 2000 m upstream Leased by Skit, LLC 61 sea 54º22'51" N 155º45'12" E Sea of Okhotsk, Western Kamchatka Subzone 62 sea 54º21'48" N 155º45'32" E Sea of Okhotsk, Western Kamchatka Subzone 1115 sea 54º32'56" N 155º42'17" E Sea of Okhotsk, Western Kamchatka Subzone 1116 sea 54º31'27" N 155º42'42" E Sea of Okhotsk, Western Kamchatka Subzone 1117 sea 54º29'58" N 155º43'06" E Sea of Okhotsk, Western Kamchatka Subzone 1118 sea 54º28'29" N 155º43'29" E Sea of Okhotsk, Western Kamchatka Subzone 688 river Vorovskaya River, 9500m downstream from the pipeline and upstream 3500m 692 river Vorovskaya River, 2000m upstream from the pipeline and upstream 1500m 85 sea 53º58'10" N 155º54'15" E Sea of Okhotsk, Kamchatka-Kuril Subzone 99 sea 53º36'16" N 155º59'42" E Sea of Okhotsk, Kamchatka-Kuril Subzone 101 sea 53º34'06" N 156º00'04" E Sea of Okhotsk, Kamchatka-Kuril Subzone

Seasons Commercial salmon fishing generally occurs from July until September. Fishing in the rivers generally begins around July 5-9. Fishing in sea nets generally begins around July 15-20. Salmon species return and are harvested in broadly overlapping distributions throughout this period. Fishing generally continues as long as fish abundance and weather permit. Sea nets are typically removed in September as the bulk of the salmon run is complete and autumn storms begin. Fishing may continue in river sites when fish are available.

The start of the commercial season is timed to avoid harvest of Chinook and Cherry salmon which return from May until early or mid-July. Commercial Sockeye harvest typically begins in the second week of July. Maximum catches occur from mid-July until mid-August, and the latest industrial catches occur in late August to mid-September. Pink harvest typically begins around the third week of July. Maximum catches occur in the early-mid August. Catches are largely complete in even years by the beginning of September and in odd years from late August to mid-September. Chum harvest begins in mid- to late July with peak catches in early to mid-August. The latest catches generally occur in the early to mid-September. Coho harvest typically begins in mid- August with maximum catches in the early to mid-September, and catches until the beginning of October. The large majority of the Coho harvest in the commercial fishery occurs after the period of Sockeye, Pink and Chum catches. Fishing seasons may be modified based on fish abundance. Passing days are typically two or three per week depending on location.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 24 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Commercial Fishery Harvest Commercial salmon harvest data are available for Kamchatka since the 1880s. Each fishing parcel has an individual logbook that is maintained by the brigadier. Fishing companies compile and report numbers to the management systems (Kamchatka Territorial administration, SVTU). Numbers were historically tracked relative to fishery quota allocations and are currently the basis for landing tax assessments. Pink and chum salmon make up the bulk of the harvest in the West Kamchatka subzone (Figure 7). Pink salmon average 79.6% of the harvest in even years and 20% in odd years. Overall pink salmon averaged 68.0% (5.6–90.3%), chum salmon 22.3% (5.9–71.9%), sockeye salmon 3.5% (0.8–11.4%), and coho salmon 6.1% (1.7–21.1%) of the total catch in the West Kamchatka subzone (Bugaev et al. 2018). The percentage of Western Kamchatka subzone commercial salmon caught in the UoA over the past ten years was substantial. Pink salmon catches in the UoA averaged 79.0% of the total in odd years and 90.1% in even years. The UoA catch averaged 61.2% of the chum salmon, 46.7% of the sockeye and 50.4% of the coho caught in the West Kamchatka subzone (Bugaev et al. 2018). The total combined catch of salmon by the participating companies averaged nearly 23,000 mt during even years and 6,000 mt in odd years between 2010 and 2018. Pink salmon averaged 78% of the catch in even years and 28% in odd years. Chum salmon averaged 32%, sockeye 4.7%, and coho 8.5% of the companies’ total catches. In Western Kamchatka, salmon are traditionally caught in the sea with coastal trap nets and in rivers using beach seines and gill nets. The catch from in-river fishing parcels is typically small. Although the salmon catch in a coastal trap net is typically assigned to the closest river, they likely intercept other stocks transiting to other rivers in Western Kamchatka. This circumstance does not allow unambiguous attributing of catches to certain salmon populations. Nevertheless, the catches attributed to individual stocks are informative. The total catch of salmon in and adjacent to the Icha River over the past ten years (Figure 9) averaged 1,926 mt overall, 828 mt in odd years and 3,023 mt in even years. The total catch of salmon in and adjacent to the Oblukovina River (Figure 10) averaged 5,127 mt overall, 2,330 mt in odd years, and 7,924 mt in even years. The total salmon catch in and adjacent to the Krutogorova River (Figure 11) averaged 3,761 mt overall, 1,380 mt in odd years, and 6,141 mt in even years. The total salmon catch in and adjacent to the Kolpakova River (Figure 12) averaged 5,874 mt overall, 1,978 mt in odd years, and 9,770 mt in even years. The total salmon catch in and adjacent to the Vorovskaya River (Figure 13) averaged 13,932 mt overall, 2,815 mt in odd years, and 25,049 in even years. Pink salmon typically dominated the catches from each river during odd years and chum salmon during even years.

Over the past ten years, the number of commercial fishing companies engaged in fishing in the UoA has ranged from 7 in 2009 to 19 in 2013, and have remained at 15 since 2014 (Figure 14). The main share of the catch belongs to three fishing companies between 2009 and 2018: Zarya, LLC caught an average of 16.5% of the salmon (ranging from 7.9% in 2016 to 26.9% in 2009); Vityaz-Avto LLC averaged 14.5% of the catch (ranging from 2.59% in 2017 to 18.1% in 2018); and, Crystal, LLC averaged 13.1% of the catch (ranging from 6.14% in 2009 to 23.9% in 2012).

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 25 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Figure 7. Commercial catch of salmon in the Western Kamchatka fisheries subzone by species, 2009-2018. Source: Bugaev et al. 2018.

Figure 8. Percentage of Western Kamchatka fisheries subzone commercial catch harvested in the UoA by species, 2009-2018. Source: Bugaev et al. 2018.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 26 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Figure 9. The commercial salmon catches (mt) inriver (white bars) and marine areas (black bars) adjacent to the Icha River by species, 2009-2018. Source: Bugaev et al. 2018.

Figure 10. The commercial salmon harvest (mt) in river (white bars) and adjacent marine areas (black bars) to the Oblukovina River by species, 2009-2018. Source: Bugaev et al. 2018.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 27 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Figure 11. The commercial salmon harvest (mt) in river (white bars) and adjacent marine areas (black bars) to the Krutogorova River by species, 2009-2018. Source: Bugaev et al. 2018.

Figure 12. The commercial salmon harvest (mt) in river (white bars) and adjacent marine areas (black bars) to the Kolpakova River by species, 2009-2018. Source: Bugaev et al. 2018.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 28 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Figure 13. The commercial salmon harvest (mt) in river (white bars) and adjacent marine areas (black bars) to the Vorovskaya River by species, 2009-2018. Source: Bugaev et al. 2018.

Table 6 Average percent of pink and chum in the commercial catch by river, 2009-2018. Source: Bugaev et al. 2018. Odd-years Even-years River Pink Chum Pink Chum Icha 31.9% 46.0% 80.9% 12.4% Oblukovina 21.5% 60.2% 77.0% 17.0% Krutogorova 21.1% 57.7% 83.2% 11.4% Kolpakova 21.7% 60.7% 82.6% 11.4% Vorovskaya 31.1% 53.7% 91.5% 6.9%

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 29 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Figure 14 Percent of total catch of salmon in the UoA by company and year. Source: Bugaev et al. 2018b.

Figure 15. Percent of total catch of salmon in the West Kamchatka subzone caught in the UoA, 2009-2018. Source: Bugaev et al. 2018.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 30 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Recreational Fishery In the Russian Far East, all species of Pacific salmon caught in sport or recreational fisheries. This type of fishing is done with sport fishing gear (spinning or rod) or various types of gillnets. Sport fishing in the UoA occurs in designated fishing parcels leased to four fishing companies. These companies lease five marine parcels and seven river parcels: one each in the Icha, Oblukovina, Krutogorova and Kolpakova Rivers; and three parcels in the Vorovskaya River (Lyubkina, Feshkina and Sennaya tributaries). Over the past ten years, 45.4% of the recreational catch was harvested in marine parcels and 54.6% in river parcels (Bugaev et al. 2018). The maximum catch (73.6%) in the marine parcels was in 2015, and the minimum (10.0%) in 2012. On average, the main catch (36.7%) in the marine recreational fishery was chum salmon 14.4 mt (range 1.0-28.3 mt). Coho salmon harvests averaged 12.1 mt (6.5–22.9 mt) or 30.8% of the marine catch, followed by pink salmon (odd years 7.0 mt and even years 15.4 mt) or 28.5% of the catch. Sockeye (3.3%) and Chinook salmon (0.7%) represented minor catches in the marine parcels. Chinook salmon were only caught between 2009 and 2013, averaging 0.5 mt (0.4–0.9 mt). The total marine recreational catch averaged 39.3 mt varying from 16.1 to 65.2 mt. Six Pacific salmon species and char were harvested in the river parcels, with a total average catch of 47.3 mt over the past ten years, ranging from 13.8 mt in 2011 to 144.8 mt in 2012. Pink salmon were the main species harvested, averaging 25.2 mt (1.6 to 121.2 mt). Chum salmon averaged 9.1 mt (2.0 to 22.3 mt), coho salmon 7.4 mt (3.4 to 13.0 mt), Chinook salmon 3.7 mt (1.5–5.8 mt) and sockeye salmon 1.3 mt (0.3–3.0 mt). Masu salmon were harvested in river parcels in 2016- 2018, averaging 0.3 mt (0.1 to 0.5 mt) MT. The catch of chars averaged 0.6 mt, ranged from 0.1 to 1.1 mt (Bugaev et al. 2018).

Figure 16. Percent of total recreational harvest of salmon and char caught in marine (white bars) and river (black bars) parcels, 2009-2018. Source: Bugaev et al. 2018.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 31 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Figure 17. Recreational salmon harvest (mt) from the Sobolevsky marine areas by species and year, 2009- 2018. Source Bugaev et al. 2018.

Figure 18. Total inriver recreational harvest (mt) of salmon and char in the UoA, 2009-2018. Source: Bugaev et al. 2018.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 32 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Most of the in river recreational harvest occurs in the Vorovskaya River (Bugaev et al. 2018). Over the past ten years, the Vorovskaya fishery accounted for 84.4% (62.7–99.0%) of the total inriver recreational harvest. Pink salmon are typically the main species harvested in even years averaging 23.0 mt and 7.2 mt in odd years. Chum salmon catches averaged 8.8 mt (2.0–20.3 mt); sockeye salmon 1.1 mt (0.3–2.5 mt); coho salmon 4.6 mt (2.3–6.6 mt); Chinook salmon 2.1 mt (0.8–3.6 mt); and, chars 0.6 mt (0.1–1.1 mt). Masu salmon were only harvested in 2016 (0.115 mt). Coho and Chinook salmon were harvested by recreational fisheries in the Icha, Oblukovina, Krutogorova Rivers. These species were only harvested from the Icha River recreational fishery in 2009–2012, 2014, 2015 and 2018. The average catch was 0.5 mt of coho salmon (0.05–2.0 mt) and 0.2 mt of Chinook salmon (0.02–0.5 mt). The average catch from the Oblukovina River was 0.9 mt of coho salmon (0.3–2.0 mt), and 0.3 mt of Chinook salmon (0.03– 0.6 mt). Masu salmon were only harvested (0.9 mt) from the Oblukovina River in 2016. The average catch from the Krutogorova River was 0.8 mt of coho salmon (0.03–2.0 mt) and 0.2 mt of Chinook salmon (0.2–0.3 mt). The primary species harvested by the recreational fishery in the Kolpakova River through 2011 were coho and Chinook salmon. The average catch was 2.2 mt of coho salmon (0.2–5.0 mt) and 1.3 mt of Chinook salmon (0.3–2.5 mt). Other salmon species were harvested beginning in 2012. The average catch was 0.7 mt of chum salmon (0.02–2.0 mt) and 0.2 mt of masu salmon (0.02– 0.5 mt). Pink and sockeye salmon were only caught in 2014 (0.5 mt pink and 1.0 mt sockeye) and in 2018 (2.0 mt pink and 0.5 mt sockeye). Char were only harvested only in 2012 (0.063 mt).

Figure 19. Recreational harvest (mt) of salmon and char from the Vorovskaya River, 2009-2018. Source: Bugaev et al. 2018.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 33 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Figure 20. Recreational harvest (mt) of coho and Chinook salmon from the Icha, Oblukovina, Krutogorova and Kolpakova Rivers, 2009-2018. Source: Bugaev et al. 2018.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 34 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Figure 21. Recreational harvest (mt) of pink, chum, sockeye and masu salmon from the Kolpakova River, 2009-2018. Source: Bugaev et al. 2018.

Indigenous fishing Annual fishing volumes for Pacific salmon are established for indigenous minorities of the Russian Federation (officially known as Small Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia and Far East, or SIPN). SIPN individuals can file an application to harvest anadromous fish species hinge for the purposes of ensuring traditional lifestyle and conducting traditional economic activities to territorial authorities of the Russian Federal Fisheries Agency according to the procedure established by the Order of the Government of the Russian Federation as of 15.10.2008 No. 765 “On Procedure for Preparing and Making Decision on Provision of Water Biological Resources for Use”. The Indigenous quota has a priority over the commercial fishing quota. Indigenous catch may be retained for subsistence and personal use or sold. Within the UoA, SIPN fisheries (four tribal communities) harvest salmon at one sea location and in the Icha, Krutogorova, Vorovskaya Rivers. Four salmon species and chars were harvested in sea parcels (Figure 22). Pink salmon were generally the most common species caught averaging 11.3 mt (1.0–27.5 mt) overall and 3.3 mt during odd years, and 19.3 mt during even years. The catch of other species averaged 8.6 mt (1.0-13.2 mt) of chum salmon; 2.1 mt (0–3.5 mt) of sockeye salmon; and, 2.1 mt (0.6–7.6 mt) of coho salmon. A total of 50 mt of chars were caught in 2012, and the catch averaged 14.8 mt (4.0–30.0 mt) since 2014. The total catch of all species averaged 39.6 mt, varying 3.0 to 77.0 mt (Bugaev et al. 2018).

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 35 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Figure 22. The indigenous catch of salmon from sea fishing parcels, 2009-2018. Source: Bugaev et al. 2018. The SIPN fishery harvested pink, chum, sockeye, coho and Chinook salmon as well as chars in river parcels. Over the past ten years, the combined river catches averaged 37.8 mt ranging from 2.3 mt in 2014 to 80.5 mt in 2012 (Figure 23). Pink salmon were the main species caught averaging 18.6 mt (0.14–50.0 mt); followed by chum salmon - 12.1 mt (1.2–26.2 mt), coho salmon - 4.5 mt (0.7–9.4 mt), and sockeye salmon - 1.6 mt (0.2–3.9 mt) (Bugaev et al. 2018). Chinook salmon catches were reported in three years: 1.06 mt in 2009; 1.0 mt in 2010; and, 0.36 mt in 2011. Char catches averaged 0.7 mt (0.04–3.0 mt). The in-river catch of salmon by the SIPN fishery varied by river and year. The SIPN fishery took place on the Icha River in 2009–2012, 2015, 2017, and 2018 (Figure 24). The average catch was: 10.7mt of pink salmon (0.7–30.0 mt); 7.6 mt of chum salmon (3.0–15.0 mt); 1.2 mt of sockeye salmon (0.3–2.0 mt); and, 3.5 mt of coho salmon (0.9–5.0 mt). Chinook salmon were only harvested in 2009 and 2010 (1.0 mt each year). Char were harvested only in 2009 (1.0 mt). The SIPN fishery took place on the Krutogorova River in 2010, 2011, 2013 and 2018 (Figure 25). The average catch over four years was: 8.0 mt of pink salmon (3.0–20.0 mt); 5.5 mt of chum salmon (3.0–10.0 mt); 1.6 mt of coho salmon (1.0–2.2 mt); and, 1.3 mt of sockeye salmon (1.0–1.8 mt). Chinook salmon (0.3 mt) and chars (3.0 mt) were only reported in 2011. The SIPN fishery on the

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 36 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Vorovskaya River took place annually over the past ten years except for 2010 (Figure 26). The average catch was: 10.0 mt of pink salmon (0.1–30.0 mt); 5.1 mt of chum salmon (0.5–13.0 mt); 0.7 mt of sockeye salmon (0.1–2.0 mt); and 2.0 mt of coho salmon (0.2–3.6 mt). Chinook salmon were caught in 2009 (0.06 mt) and 2011 (0.06 mt) and the catch of chars averaged 0.7 mt (0.04– 2.1 mt) in the four years they were reported (2012, 2014, 2017 and 2018).

Figure 23, Total inriver SIPN harvest (mt) of salmon and char in the UoA, 2009-2018. Source: Bugaev et al. 2018.

Figure 24. The indigenous harvest of salmon from the Icha River, 2009-2018. Source: Bugaev et al. 2018.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 37 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Figure 25. The indigenous harvest of salmon from the Krutogorova River, 2009-2018. Source: Bugaev et al. 2018.

Figure 26. The indigenous harvest of salmon from the Vorovskaya River, 2009-2018. Source: Bugaev et al. 2018.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 38 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Management The assessment is based on information from the Western Kamchatka fishery subzone, particularly including the rivers adjacent to fishing sites of companies included in the assessment. However, current status assessments by the fishery scientific agency (KamchatNIRO) are based on aerial surveys of index rivers determined to provide representative information for rivers within the administrative unit. The subzone includes dozens of significant rivers and streams of which only a subset, are currently included in annual surveys. This approach has proven to be effective because species-specific run sizes have been observed to be highly correlated across broad areas. KamchatNIRO conducts stock assessments for a zone aggregate extrapolated from index rivers based on historical information on the relative production of each river for a given species. River-specific escapement goals and escapement estimates are reported to the assessment based on this same apportionment process (except for index rivers where river-specific escapement estimates are available). Aerial escapement surveys - Spawning escapement is assessed based on aerial surveys of index rivers. Counts from index areas are expanded to non- index areas based on formulae established from historical sampling data. KamchatNIRO estimates that it takes about 600 hours of aerial surveys to adequately cover all the salmon spawning rivers in Kamchatka (Bugaev et al. 2018). However, aerial survey monitoring has been reduced from 545 hours in 2001 to an average of 131 hours over the past ten years due to budget constraints (Figure 27). This has increased the uncertainty related to escapement estimates for all salmon species. Analyses by KamchatNIRO (Bugaev et al. 2018) have demonstrated a high degree of correlation in numbers among adjacent systems. Eleven index rivers are used to monitor pink salmon escapements in Western Kamchatka (Table 7). These rivers account for up to 75% of total escapements and KamchatNIRO indicates they can estimate total even year pink salmon escapements in Western Kamchatka rivers with 99% accuracy (Bugaev et al. 2018). Accuracy of odd year pink salmon escapement estimates is not as good due to the smaller escapement numbers and greater variability but is sufficient for management purposes. Nine index rivers are used to monitor chum escapements in western Kamchatka. As with pink salmon, these index rivers account for a high percentage of total escapement of chum.

Figure 27. Annual aerial survey escapement monitoring effort (flight hours) conducted by KamchatNIRO in Western and Eastern Kamchatka, 1999-2018. Source: Bugaev et al. 2018.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 39 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Table 7. Index rivers (denoted by shading) for West Kamchatka Salmon by subzone (KamchatNIRO unpublished) Sub Pink even Pink odd River Chinook Sockeye Chum Coho zone years years Palana Tigil Moroshechnaya Icha Oblukovina Krutogorova Kamchatka Subzone

- Kolpakova Bryumka West Vorovskaya Kol Pymta

Kuril Kuril Kikhchik - Bolshaya Opala Subzone Golygina

Kamchatka Koshegochek Ozernaya (western) Target reference points - Justifying of the target escapement values for the main stock units is one of the key conditions for the rational use of salmon resources. In Kamchatka krai, the FSBSI "KamchatNIRO" employees have been carrying out such work for more than a decade. At present, escapement targets have been defined for the most commercially significant stocks for each species.

The number of spawners needed to achieve maximum sustained yield (MSY) for populations of Pacific salmon in the fishing zone was estimated using modeling and historical data on parental salmon escapements (S) and the recruitment of adults (R) in following years using the methodology of Feldman and Shevlyakov (2015):

where parameters meaning is the following: a is the recruitment limit of R with unlimited spawning stock S, b is the spawning stock necessary for producing replenishment a with maximum survival, SO – spawning stock, ensuring maximum survival of the descendants.

Parameter a is measured in the same units as replenishment R, and parameters b and S0 have the same dimension as the parent stock S (Figure 28).

Definitions of references points from Shevlyakov et al. 2016 are as follows:

Slim = boundary reference point set to the model parameter S0 (spawner level S with maximum survival recruits per spawner. his serves as a proxy Limit Reference Point.

SMSY = spawning escapement at maximum sustainable yield;

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 40 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

S*MSY = precautionary estimate of spawning escapement at maximum sustainable yield determined for the lower boundary of the confidential interval of model regression (α = 0.05).

Figure 28. Graphic interpretation of parameters a, b and So of model. Source: Bugaev et al. 2018a. Due to a fairly wide spread of data on parents and descendants, the parameters of the resonant model of the dependence of the replenishment from the stock are determined at a very low level of statistical significance. Therefore, for a more reliable determination of the parameters, it was decided to stratify the model into three levels: maximum, average (mostly observations of odd years) and minimum values (mainly observations of even years). The rules are determined as follows:

1) Separate strata should not intercept except for the start point at S = 0; 2) Strata are self-similar and have the common parameter So, i.e. maximum survival R / S should be with the same number of producers S for any of the levels of the model. This suggests that the optimal area of the spawning grounds is a parameter either stationary or slightly variable in time. The filling level of spawning grounds by producers, providing the maximum steady catch SMSY is estimated for the entire set of populations of each species. SMSY levels for populations of specific water bodies studied were determined using models, the parameters of which were obtained in proportion to the average multiyear shares of producers and descendants.

All estimates of the target reference points for escapement of the Pacific salmon from various water bodies in the area are used to predict their possible catch in the region. Accounting on control/reference rivers allows, using the obtained dependencies, to extrapolate the number to

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 41 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

the entire spawning stocks in the reproduction areas under consideration, but does not allow the data to be extrapolated to individual watercourses. Therefore, estimates of the value of the stock are subsequently calculated for large units, rather than for individual watercourses. In addition, the strategy of fishing for salmon by fixed nets and other fishing gear in the sea coastal area implies that they intercept part of the transit aggregations that follow to their spawning bodies of water. This circumstance does not allow unambiguously attribute even the targeted volumes of salmon catch to these or other population complexes, and even those located in close proximity to them. That, in turn, introduces uncertainties in the assessment of both the general approach of producers in each particular year, and the size of the generations themselves. For example, the area of suitable spawning grounds is estimated based on the areas occupied by producers annually, without ranking them by the efficiency of reproduction. In addition, the lack of clear guidelines on the area suitable for spawning does not allow adequate assessment of the density factors regulating the number of populations. Therefore, the focus of study is always placed on the most commercially significant rivers. Thus, the existing fishing strategy, as well as the presence of a large number of relatively small units of stocks, suggests evaluating the needs of salmon reproduction as a combination of the spawning fund of the entire fishing area without a division into specific populations.

Limit reference points - A precautionary approach to the management of fish stocks implies the existence of not only target, but also boundary management guidelines (Babayan, 2000). The regulation rule is based on the boundary reference points: Slim (minimum producers pass) and Elim (maximum exploitation), which are obtained during the testing of the rule. The main goal of fish stock management will be to maximize the catch and replenishment (and, consequently, the stock) while minimizing the biological risk of stock degradation (Feldman et al., 2018a).

In-season regulations - For management purposes, the Kamchatka peninsula coastal zone is subdivided into several management units. Each management unit contains several fishing parcels. Pre-season run forecasts are made for each salmon species by the Fisheries Research Institute (KamchatNIRO). The fishery management agency (FAR) approves a recommended annual catch for each fishery subzone based of this forecast. The pre-season forecast is now used primarily for planning purposes and possibly to establish quotas for some non-commercial fisheries. The forecast was historically used to establish total allowable catches and quotas for fishing companies. However, this system has now been replaced with an “Olympic” system where fishing companies operate in designated areas and periods and are allowed to harvest fish as available, as opposed to artificially limited by a specific allocation. Harvest quotas are still established for the fishery as a whole in each river but these quotas are adjusted in-season based on real time data.

The fishery is managed in-season with time and area openings and closures based on catch, biological characteristics of the catch, run size and escapement information. Management occurs with time and area closures. Fishery openings and closures may be made on short notice based on fish availability and progress in meeting spawning escapement objectives.

A primary means of controlling harvest in freshwater is through the use of passing days where fishing is closed. Previously, passing days were only applied to in river fishing but in recent years passing days have also been used in marine fishing parcels (Shevlyakov et al., 2017). The number of passing days may be reduced to avoid exceeding established escapement goals.

However, during large pink salmon runs, the potential harvest exceeds the capacity of the fish processing plants and so fishing companies voluntarily reduce their fishing time even when the fishery is open. Therefore, harvest rates are effectively reduced by capacity limitations even

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 42 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

when passing days are cancelled due to large escapements. Escapements of other salmon species likely benefit in large pink salmon years due to this effect.

Pink Salmon Pink salmon typically represent about 80% of the commercial salmon catch in the western Kamchatka subdistrict during even years Bugaev et al. (2018). Between 2009 and 2018, pink salmon averaged 25% of the catch in the target rivers during odd-years and 83% in even-years. Distribution Pink salmon are the most abundant salmon species in western Kamchatka (Semko 1954). This species is found throughout the north Pacific, including streams of western Kamchatka south of 54° Northern Latitude (Figure 29). The largest populations in western Kamchatka occur in the Bolshaya, Vorovskaya, and Kikhchik rivers. Unit of certification rivers contribute approximately 30% of the regional return on average (Shevlyakov et al. 2016). The distribution of pink salmon in western Kamchatka Rivers changed from 1998 to 2006, generally shifting northward. Russian pink salmon generally range into ocean waters of the Okhotsk and Bering seas. The deep-water part of the Okhotsk Sea is the major feeding ground of juvenile salmon within the Russian EEZ. The western Bering Sea has a low foraging importance for juveniles (Temnykh and Kurenkova 2006; Shuntov and Temnykh 2008a). High seas tag-and-recapture experiments have revealed that pink salmon originating from specific coastal areas have characteristic distributions at sea which are overlapping, nonrandom, and similar from year to year. Pink salmon are abundant in the Yavinskaya, Koshegochek and Golygina. Pink salmon are less abundant in the Ozernaya River due to the colder temperature of this lake-fed system. Life History Pink salmon return to western Kamchatka primarily in July and August, and spawning occurs in August and September. Spawning typically occurs in the lower and middle reaches of streams, rivers and sometimes the intertidal zone at the mouths of streams. After spawning, all pink salmon die. Like all salmon, eggs buried in redds excavated by the females in coarse gravel or cobble-size rock, often of shallow riffles and the downstream ends of pools. Fecundity typically averages about 1,500 eggs per female. Fry hatch after several months, then spend several weeks in the gravel before emerging in late winter or spring to migrate downstream into salt water. Pink salmon fry spend only few days in river. Adult pink salmon typically average 1.2 - 1.5 kg and 50 cm. All pink salmon spawn at age of two years. As a result, this species forms two independent populations in the same river, entering the river in odd and even years. The odd-year or even-year cycle will typically predominate, although in some streams both odd- and even-year pink salmon are about equally abundant. Cycle dominance will occasionally shift with the previously weak cycle become most abundant. In Western Kamchatka, a massive run of pink salmon in 1983 resulted in excessive spawning escapement that subsequently depressed odd-year runs (Bugaev et al. 2018). The even-year return now dominates.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 43 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Figure 29. Pink salmon spawner distribution (upper scale) in West Kamchatka rivers and pink salmon catch (bottom scale) value in 2018 (KamchatNIRO 2019).

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 44 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Stock Structure Run patterns in larger river systems suggest that the aggregate return includes a number of substocks. KamchatNIRO (2013) reports that up to five overlapping runs can be distinguished in large systems like the Bolshaya River based on run timing, size and sex ratio. Smaller systems may support fewer types. Genetic analyses of pink salmon stock structure have generally identified broad geographical patterns but little or no difference among local populations in any given region. Genetic differences appear to be less in Asian pink salmon than in North American pink salmon (Zhivotovsky, personal communication). Natural straying among local populations of pink salmon is generally assumed to be more significant than in other salmon species (Sharp et al. 1994; Zhivotovsky et al. 2008; Shpigalskaya et al. 2011). However, the available information on pink salmon genetic stock structure and straying patterns is not conclusive. It remains unclear whether historical genetic methods found no stock structure because none existed or because the available methods lacked sufficient power to identify differences. More recent genetic analyses of pink salmon using microsatellites have been similarly inconclusive. Status This species is currently at historical levels of high production throughout the western Pacific including the Western Kamchatka rivers (Figure 30). This follows an extended period of low returns from the 1950s through the 1970s due to impact of the Japanese high seas drift net fishery and unfavorable ocean environmental conditions. More accurate harvest reporting may also have contributed to higher numbers since 2008, as a result of changes to the management system. Commercial catches of pink salmon in Western Kamchatka averaged about 49,000 mt in even years and 3,000 mt in odd years from 2009-2018 (Figure 30, Figure 31). Harvest of individual target stocks are more variable but generally follow the same trend as those of Western Kamchatka. Run sizes during odd years have been much lower than even years since 1983 when a very large spawning escapement resulted in a shift in cycle dominance from odd to even years. An abnormally high abundance of spawners in the west Kamchatka rivers in 1983 was believed to subsequently depress the odd-year cohort due to digging of the spawning grounds, excessive density of spawners therein and high mortality of the offspring at early stages of ontogenesis resulting from organic contamination of nests and spawning grounds (Shevlyakov et al. 2016). The odd-year cohort has begun to rebound somewhat with several significant runs since 2003. Pink salmon harvests have generally been increasing for both odd and even broods since 2013 (Bugaev et al. 2018). Even-year numbers have decreased in the 2012-2014 cycle for unknown reasons (Shevlyakov et al. 2016). Spawning escapement was high in 2012 and produced a strong year-class of downstream migrants. Work on genetic identification of the west Kamchatka origin pink salmon in trawl catches during autumn in the Sea of Okhotsk showed a drop abundance as confirmed by a low run to the west Kamchatka coast in 2014. Numbers have subsequently rebounded with a large run in 2016 and a very large run in 2018. Spawning escapement of pink salmon is estimated based on expansions of aerial counts in a series of index areas throughout western Kamchatka. These surveys estimate that millions of pink salmon spawn in western Kamchatka Rivers during dominant (even-numbered) years. Estimates are also made in subdominant (odd-numbered) years. However, Shevlyakov and Maslov (2011) reported that odd-year escapement estimates are subject to significant error and cannot be used as a prognostic parameter.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 45 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

300,000

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000 Harvest (metric tonnes) (metric Harvest

50,000

0 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

Figure 30. Commercial pink salmon catch (mt) in Western Kamchatka (NPAFC 2020).

180 численность подходов, млн. экз. 90

160 80 (%) rate Exploitation промысловое изъятие,% доля изъятия,% доля

bars 140 70

- 120 60 100 50 80 40 -

60 30 line подход, млн. экз. подход, млн.

Run (millions of fish) 40 20 20 10 0 0

1958196019621964196619681970197219741976197819801982198419861988199019921994199619982000200220042006200820102012

Figure 31. Dynamics of even-year commercial catch of pink salmon of Western Kamchatka (vertical bars = run size, left; line = exploitation rate, right).

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 46 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Management The fishery is managed to provide spawning escapements consistent with sustaining high levels of production and yield. Historical practice has been to manage for broadly defined goals for aggregate regional stocks which included a number of river-specific populations. Goals were generally based on objective spawner densities in available spawning habitat. More recently, the regional fishery scientific agency (KamchatNIRO) has been exploring development and application of more-specific escapement goals based on stock-recruitment analysis. This is a substantive step toward a more optimum and intensive salmon management system and this work has also been bolstered by fishery participation in the MSC program. However, this remains a work in progress, the fishery is considering their application and effectiveness in management and specific objectives have not fully incorporated into management. Biological reference points are being developed from stock-recruitment data including river- specific values. These BRPs are the basis for provisional escapement objectives consistent with recruitment impairment and maximum yield. At the same time, the fishery is moving to support funding of additional spawning ground surveys necessary to implement a more subarea-specific management assessment. Over time, government funding levels for stock assessment have declined and fishing companies are recognizing their interest in funding additional assessment, in part due to the long-term leasing structure of fishing sites in Kamchatka. Based on these results, KamchatNIRO has identified target reference points for even and odd- year pink cohorts in Western Kamchatka. Target escapement goals defined for even year pink salmon for the target rivers correspond to 7.6 million spawners and for odd year pink salmon at 2.1 million spawners. The estimated number of even year adult pink salmon spawning in the target rivers between 1992 and 2016 averaged 8.8 million fish and ranged between 1 and 19.2 million (Figure 32). The average number of spawners during even years met escapement targets in all the target rivers (Figure 34). Escapements were highly variable and did not always meet target levels in every year. Data from 2012 and 2014 were excluded from the average because aerial surveys were not fully carried out those years. (Bugaev et al. 2018). Data from 2018 (Figure 36) was also excluded from the average and for reference point calculations as the unusually high number of spawners was considered an outlier (Bugaev et al. 2018). The estimated escapement of odd year pink salmon to the target rivers between 1989 and 2017 averaged 1.5 million spawners (Figure 33). The average was largely driven by three relatively high reproduction cycles between 2003 and 2007 (2.7 to 7.6 million spawners). Average odd year escapements were below target levels except for the Icha River (Figure 35). However, status of odd year pink salmon is uncertain because aerial escapement surveys were incomplete or not conducted during odd years between 2009 and 2015 due to budget cutbacks.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 47 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Figure 32. Combined even year pink salmon escapement survey counts to the Icha, Oblukovina, Krutogorova, Kolpakova and Vorovskaya rivers, 1990-2018. Surveys were incomplete from 2012- 2014. Source Bugaev et al. 2018.

Figure 33. Combined odd year pink salmon escapement survey counts to the Icha, Oblukovina, Krutogorova, Kolpakova and Vorovskaya rivers, 1989-2017. Surveys were incomplete from 2009-2015. Source Bugaev et al. 2018.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 48 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Figure 34. Average even year pink salmon escapements to the Icha, Oblukovina, Krutogorova, Kolpakova and Vorovskaya rivers, 1990-2016. Source Bugaev et al. 2018.

Figure 35. Average odd year pink salmon escapements to the Icha, Oblukovina, Krutogorova, Kolpakova and Vorovskaya rivers, 1989-2017. Source Bugaev et al. 2018.

Figure 36. Pink salmon escapements to the Icha, Oblukovina, Krutogorova, Kolpakova and Vorovskaya rivers in 2018. Source Bugaev et al. 2018.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 49 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Spawner-recruit analyses were completed for five productivity strata to identify pink salmon escapement-based biological reference points for Western Kamchatka (Figure 37). Additional details on how these goals were estimated can be found in Feldman and Shevlyakov (2015) and Bugaev et al. (2018). Three of the strata were used to determine the following reference points: Slim, the minimum escapement (low productivity strata); Smsy, the target escapement (average productivity strata); and, S*msy, the precautionary escapement (high productivity strata) (Table 8). Corresponding reference points were determined for the target populations based on historical spawner distributions (Table 9).

Figure 37. Stratified spawner-recruit analysis for Western Kamchatka pink salmon. Source: Bugaev et al. 2018. Table 8. Limit, target and precautionary reference points for Western Kamchatka pink salmon (millions) for three productivity strata. Source: Bugaev et al. 2018. Model Level Slim Smsy (target) S*msy (precautionary) Low Productivity 8.7 10.0 17.1 Average Productivity 10.0 17.1 31.4 High Productivity 17.1 31.4 39.0

Table 9. Limit, target and precautionary reference points (millions of spawners) for pink salmon target stocks. Source: Bugaev et al. 2018. These are for odd and even year cohorts combined. River Basin Slim Smsy (target) S*msy (precautionary) Icha 0.29 0.56 1.04 Oblukovina 0.34 0.67 1.23 Krutogorova 0.30 0.59 1.08 Kolpakova 0.47 0.92 1.70 Vorovskaya-Udova 0.80 1.57 2.89

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 50 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Chum Salmon Distribution Chum salmon have the widest distribution of any of the Pacific salmon. Chum salmon generally spawn in low gradient temperate and subarctic rivers and streams throughout the north Pacific. They range south to the Sacramento River in California and the island of Kyushu in the Sea of Japan. In the north they range east in the Arctic Ocean to the Mackenzie River in Canada and west to the Lena River in Siberia. Chum salmon are abundant in Western Kamchatka rivers including those considered under this assessment (Figure 38). Life History Chum salmon generally return to western Kamchatka from late June through October. Numbers peak in late August and early September. Chum salmon typically reach their spawning grounds in August and September. Spawning typically occurs in the lower and middle reaches of streams, rivers and sometimes the intertidal zone at the mouths of streams. Spawning areas often occur in areas of upwelling springs. After spawning all chum die. Kamchatka chum salmon are represented by three forms: spring, summer and fall. The spring form spawning run begins in April and continues in June, spawning occurs in July (Bugaev et al. 2018) and is relatively small (representing 2 to 6% of the total catch). Summer chum salmon (about 95% of the total catch) enter rivers starting at the end of June and peaks in mid-July to early-August. Spawning occurs in August – September. Small numbers of fall chum salmon are found in commercial catches in late-August to early-September and they spawn in October and early-November. Western Kamchatka chum salmon typically average about 2.5 to 5.5 kg in weight and 60 to 70 cm in length (Bugaev et al. 2018). Age of maturity is 2 to 8 years with most returning at 4 and 5 years of age. Fecundity typically ranges between 800 and 7,000 eggs. Eggs incubate over the winter before hatching in early spring. Juvenile chum salmon spend one-two months in the fresh water after hatching and then migrate to the sea soon after emergence in the spring. Chum salmon fry migrate to salt water from the end of May to the end of July (Zavarina 2003). Juvenile chum salmon remain in coastal waters during the summer/fall before migrating out into the Bering Sea sometimes mixing with North American chum salmon stocks (Salo 1991, Myers et al. 2009). Stock Structure Kamchatka chum salmon include spring, summer and fall runs, returning in June, July-August, and October- November, respectively. Different runs typically spawn in different portions of a basin with earlier fish generally traveling farther upstream. Genetic analyses have generally identified system and run- specific differences among chum populations in other regions. All three stocks are present in the area of this assessment. Status Chum salmon returns and commercial harvest rates have steadily increased in western Kamchatka from very low levels observed in the 1970s (Figure 39, Figure 40). Current harvests are consistently at high levels. Commercial catches of chum salmon in Western Kamchatka subdistrict generally increased to 13,000 mt in 2015 and have averaged nearly 7 thousand mt in recent years.

Total run size averaged about 420,000 fish from 1970-1985 with commercial catch and exploitation rate averaging 300 mt and 20%, respectively. From 1986-2000 run size averaged 1.3

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 51 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020 million fish with commercial catch and exploitation rate averaging 2,000 mt and about 44%, respectively. Since 2010, runs have averaged about 5 million chum per year, exploitation rates have averaged 90% for an annual average harvest of 17,000 mt. The assessment team suspects that increases in run size and harvest since 2008 result from more accurate commercial catch reporting following the implementation of the “Olympic” management system.

Figure 38. Chum salmon distribution in Kamchatka rivers and chum salmon catch intensity (outside coastline) in 2018.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 52 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Spawning escapement of chum salmon is estimated based on expansions of aerial counts in a series of index areas throughout western Kamchatka since 1957. Spawning escapements have grown concurrent with increasing run sizes, averaging 410,000 from 1970-1985, 640,000 from 1986-2000, and 940,000 from 2001-2013. Chum salmon escapements to the target rivers averaged 186 thousand spawners over the past fifteen years ranging from 20 to 733 thousand spawners (Figure 41). Escapement monitoring was incomplete in 2015 and 2016 and do not accurately reflect actual escapements so these data were excluded from analyses (Bugaev et al. 2018). The highest escapement of 733 thousand spawners was observed in 2006 then escapements fluctuated around target reference points through 2011. Escapements were below target levels from 2012 until recent years when they started increasing. Average escapements to the target rivers have been at target levels (Figure 42). The Icha, Kolpakova and Vorovskaya are most productive chum salmon rivers and account for 70% of the spawners in the UoA (Bugaev et al. 2018).

30,000

20,000

10,000

0 Harvest (metric tonnes) (metric Harvest

Figure 39. Commercial chum salmon catch (mt) in Western Kamchatka (NPAFC 2020). Exploitation rate (%) (%) rate Exploitation

bars

- h) -

line

Run (millions of fis

Figure 40. Dynamics of commercial catch of chum salmon of Western Kamchatka (vertical bars = run size, left; line = exploitation rate, right).

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 53 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Management The escapement goal analysis for Western Kamchatka chum salmon was similar to that conducted for pink salmon except there were multiple age groups rather than a two-year cycle (one age class). The analysis used data on chum salmon spawners (parents) and adult recruits (progeny) of multiple age classes from 1987 to 2011 in the West Kamchatka subzone. Longer- term changes in climate made it possible to stratify data by two productivity clusters: the 1987– 1999 cluster was characterized by a low level of productivity; and the 2000-2011 cluster was characterized by a high level of productivity (Figure 43). The data from spawning year 2010 (open circle) was excluded from the analysis as it resulted in an insignificant estimate of the parameter So. Based on this analysis, MSY is optimized at 146-204 thousand chum salmon spawners in all the target rivers (Table 10). The minimum escapement (Slim) for the target rivers is 111 thousand spawners.

Figure 41. Combined chum salmon escapement survey counts to the Icha, Oblukovina, Krutogorova, Kolpakova and Vorovskaya rivers, 2004-2018. Escapement monitoring was incomplete in 2015 and 2016. Source Bugaev et al. 2018.

Figure 42. Average chum salmon escapement to the Icha, Oblukovina, Krutogorova, Kolpakova and Vorovskaya rivers, 2004-2018. Source Bugaev et al. 2018.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 54 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Figure 43. Spawner– Recruit analysis for Western Kamchatka chum salmon. Source: Bugaev et al. 2018.

Table 10. Limit, target and precautionary reference points (thousands of spawners) for chum salmon target stocks. Source: Bugaev et al. 2018. River Basin Slim Smsy (target) S*msy (precautionary) Icha 27 36 50 Oblukovina 24 31 44 Krutogorova 12 16 22 Kolpakova 26 34 47 Vorovskaya-Udova 22 29 41 Combined 111 146 204

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 55 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

5.2.2 Catch In the West Kamchatka subzone, stocks of Pacific salmon have traditionally been harvested in both sea and river fishing parcels. On average, 71.5% of the commercial salmon are harvested from sea parcels in even-years, and 43.6% in odd-years (Bugaev et al. 2018). Over the past ten years, the total annual catch of salmon in the Western Kamchatka subzone has ranged from 10,456 mt in 2009 to 136,832 mt in 2018 (Figure 44).

Figure 44. Total commercial salmon catch (mt) in the Western Kamchatka subzone by river and sea parcels, 2009-2018. Source: Bugaev et al. 2018.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 56 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Table 11. Catch (mt) of salmon and char by fishing collective headed by Zarya, LLC, 2010-2018. Source: Zarya, LLC. 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Zarya, LLC Pink 2,841.27 302.71 5,456.39 157.45 461.75 91.39 2,407.47 337.14 18,736.25 Chum 408.38 894.76 1,377.64 1,534.05 1,447.39 1,263.06 348.26 483.82 31.15 Sockeye 44.98 49.72 138.51 61.78 164.49 165.45 175.73 99.77 718.65 Coho 64.51 91.31 94.06 263.35 716.51 289.76 178.95 237.36 417.91 Chars 52.45 89.13 168.36 297.52 249.89 232.42 91.55 59.90 34.81 Total 3,411.60 1,427.62 7,234.97 2,314.15 3,040.03 2,042.07 3,201.95 1,217.98 19,938.77 Crystal Fish, LLC Pink 2,501.93 309.51 3,117.77 6.65 102.18 7.53 1,326.17 86.13 3,092.14 Chum 442.50 481.93 363.18 102.45 372.09 133.14 71.95 90.64 1.52 Sockeye 7.62 22.81 6.42 9.34 58.38 13.25 18.64 13.11 81.31 Coho 12.72 50.00 1.15 6.25 25.93 33.30 25.39 65.73 Chars 15.28 25.46 22.89 15.16 32.39 5.56 3.67 1.68 929.00 Total 2,980.05 839.71 3,560.26 134.74 571.29 185.42 1,453.73 216.95 4,169.71 Oblukovinskoe, LLC Pink 673.96 60.55 649.95 4.67 20.53 4.18 147.92 48.27 109.66 Chum 128.00 314.89 172.17 95.51 370.30 158.95 66.80 22.55 - Sockeye 19.98 19.97 2.89 1.76 33.24 7.79 3.57 - Coho 19.82 27.28 5.36 17.45 227.37 135.98 50.32 21.51 - Chars 19.11 9.88 12.10 7.27 83.84 4.40 5.42 2.99 - Total 860.87 432.57 842.46 126.66 735.28 311.30 274.03 95.30 109.66 Khangar, LLC Pink 12.80 18.24 1,051.79 218.76 3,399.63 Chum 11.24 124.06 298.71 288.27 29.67 Sockeye 4.87 27.54 77.33 69.74 349.81 Coho 108.18 399.32 485.85 Chars 2.27 43.64 15.38 4.00 - Total 31.17 213.48 1,551.39 980.09 4,264.96 Fishing Collective Combined Pink 6,017.16 672.77 9,224.11 168.77 597.26 121.34 4,933.34 690.30 25,337.67 Chum 978.89 1,691.59 1,912.99 1,732.01 2,201.02 1,679.20 785.72 885.27 62.35 Sockeye 72.58 92.49 147.82 72.88 260.97 214.03 275.27 182.62 1,149.77 Coho 97.06 118.59 149.42 281.95 950.14 451.67 370.75 683.58 969.49 Chars 86.84 124.47 203.35 319.94 368.39 286.02 116.02 68.56 963.81 Grand 7,252.52 2,699.90 11,637.69 2,575.55 4,377.76 2,752.26 6,481.11 2,510.33 28,483.09 total

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 57 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Table 12. Catch (mt) of salmon by fishing collective headed by Kolpakovsky rybokombinat, LLC, 2010-2018. Source: Kolpakovsky rybokombinat, LLC.

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Kolpakovsky rybokombinat, LLC Pink 116.09 37.91 2,772.05 304.21 5,805.21 Chum 448.47 915.35 263.44 167.64 261.64 Sockeye 122.78 63.09 66.21 43.90 15.11 Coho 267.26 313.71 95.98 124.66 42.90 Total 954.60 1,330.06 3,197.67 640.40 6,124.85 Skit, LLC Pink 7,527.25 11.06 326.88 61.80 3,736.43 273.89 8,614.31 Chum 535.53 88.54 743.28 318.66 136.58 112.39 205.40 Sockeye 55.41 7.03 55.74 41.68 55.62 29.73 10.89 Coho 63.38 5.00 101.78 130.41 4.16 29.62 70.43 Total 8,181.58 111.63 1,227.67 552.55 3,932.78 445.63 8,901.03 Krutogorovskoe, LLC Pink 2,335.88 4,606.64 29.63 279.49 69.99 3,386.94 124.63 4,579.88 Chum 287.70 1,419.55 174.78 647.88 680.82 323.63 146.43 227.45 Sockeye 29.47 180.62 22.33 108.22 103.26 148.47 32.66 6.75 Coho 18.38 49.22 72.91 136.34 325.41 41.01 76.76 201.72 Total 2,671.43 6,256.04 299.65 1,171.93 1,179.48 3,900.04 380.47 5,015.80 Icha, LLC Pink 8.91 274.32 220.18 3,427.10 772.89 6,081.67 Chum 125.37 363.36 670.84 291.04 536.54 568.44 Sockeye 19.90 114.02 302.02 245.79 262.11 76.39 Coho 13.90 95.21 65.98 69.20 138.01 328.98 Total 168.07 846.90 1,259.02 4,033.13 1,709.56 7,055.47 Fishing Collective Combined Pink 9,863.13 4,606.64 - 49.60 996.77 389.88 13,322.52 1,475.61 25,081.07 Chum 823.23 1,419.55 - 388.68 2,202.99 2,585.67 1,014.68 962.99 1,262.93 Sockeye 84.88 180.62 - 49.25 400.76 510.04 516.08 368.40 109.14 Coho 81.76 49.22 - 91.82 600.58 835.51 210.34 369.04 644.02 Grand total 10,853.00 6,256.04 - 579.35 4,201.11 4,321.10 15,063.62 3,176.05 27,097.16

Table 13. Recommended Catch (RC) and actual catch data.

Amount of Salmon (metric tons) Year Pink Chum Sockeye Coho Recommended Catch NAa NAa NAa NAa NAa UoA share of Recommended Catch NAa NAa NAa NAa NAa UoC share of Recommended Catch NAa NAa NAa NAa NAa Total green weight catch by Zarya, 2018 25,337.7 62.4 1,149.8 969.5 LLC cooperative 2017 690.3 885.3 182.6 683.6 2016 4,933.3 785.7 275.3 370.8 Total green weight catch by 2018 25,081.1 1,262.9 109.14 644.0 Kolpakovsky rybokombinat, LLC 2017 1,475.6 963.0 368.4 369.0 cooperative 2016 13,322.5 1,014.7 516.1 210.3

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 58 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

5.2.3 Principle 1 Performance Indicator scores and rationales PI 1.1.1 – Stock status The stock management unit (SMU) is at a level which maintains high production PI1.1.1 and has a low probability of falling below its limit reference point (LRP) Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Stock status It is likely that the SMU is It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of a Guide above the limit reference SMU is above the LRP. certainty that the SMU is post point (LRP). above the LRP.

Pink – Yes Pink – Yes Pink – No Met? Chum – Yes Chum – Yes Chum – No Rationale SG 60 – See SG80. SG80 – Sustained high harvests of pink and chum clearly demonstrate that escapements must be sufficient to support production well above levels where recruitment would be impaired by fishing. Current harvest levels throughout Western Kamchatka are at historical record levels. Harvest levels provide a relatively robust indicator of run strength in Kamchatka due to the nature of the fishery where fishing effort from year to year is relatively stable due to a fixed number of fishing sites and the use of passive gear. Harvests vary from year to year due to the typical even-odd year cycle pattern for pink salmon and environmental variability but freshwater and ocean conductions are obviously conducive to high levels of productivity. If escapements consistently fell below a point of recruitment limitation, we would expect to see a pattern of reduced levels of harvest rather than consistently high levels. This information supports achievement of the 80-scoring standard for this issue. This interpretation is consistent with guidance in GSA 2.2.3 regarding determination of status with respect to PRI. This guidance requires scoring against conceptual levels of PRI and recognizes that this level may not be used as an explicit reference point in a fishery. In these cases, the stock will still need to be assessed in terms of the overall outcome objectives. For this fishery, the outcome is clearly high levels of sustained production. The available escapement data also provides strong corroboration for this conclusion for pink salmon. Productivity functions have been estimated and optimum spawning levels have been identified relative to the point where recruitment would be impaired. Figures 32 and 33 in the assessment show that spawning escapements of pink salmon consistently exceeds the target (Smsy) reference points in index rivers of the UoA in years when full surveys were completed. Pink salmon abundance is highly correlated across broad regions and Figure 34 indicates that escapements for index rivers are achieve target reference points on average for the dominant even year lineage. Numbers in the subdominant odd-year run were considerably less than those of the odd-year return but off-year production of pink salmon generally does not appear to be strongly related to spawning escapement. This pattern is typical of pink salmon and is not considered indicative of recruitment limitation. Escapement information on chum salmon is more equivocal (Figure 41, Figure 42). While recent average escapements in index river are generally at or above target reference points based on msy, annual estimates have frequently fallen below the theoretical point of recruitment impairment. However, these apparent low escapements have continued to produce large returns, including an extended period of record returns from 2012 through 2018. This pattern can only be explained by a pattern of consistent underestimation of chum salmon escapement since 2008 when aerial survey effort for stock assessment was substantially reduced due to budget cuts in the management agency. And fishery researchers repeatedly point on that. Therefore, the assessment has concluded that low chum salmon escapement estimates are an artifact of reduced sampling effort and that sustained high catches of chum salmon clearly indicate that this SMU is highly likely above a point of reproductive impairment. Freshwater habitat conditions in western Kamchatka, with a few exceptions, are excellent for salmon production. Watersheds are virtually pristine and support tremendous diversity of aquatic systems

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 59 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

including rivers, streams, lakes and wetlands which provide ideal conductions for salmon production. These conditions are conducive to high levels of salmon productivity and inherent resilience to harvest which in turn can sustain robust levels of fishery exploitation. An extended period of favorable ocean conditions throughout the northern Pacific has contributed to continuing high returns of chum and pink salmon to west Kamchatka. Consistent high levels of salmon production over the last decade confirm that the management strategy has effectively maintained the reproductive capacity of the aggregate stock of each species. Current numbers are at historical levels of sustained abundance. Pink salmon are at historically high abundance and western Kamchatka catches have been increasing over the last three cycles for both odd and even year stocks. Chum salmon catches peaked in 2015 at around 13,000 mt and have since stabilized at around 6,000 mt. These stocks have also benefited by improvements in fishery management structures and enforcement which appear to have substantially reduced the illegal and unreported harvest which reduced spawning escapements. Salmon fisheries in Kamchatka are managed for optimum spawning escapement levels which have been consistently demonstrated to provide high levels of sustained yield. This approach provides a conservative standard for protecting populations from critical low levels that impact diversity, resilience and future production. Management for optimum escapement objectives effectively provides an operational equivalent of a limit reference point in salmon management systems by effectively avoiding lower escapements to the extent that this is possible by regulating fisheries. Fishing effort and strategies have been identified based on historical information to ensure adequate spawning escapement during most years in most areas. Fishery management intensity is scaled to the vast area of the region and the limitations of the available institutional resources for stock assessment and management. Stocks of each species are effectively managed as regional aggregates which is generally appropriate given the productivity of the habitat and the normal covariation among substocks resulting from shared freshwater and ocean productivity patterns. System-specific regulatory mechanisms are implemented based on local abundance and fishery dynamics. Highly variable annual run sizes are characteristic of salmon. Thus, it is not always possible to meet optimum targets in every population and year. Occasional poor run years and escapements into portions of some systems are characteristic of salmon. Long term population viability and fishery sustainability for salmon is maintained under these circumstances by a diverse meta-population structure including multiple, interacting populations and subpopulations, and by only a portion of each population or brood year cohort returning to spawn in any given year (McElhany et al. 2000). However, effective management for target reference points should ensure that average escapements will be maintained over the long term above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity. Fishing effort may also be adjusted somewhat in-season based on annual stock assessments, but the fishery is not intensively managed at a fine scale in order to maximize harvest in any given year. Given the demonstrated success of this approach it is not necessary to quantify river-specific escapement of every stock in every year. Over the last decade, the federal fishery scientific agency (KamchatNiro) has been refining the scientific basis for salmon management by developing productivity functions for stocks and populations throughout Kamchatka. With this work, KamchatNIRO has been formalizing estimation and application of quantitative reference points including optimum spawning levels and points of potential reproductive impairment. This information is currently being tested by the management systems but has not yet been fully incorporated, in part due to limitations in annual stock assessments which are addressed in PI 1.2.4. (Due to past reductions in aerial survey effort, data on spawning escapements in some rivers is lacking in some years and corresponding escapement are reported as low values by KamchatNIRO). This assessment reports results of recent estimates of spawning escapement relative to preliminary reference points identified by KamchatNIRO (Shevlyakov et al. 2016; Bugaev et al. 2019a) but these results are not the primary basis for scoring of the PI which places more emphasis on long turn abundance and harvest trends under current fishing intensity. . SG100 – There is not a high degree of certainty for the SMUs because explicit limit reference points have not yet been fully integrated into management practice. Certainty is also limited by incomplete stock assessment data in recent years due to funding reductions for aerial surveys. The SG100 level is not met. b Stock status in relation to target reference point (TRP, e.g. target escapement goal or target harvest rate)

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 60 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

The SMU is at or There is a high degree of fluctuating around its TRP. certainty that the SMU has been fluctuating Guide around its TRP, or has post been above its target reference point over recent years. Pink – Yes Pink – No Met? Chum – Yes Chum – No Rationale SG80 – The SG80 standard is achieved. Sustained high harvests of Pink and Chum clearly demonstrate that escapements must be sufficient to support yields consistent with MSY values reflected in target reference point.

The available escapement data also provides strong corroboration for this conclusion for pink salmon. Figures 32 and 33 in the assessment show that spawning escapements of pink salmon consistently exceeds the target (Smsy) reference points in index rivers of the UoA in years when full surveys were completed. Pink salmon abundance is highly correlated across broad regions and Figure 34 indicates that escapements for index rivers are achieve target reference points on average for the dominant even year lineage. Numbers in the subdominant odd-year run were considerably less than those of the odd- year return but off-year production of pink salmon generally does not appear to be strongly related to spawning escapement. This pattern is typical of pink salmon and is not considered indicative of recruitment limitation.

Escapement information on chum salmon is more equivocal (Figure 41, Figure 42). While recent average escapements in index river are generally at or above target reference points based on msy, these averages are skewed by high numbers in a few years and annual estimates have frequently fallen below the theoretical point of recruitment impairment. However, these apparent low escapements have continued to produce large returns, including an extended period of record returns from 2012 through 2018. This pattern can only be explained by a pattern of consistent underestimation of chum salmon escapement since 2008 when aerial survey effort for stock assessment was substantially reduced due to budget cuts in the management agency. And fishery researchers repeatedly point on that. Therefore, the assessment has concluded that low chum salmon escapement estimates are an artifact of reduced sampling effort and that sustained high catches of chum salmon clearly indicate that this SMU is highly likely above a point of reproductive impairment.

Under the current management system which was adopted in 2008, quantitative stock assessments indicate that aggregate stocks in the Unit of Assessment are generally fluctuating in the past decade around spawning escapements that were historically demonstrated to produce high sustained yields in conventional spawner stock recruitment analyses. Production functions were generally based on regional aggregates by species. Spawning escapement goals were then derived for specific river systems by apportioning aggregate values based on the relative sizes of the respective populations in each system. In aggregate, species are fished at levels consistent with high yields (and low probability of recruitment overfishing) but this may not always be the case for some populations.

Salmon fishery management and stock assessment continues to evolve in Kamchatka with an increasing attention on the potential of subarea-specific management and stock assessment. The historical practice has been to manage for loosely defined escapement objectives for indicator areas shown in historical assessment to be generally representative of regional stocks. This approach was demonstrated to be effective in part due to the precautionary management approach of gear limitations and in some cases, established passing days. Fishing effort was scaled by practice over a period of time to sustain high levels of production on average.

Salmon escapement goals are managed based on production functions defined by stock-recruitment curves relating spawner numbers with adults produced in the next generation of return. Escapements greater than the habitat capacity will reduce productivity due to density-dependent regulating factors involving competition for limited space and food. Escapements substantially less than capacity reduce

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 61 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

fishery yields. Maximum sustainable yield typically occurs somewhere between 50% and 100% of the habitat capacity where capacity is defined based on the point of maximum production in the stock recruitment curve (Ricker 1975). Stock-recruitment curves are utilized to derive escapement objectives for western Kamchatka salmon consistent with a biomass that produces high levels of sustained yields and high rates of replacement in the historical dataset. Spawning escapements were historically assessed each year relative the target values and in-season management is used to regulate fishing intensity in order to achieve spawning objectives.

Over the last decade, the federal fishery scientific agency (KamchatNiro) has been refining the scientific basis for salmon management by developing productivity functions for stocks and populations throughout Kamchatka. With this work, KamchatNIRO has been formalizing estimation and application of quantitative reference points including optimum spawning levels and points of potential reproductive impairment. This information is currently being tested by the management systems but has not yet been fully incorporated, in part due to limitations in annual stock assessments which are addressed in PI 1.2.4. (Due to past reductions in aerial survey effort, data on spawning escapements in some rivers is lacking in some years and corresponding escapement are reported as low values by KamchatNIRO). This assessment reports results of recent estimates of spawning escapement relative to preliminary reference points identified by KamchatNIRO but these results are not the primary basis for scoring of the PI which places more emphasis on long turn abundance and harvest trends under current fishing intensity. However, KamchatNIRO reports that spawning escapements consistent with optimum production levels are regularly achieved and the range of escapement values for the most species tends to or exceeds the target reference points (Shevlyakov et al. 2016; Bugaev et al. 2019a).

Consistent high levels of pink and chum production over the last decade confirm that the management strategy based on target reference points has effectively maintained the reproductive capacity of the aggregate stock of each species. Fishing effort and strategies have been scaled based on historical information to ensure adequate spawning escapement during most years in most areas. Fishing effort may be scaled somewhat in-season based on annual stock assessments, but the fishery is not intensively managed at a fine scale in order to maximize harvest in any given year. Given the demonstrated success of this approach it is not necessary to quantify river-specific escapement of every stock in every year.

The SG 100 standard is not achieved because of uncertainty regarding stock status relative to TRPs due to the aggregate nature of the stock assessment to derive goals, reductions in annual assessments of spawning escapement due to recent funding constraints and differences in fishing intensity in different systems. However, objective values may not be met in every system and every year. It is unclear whether objectives maximize sustained yield.

Status of component populations The majority of component populations in c Guide the SMU are within the post range of expected variability.

Pink: No Met? Chum: No Rationale While the majority of the component populations are within the range of expected variability under the aggregate stock assessment approach, it cannot be concluded that target reference points provide a standard sufficient to meet the 100 scoring guidepost without explicit consideration of stock and system- specific escapement goals derived independently for each system. The management system has developed a methodology for identifying precautionary target reference points at a population scale for the UoA and it is expected that the applicability and utility of these reference points will be further evaluated in coming years.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 62 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

References

Bugaev A.V., O.V. Zikunova, N.B. Artyukhina, M.G. Feldman and S.V. Shubkin. 2018. Report on Contract No. 43/18-NIR dated 19.12.2018. Topic: Analysis of the stock status, management system and ecological risks of Pacific salmon fisheries (pink salmon, chum salmon, sockeye, coho) in some water bodies of the Sobolevsky District of West Kamchatka (Icha, Oblukovina, Krutogorova, Kolpakova, Vorovskaya Rivers) within the framework of scientific support for the certification of the Zarya LLC fisheries according to the standards of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), KamchatNiro, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky.

KamchatNIRO. 2017. Review of stock status of pink salmon, chum, sockeye salmon in rivers Laguna Kavacha, Pakhacha, and in the costal line from river Emet to Impuka Severnaya (Imka) of Karaginsky Bay of Bering Sea. Prepared for pre-assessment against the standards on sustainable fisheries of Marine Stewardship Council. Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, March 2017

Shevlyakov, E. A., V. A. Dubynin, M. G. Feldman, L. O. Zavarina, I. V. Tiller, S.V. Shubkin, O. A. Zakharova, O. V. Zikunova N. B. Artyukhina, and V. N. Baeva. 2016. Report under Contract No. 04/15- НИР dated 23.06.2015 Subject: Pacific salmon (Humpback, chum, red, coho, Chinook) population characteristics, target indexes and harvest management system in certain rivers (Vorovskaya, Kol, Opala, Golygina, Koshegochek, Ozernaya) in West Kamchatka (scientific justification of Pacific salmon harvest certification to MSC standards for Vityaz-Avto LLC and Delta LLC). KamchatNiro, Petropavlovsk.

Stock status relative to reference points Type of reference point Value of reference point Current stock status relative to

reference point Reference point Escapement odd years; used in scoring Pink UoA ~ 2.7 million in 2007; and relative to LRP (SI Slim S(0) odd years = 2.2 million ~ 0.5 million in 2017. a) even years = 2.5 million ’89-’17 avg = 1.5 million even years: ~ 1.5 million in 2016; and ~ 43 million in 2018. ’92-’16 avg = 8.8 million ------Chum UoA = 111,000 2017 ~ 100,000 limit S(0) 2018 ~ 350,000 ’04-’18 avg = 186,000 ======Reference point Escapement UoA used in scoring Pink UoA odd years; relative to TRP (SI SMSY odd year = 2.5-4.3 million ~ 2.7 million in 2007; and b) even year = 4.3-7.9 million ~ 0.5 million in 2017. ’89-’17 avg = 1.5 million even years: ~ 1.5 million in 2016; and ~ 43 million in 2018. ’92-’16 avg = 8.8 million ------Chum 2017 ~ 100,000 SMSY UoA = 146-204 thousand 2018 ~ 350,000 ’04-’18 avg = 186,000 ------Sockeye No reliable estimates SMSY UoA = 35.5-45.5 thousand since 2010 ’04-’18 avg = 86,000 ------Coho

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 63 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

SMSY UoA = 34.1-47.2 thousand Most current reliable precautionary S*MSY estimates in 2013 & 2014 (medium strata) 2013 ~ 36,000 2014 ~ 175,000 ’04-’18 avg = 95,000

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Pink = 60-79 Chum = 60-79 Draft scoring range Sockeye = 60-79 Coho = 60-79 More information sought: Better escapement information by year and Information gap indicator species compared to applicable reference points especially for sockeye and coho.

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Pink – 80 Overall Performance Indicator score Chum – 80 Condition number (if relevant) --

PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding

Where the stock management unit (SMU) is reduced, there is PI1.1.2 evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified timeframe

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Rebuilding timeframes A rebuilding timeframe is The shortest specified for the SMU that practicable rebuilding is the shorter of 20 years timeframe is or 2 times its generation specified which does a Guide time. For cases where 2 not exceed one post generations is less than 5 generation time for years, the rebuilding SMU. timeframe is up to 5 years.

Not applicable Met? Not applicable

Rationale Scoring of PI 1.1.2 is required for scores less than 80 in PI 1.1.1. Neither pink nor chum score below 80 in PI 1.1.1.

Rebuilding evaluation b Guide Monitoring is in place to There is evidence There is strong post determine whether the that the fishery- evidence that the

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 64 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

fishery-based rebuilding based rebuilding rebuilding strategies strategies are effective in strategies are are being rebuilding the SMU within being implemented implemented the specified timeframe. effectively, or it is effectively, or it is likely based on highly likely based simulation on simulation modelling, modelling, exploitation rates exploitation rates or or previous previous performance that performance that they will be able to they will be able to rebuild the SMU rebuild the SMU within the within the specified specified timeframe. timeframe. Met? Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable

Rationale Scoring of PI 1.1.2 is required for scores less than 80 in PI 1.1.1. Neither pink nor chum score below 80 in PI 1.1.1.

Use of enhancement in stock rebuilding Enhancement activities Enhancement Enhancement are not routinely used as activities are very activities are not a stock rebuilding strategy seldom used as a used as a stock but may be temporarily in c Guide stock rebuilding rebuilding strategy. place as a conservation post strategy. measure to preserve or restore wild diversity threatened by human or natural impacts. Met? Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable

Rationale Scoring of PI 1.1.2 is required for scores less than 80 in PI 1.1.1. Neither pink nor chum score below 80 in PI 1.1.1. References Bugaev A.V., O.V. Zikunova, N.B. Artyukhina, M.G. Feldman and S.V. Shubkin. 2018. Report on Contract No. 43/18-NIR dated 19.12.2018. Topic: Analysis of the stock status, management system and ecological risks of Pacific salmon fisheries (pink salmon, chum salmon, sockeye, coho) in some water bodies of the Sobolevsky District of West Kamchatka (Icha, Oblukovina, Krutogorova, Kolpakova, Vorovskaya Rivers) within the framework of scientific support for the certification of the Zarya LLC fisheries according to the standards of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), KamchatNiro, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky.

KamchatNIRO. 2017. Review of stock status of pink salmon, chum, sockeye salmon in rivers Laguna Kavacha, Pakhacha, and in the costal line from river Emet to Impuka Severnaya (Imka) of Karaginsky Bay of Bering Sea. Prepared for pre-assessment against the standards on sustainable fisheries of Marine Stewardship Council. Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, March 2017

Shevlyakov, E. A., V. A. Dubynin, M. G. Feldman, L. O. Zavarina, I. V. Tiller, S.V. Shubkin, O. A. Zakharova, O. V. Zikunova N. B. Artyukhina, and V. N. Baeva. 2016. Report under Contract No. 04/15- НИР dated 23.06.2015 Subject: Pacific salmon (Humpback, chum, red, coho, Chinook) population characteristics, target indexes and harvest management system in certain rivers (Vorovskaya, Kol,

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 65 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Opala, Golygina, Koshegochek, Ozernaya) in West Kamchatka (scientific justification of Pacific salmon harvest certification to MSC standards for Vityaz-Avto LLC and Delta LLC). KamchatNiro, Petropavlovsk Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Pink = >80 Chum = 60-79

Sockeye = 60-79 Coho = 60-79 Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score Not applicable

Condition number (if relevant) --

PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy

PI1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Harvest strategy design

The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is expected to achieve SMU responsive to the state of responsive to the state of management objectives the SMU and the elements the SMU and is designed reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80 of the harvest strategy to achieve SMU including measures that work together towards a Guide management objectives address component achieving SMU post reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80 population status issues. management objectives including measures that reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80 address component including measures that population status issues. address component population status issues.

Met? Pink – Yes Pink – Yes Pink – No Chum – Yes Chum – Yes Chum – No Rationale

SG60 - See SG80 SG80 – The harvest strategy in place for pink and chum salmon is responsive to the state of the SMU based in in-season indicators of run strength and works effectively to sustain high levels of sustained annual yield and to produce escapements-consistent with high levels of production-based management objectives defined for the SMU by regulating fishing times and areas, therefore the SG80 is met. The strategy involves establishing fishing seasons; scheduled passing days of no fishing to limit exploitation rates and distribute escapement throughout the season; gear specifications; in-season monitoring of harvest, species composition, biological indicators, and spawning escapements; and in- season fishery management based on this information. Fishery times and areas are designed and regulated specifically to fill the available natural spawning areas and to achieve corresponding

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 66 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

escapement objectives. Fishing areas, specific gears or dates may be closed based on abundance to ensure escapement. Meeting escapement targets is a priority of the management system. SG100 – The SG100 standard is not met because the species-based strategy employed in the western Kamchatka region may not by design meet population-specific objectives in every case owing to limitations in specific information.

Harvest strategy evaluation

The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy may The performance of the likely to work based on not have been fully tested harvest strategy has been prior experience or but evidence exists that it fully evaluated and b Guide plausible argument. is achieving its objectives. evidence exists to show post that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain SMUs at target levels.

Met? Pink – Yes Pink – Yes Pink – No Chum – Yes Chum – Yes Chum – No Rationale

SG60 - See SG80 SG80 – Direct evidence, including documentation of in-season restrictions based on abundance and assessments of spawning escapement, demonstrates that the harvest strategy is generally achieving its objectives, therefore the SG80 is met. Fishery restrictions based on time and area closures are regularly adopted in-season based on real-time information on run size and catch composition. Established regulations and in-season measures have consistently distributed spawning escapements around established goals. SG100 - The current harvest strategy has been in place since only 2008 and may not have been fully tested under a wide range of conditions including the variable abundance and run timing of salmon. In particular, it is not clear whether the system has been challenged by an extended interval of low salmon productivity. Thus, the SG100 is not met.

Harvest strategy monitoring

Monitoring is in place that c Guide is expected to determine post whether the harvest strategy is working.

Met? Pink – Yes Chum – Yes Rationale

SG60 – Monitoring is in place for pink and chum that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working based on run strength, harvest and spawning escapement, therefore the SG60 is met. The harvest strategy involves extensive in-season monitoring of harvest, catch per unit effort, biological indicators (sex and age), and spawning escapement. These indicators are compared with historical values and patterns to determine run size and timing, and to guide adjustments in fishing times and areas. The harvest strategy is grounded in a well-developed system of scientific assessment and monitoring. Run forecasts are made based on brood year escapements and recent production patterns to identify recommended harvest levels as preseason planning tools. Once the fishing season begins, management to control exploitation rates is based on in-season data. Data are referenced to seasonal patterns in previous years to distinguish run timing and strength. Forecasts are typically uncertain and run timing may also vary from year to year. Overfishing might occur when run timing effects are mistaken for run size (for instance, mistaking a strong earlier-than-average return for a larger-than-forecast number). In-season management utilizes indicators based on biological harvest characteristics to avoid

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 67 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

this potential problem. For instance, the early portion of each run typically includes a larger percentage of males which declines as the run progresses. Average fish size varies in tandem as male and female sizes are different.

Harvest strategy review

The harvest strategy is Guide periodically reviewed and post improved as necessary. d Pink – No Met? Chum – No Rationale

SG100 - The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved. Extensive changes in the strategies adopted by the regional management system since 2008 provide for more local and responsive regulation are evidence to this effect. Recent work to develop population-specific limit and target reference points based on river-specific stock-recruitment data provide evidence to this effect. However, questions regarding the sufficiency of review in light of recent reductions in stock assessment information cause this indicator not to pass the SG100 level.

Shark finning

It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of e Guide finning is not taking place. shark finning is not taking certainty that shark post place. finning is not taking place.

Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

Rationale

No sharks caught in the fishery. Shark finning is not practiced in Russia.

Review of alternative measures

There has been a review There is a regular review There is a biennial review of the potential of the potential of the potential effectiveness and effectiveness and effectiveness and practicality of alternative practicality of alternative practicality of alternative f Guide measures to minimise measures to minimise measures to minimise post UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of the unwanted catch of the unwanted catch of the target stock. target stock and they are target stock, and they are implemented as implemented, as appropriate. appropriate.

Met? Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable

Rationale

There is no unwanted catch of the target stock.

References

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 68 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Pink = >80 Draft scoring range Chum = >80 Sockeye < 60 Coho = < 60 Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Pink – 80 Overall Performance Indicator score Chum – 80 Condition number (if relevant) --

PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools

PI1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

HCRs design and application Generally understood Well defined HCRs are in The HCRs are expected to HCRs are in place or place that ensure that the keep the SMU fluctuating available which are exploitation rate is reduced at or above a target level A Guide expected to reduce the as the LRP is approached, consistent with MSY, or post exploitation rate as the are expected to keep the another more appropriate SMU LRP is approached. SMU fluctuating around a level taking into account target level consistent with the ecological role of the MSY. stock, most of the time. Pink – Yes Pink – Yes Pink – No Met? Chum – Yes Chum – Yes Chum – No Rationale SG60 – See SG80 SG80 – Well-defined control rules are in place for pink and chum salmon that ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with MSY, therefore the SG80 is met. HCRs include season dates, establishing passing days, and time/area closures based on real time escapement monitoring data in conjunction with other indicators of run strength and timing based on harvest and biological composition of the harvest. Operation of the fishing gear is modified in response to whether escapement goals are being met. Harvest control rules are specifically defined in licenses issued for commercial fishery operation and in-season regulation changes adopted by an Anadromous Fish Commission as appropriate at the recommendation of scientific and fishery management authorities. In- season management has the effect of reducing exploitation rates at low abundance and consistently sustaining high levels of yield. Harvest control rules are generally sufficient to keep the SMU fluctuating around a target level consistent with MSY although MSY escapement may not be achieved in every river in every year. SG100 – The SG100 standard is not met because harvest control rules are not expected to keep the SMU at or above target levels consistent with maximum sustained yield. Escapements of some species in some rivers periodically fall below target levels due to normal variation in run strength and limited in-season data for management in some areas.

b HCRs robustness to uncertainty

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 69 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account of robust to the main a wide range of uncertainties. uncertainties including the Guide ecological role of the SMU, post and there is evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties. Pink – Yes Pink – No Met? Chum – Yes Chum – No Rationale SG80 – The HCRs are likely to be robust to the main uncertainties related to annual variation in pink and chum run strength and timing, therefore the SG80 is met for these species. Forecasts of abundance are made prior to the season based on brood year patterns and estimates are adjusted over the course of the fishing season based on fishery catch rates and biological information. In-season management is generally effective in guiding fishery management measures for regulating harvest rates based on observed abundance to provide for spawning escapement. SG100 – The SG100 standard is not met because it is unclear whether harvest control rules are sufficiently robust to maintain appropriate levels of escapement under conditions of a prolonged period of reduced ocean productivity. HCR’s appear to be generally effective in regulating exploitation rates during the current period of high productivity of pink and chum in Western Kamchatka corresponding to a period of favorable marine conditions. However, high harvests create an expectation for continuing high harvest and a fishery infrastructure scaled to corresponding expectations. A decline in marine productivity of salmon can pose significant challenges to harvest control rules in the implementation of timely restrictions of fisheries consistent with reduced stock productivity. The risk is significant overfishing relative to yield potential. This concern is compounded by uncertainty in stock assessments associated with recent reductions in aerial survey efforts. Reduced certainty in stock assessments will make it difficult to recognize reduced returns in-season and to implement timely fishery restrictions necessary to protect spawning escapement. Reduced certainty in stock assessments may also make it difficult to recognize extended productivity downturns which warrant more conservative preseason measures. These concerns are acknowledged by the management system. Uncertainties in population-specific escapement goals are recognized with the development of precautionary escapement reference points but these reference points have not yet been fully incorporated into annual management.

HCRs evaluation

There is some evidence Available evidence Evidence clearly shows that tools used or available indicates that the tools in that the tools in use are c Guide to implement HCRs are use are appropriate and effective in achieving the post appropriate and effective in effective in achieving the exploitation levels required controlling exploitation. exploitation levels required under the HCRs. under the HCRs. Pink – Yes Pink – Yes Pink – No Met? Chum – Yes Chum – Yes Chum – No Rationale SG60 – See SG80 SG80 – This standard is met. Available evidence based on indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels for pink and chum required under the HCRs. High levels of sustained production and related escapement information provide evidence that harvest control rules are effective in producing appropriate exploitation rates. The fishery is managed on a daily basis using real time stock assessment information to regulate harvest consistent with escapement targets. Fisheries are restricted as appropriate based on actual run size and escapement. Similarly, passing days were established in the fishery in order to limit harvest rates.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 70 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

SG100 – This standard is not met. It remains to be seen whether harvest control rules will be adequate to control exploitation extended periods of reduced salmon productivity.

Maintenance of wild population components

It is likely that the HCRs It is highly likely, that the There is a high degree of and tools are consistent HCRs and tools are certainty that the HCRs with maintaining the and tools are consistent Guide consistent with maintaining diversity and productivity of with maintaining the post the diversity and d the wild component productivity of the wild diversity and productivity of population(s). component population(s). the wild component population(s). Pink – Yes Pink – Yes Pink – No Met? Chum – Yes Chum – Yes Chum – No Rationale SG60 – See SG80 SG80 – Diversity in salmon is represented among stocks and populations inhabiting different rivers within a species management unit and substocks returning to different areas within each river, often with different run timing (early vs. late for instance). The management practice of establishing weekly passing days maintains diversity by protecting escapements in all rivers and across the duration of the run. Stock assessment data indicates this system is generally effective. This standard is met. SG100 – The SG 100 is not met because specific objectives for component populations and substocks are not explicitly incorporated in management.

References Bugaev A.V., O.V. Zikunova, N.B. Artyukhina, M.G. Feldman and S.V. Shubkin. 2018. Report on Contract No. 43/18-NIR dated 19.12.2018. Topic: Analysis of the stock status, management system and ecological risks of Pacific salmon fisheries (pink salmon, chum salmon, sockeye, coho) in some water bodies of the Sobolevsky District of West Kamchatka (Icha, Oblukovina, Krutogorova, Kolpakova, Vorovskaya Rivers) within the framework of scientific support for the certification of the Zarya LLC fisheries according to the standards of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), KamchatNiro, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky.

KamchatNIRO. 2017. Review of stock status of pink salmon, chum, sockeye salmon in rivers Laguna Kavacha, Pakhacha, and in the costal line from river Emet to Impuka Severnaya (Imka) of Karaginsky Bay of Bering Sea. Prepared for pre-assessment against the standards on sustainable fisheries of Marine Stewardship Council. Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, March 2017

Shevlyakov, E. A., V. A. Dubynin, M. G. Feldman, L. O. Zavarina, I. V. Tiller, S.V. Shubkin, O. A. Zakharova, O. V. Zikunova N. B. Artyukhina, and V. N. Baeva. 2016. Report under Contract No. 04/15-НИР dated 23.06.2015 Subject: Pacific salmon (Humpback, chum, red, coho, Chinook) population characteristics, target indexes and harvest management system in certain rivers (Vorovskaya, Kol, Opala, Golygina, Koshegochek, Ozernaya) in West Kamchatka (scientific justification of Pacific salmon harvest certification to MSC standards for Vityaz-Avto LLC and Delta LLC). KamchatNiro, Petropavlovsk Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Pink = >80 Chum = >80 Draft scoring range Sockeye = <60 Coho = 60-79 Information gap indicator More information sought for sockeye and coho in particular Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 71 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Overall Performance Indicator score Pink – 80 Chum – 80 Condition number (if relevant) --

PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Range of information Some relevant information Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range related to SMU structure, information related to SMU of information (on SMU SMU production and fleet structure, SMU structure, SMU composition is available to production, fleet production, fleet support the harvest composition and other composition, SMU strategy. Indirect or data is available to support abundance, fishery direct information is the harvest strategy, removals and other available on some including harvests and information such as component populations. spawning escapements environmental a Guide for a representative information), including post range of wild component some that may not be populations. directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available, including estimates of the impacts of fishery harvests on the SMU and the majority of wild component populations. Pink – Yes Pink – No Pink – No Met? Chum – Yes Chum – No Chum – No Rationale SG60 – This standard is met for pink and chum salmon. A large amount of relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy. This includes extensive data on stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data on biological characteristics of the run, run timing, spawning distribution, and spawning escapement. Assessments also include direct estimates of natural stock productivity by salmon species. Escapement is currently estimated in index areas with basin-wide inferences based on historical distribution patterns. Historical information on catches and escapements in relation to abundance and passing days supports the effectiveness of the current harvest strategy. Passing days have been effectively shown to provide opportunities for significant spawning escapement sufficient to sustain yields under current conditions of high marine productivity which prevail for these salmon species. Therefore, the available assessments based on index stocks and historical distribution patterns are generally adequate for current management of these species. SG80 – This standard is not met because recent reductions in aerial surveys of escapement mean that a majority of wild component populations are no longer represented. Assessments based on index stocks and historical distribution patterns may not be adequate for long-term management under conditions of changing fishery dynamics, fish productivity or fish distribution patterns.

Monitoring b Guide SMU wild abundance and SMU wild abundance and All information required post UoA removals are UoA removals are by the harvest control rule

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 72 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

monitored and at least regularly monitored at a is monitored with high one indicator is available level of accuracy and frequency and a high and monitored with coverage consistent degree of certainty, and sufficient frequency to with the harvest control there is a good support the harvest control rule, and one or more understanding of inherent rule. indicators are available uncertainties in the and monitored with information [data] and the sufficient frequency to robustness of assessment support the harvest control and management to this rule. uncertainty. Pink – Yes Pink – No Pink – No Met? Chum – Yes Chum – No Chum – No Rationale SG60 – This standard is met. Extensive information is collected on harvest in the commercial salmon fishery. Numbers are estimated multiple stages of the harvest and processing chain. Detailed records are required and kept by the fishery and the government. Changes in the management system over the previous decade ensure accuracy of catch reporting by removing incentives for inaccurate accounting to avoid taxes or remain within a designated allocation. Catch data are reported on a real-time basis during the fishing season. Catch data are assessed in-season relative to historical levels which effectively provide for spawning escapement under the passing day system of management. SG-80 - The continuing effectiveness of the harvest strategy will depend also on monitoring of spawning escapements. The SG80 standard for regular monitoring is not met because recent reductions in aerial survey intensity have substantially reduced the accuracy and precision of spawning escapement estimates used to guide management decisions. Surveys have been reduced due to budget limitations. The current survey intensity likely provides sufficient precision to distinguish large and small runs but lack the resolution to avoid estimation bias due to differences in run timing or fish distribution. Historical assessments have generally been sufficient to support the current harvest strategy, but current survey frequency may not be sufficient to identify any future changes in productivity or distribution patterns which might confound effective implementation of the harvest control rules. The current survey intensity likely provides sufficient precision to distinguish large and small runs but lack the resolution to avoid estimation bias due to differences in run timing or fish distribution, and also prohibits the detection of effects on spawning escapement from degradation of habitat due to mining in the Icha River watershed (see P2 for more details). Historical assessments have generally been sufficient to support the current harvest strategy, but current survey frequency may not be sufficient to identify any future changes in productivity or distribution patterns which might confound effective implementation of the harvest control rules.

Comprehensiveness of information There is good information Guide c on all other fishery post removals from the SMU. Pink – Yes Met? Chum – Yes Rationale SG 80 – Recreational and indigenous harvest is monitored. KamchatNIRO has also conducted extensive studies on historical and current levels of salmon removals by illegal fishing in Kamchatka Rivers (Shevlyakov 2013; Shevlyakov et al. 2016). Illegal harvest has long been a very significant problem in Kamchatka salmon fisheries, but the incidence has been greatly reduced by changes in the management system. KamchatNIRO has estimated that illegal harvest substantially reduced historical spawning escapements in many rivers. However, industrial levels of poaching have been largely eliminated by changes in the management system. In 2008, with introduction of the Olympic system, individual quotas disappeared. With that change, incentives to exceed the quota disappeared too, thus eliminating industrial illegal fishing which a significant problem before 2008.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 73 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Harvest of Kamchatka salmon also historically occurred outside the UoC in commercial drift gillnet fisheries in marine waters of the Russian Exclusive Economic Zone. These catches were subject to a reporting and monitoring system which estimated catch levels for high value species such as sockeye. This fishery has now been closed. Illegal harvest has been substantially reduced from historical levels and current levels in Western Kamchatka are limited to low levels by the remoteness of the area (Bugaev et al. 2018). Therefore, this standard is met.

References Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Pink = 60-79 Chum = 60-79 Draft scoring range Sockeye = 60-79 Coho = 60-79 Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Pink – 65 Overall Performance Indicator score Chum – 65 Condition number (if relevant) 1 Condition 1. Provide sufficient information on wild spawning escapement for a representative range of wild pink and chum populations in the unit of certification to support the harvest strategy and demonstrate that wild abundance is regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule and precautionary management in light of impact of mining activities on habitat quality in the Icha River watershed.

PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status

PI1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status of the SMU

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration The assessment is The assessment takes into appropriate for the SMU account the major features Guide a and for the harvest control relevant to the biology of post rule. the species and the nature of the UoA. Pink – Yes Pink – No Met? Chum – Yes Chum – No Rationale SG 80 – Pink and chum meet the SG 80 guidepost. The assessment includes in-season estimation of harvest, catch per effort, biological characteristics, timing and distribution of harvest and returns, and spawning escapement. Pink, chum and sockeye spawning escapements are estimated with aerial surveys. This information is used to implement in-season adjustments of harvest control rules intended to ensure escapement sufficient to sustain future production. Annual spawning escapement is estimated for representative samples of stock management units for each species. Adequacy of harvest control rules relative to escapement has been assessed over time and the assessment has been used to refine control

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 74 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

rules. The identification of escapement-based reference points has been formalized in recent years based on analysis of historical production patterns using stock-recruitment analyses. SG100 – Not all major features of stock structure are fully addressed by the stock assessment. While some consideration is given to component stocks, assessments are generally based on species aggregates rather than component stocks. For instance, production curves used to identify optimum escapement levels are historically based on data aggregated over multiple component stocks for a species.

Assessment approach The assessment estimates The assessment estimates The assessment estimates stock status relative to stock status relative to with a high level of generic reference points reference points that are confidence both stock Guide b appropriate to salmon. appropriate to the SMU status and reference post and can be estimated. points that are appropriate to the SMU and its wild component populations. Pink – Yes Pink – Yes Pink – No Met? Chum – Yes Chum – Yes Chum – No Rationale SG 60 – The SG60 standard is met for pink and chum. Stock status is estimated from aerial surveys of escapement by species and sometimes major substocks based on index surveys and distribution patterns. These estimates are evaluated relative to spawner objectives identified for each species based on historical values that were shown over time to sustain high returns and fishery harvests. In recent years, the management system has also explored development of more explicitly defined escapement goals for each species based on spawner-recruit analyses (Bugaev et al. 2018). Management for escapement- based reference points is a standard and effective practice in salmon fisheries throughout the Pacific. SG80 – The SG80 standard is met based on information on stock status and reference points provided by KamchatNIRO (Bugaev et al. 2019a, 2019b). Recent stock assessment efforts have been expanded due to support and funding provided by the fishing companies. This follows a period of reduce stock assessment as government funding was curtailed. SG100 – This standard is not met because status and reference points of some wild component populations are inferred from index or aggregate stock information. Current assessments provide low resolution on major stock subcomponents and limited precision due to a reliance on peak escapement counts in selected index areas. This fishery historically estimated stock status relative to aggregate escapement goals based on annual index area surveys. Escapements were generally compared to historical values that were shown over time to sustain high returns and fishery harvests. Goals were not always explicitly defined in historical practice and comparisons of specific escapement values with defined goals are not always available. In recent years, the management system has also explored development of goals based on population-specific analyses. However, population-specific goals have not yet been fully incorporated into management and effective application may be limited due to recent reductions in aerial survey coverage of a range of representative populations and time periods for each species. Reduced surveys provide low resolution on major stock subcomponents and will limit the effective development and application of population-specific reference points.

Uncertainty in the assessment The assessment The assessment takes The assessment takes into identifies major sources uncertainty into account. account uncertainty and is c Guide of uncertainty. evaluating stock status post relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Pink – Yes Pink – Yes Pink – No Met? Chum – Yes Chum – Yes Chum – No Rationale

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 75 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

SG60 – The stock assessment has identified major sources of uncertainty including normal environmentally-driven variability in productivity; normal annual variability in run timing and distribution; and heterogeneity in productivity of major stock subcomponents. SG80 –Major uncertainties are taken into account in assessing stock status. Harvest is controlled in- season based on real-time data on spawning escapement in aerial spawning ground surveys as well as numbers and characteristics of fish entering the fishery. In-season assessments allow fisheries to be regulated based on normal annual variability in productivity and run timing. Assessments incorporate spatial patterns which address heterogeneity in major stock subcomponents. The management system is also exploring more-explicit quantification of goals based on stock-recruitment analyses. These analyses have been provided for pink, chum, sockeye and chum (Bugaev et al. 2018). These goals include explicit precautionary safety factors based on statistical analysis of uncertainty. The SG60 and SG80 are met for all UoAs. SG100 - Uncertainty in escapement estimates has not been quantified. Stock status is not evaluated relative to reference points in a probabilistic way although probabilistic analyses are beginning to be incorporated into analyses of management effectiveness (Bugaev et al. 2018), hence the SG100 is not met.

Evaluation of assessment The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative Guide d hypotheses and post assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Pink – No Met? Chum – No Rationale

A rigorous exploration of alternative hypotheses and approaches has not been reported.

Peer review of assessment The assessment of SMU The assessment, including status, including the choice design for using indicator of indicator populations populations and methods Guide e and methods for for evaluating wild salmon post evaluating wild salmon in in enhanced fisheries, has enhanced fisheries is been internally and subject to peer review. externally peer reviewed. Pink – Yes Pink – No Met? Chum – Yes Chum – No Rationale SG80 – This standard is met. The stock assessment is subject to extensive peer review within the management system. KamchatNIRO scientists regularly review and improve assessment methodologies and results which are subject to additional review by the regional scientific institute (VNiro). In-season assessment information receives extensive review as part of the annual management process overseen by the Anadromous Fish Commission. SG100 - External peer review is limited hence the SG100 is not met.

f Representativeness of indicator stocks

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 76 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Where indicator stocks are Where indicator stocks are Where indicator stocks are used as the primary source used as the primary source used as the primary source of information for making of information for making of information for making management decisions on management decisions on management decisions on SMUs, there is some SMUs, there is some SMUs, the status of the scientific basis for the evidence of coherence indicator streams are well indicators selection. between the status of the correlated with other indicator streams and the populations they represent Guide status of the other within the management post populations they represent unit, including stocks with within the management lower productivity (i.e., unit, including selection of those with a higher indicator stocks with low conservation risk). productivity (i.e., those with a higher conservation risk) to match those of the representative SMU where applicable. Pink – Yes Pink – Yes Pink – No Met? Chum – Yes Chum – Yes Chum – No Rationale SG60 – The stock assessment historically surveyed representative areas of most river systems for each salmon species. Index reaches were selected for their representative nature based on analysis of a fuller complement of historical survey areas. The SG60 is met for all UoAs. SG80 – This guidepost is met based on recent information provided by KamchatNIRO (Bugaev et al. 2019b) on the coherence between the status of stocks in indicator streams and other populations they represent within the management unit as inferred from historical data. Conclusions are bolstered by recent increases in stock assessment funded by the fishing companies. SG100 – This guidepost is not met due to limited stock assessment in recent years of nonindex streams as a result of previous reductions in aerial survey efforts. Stock assessment has become increasingly reliant on indicator streams with the reduction in sampling rate but changing distribution pattern over time at different scales of abundance can confound interpretation of index samples. Reliance on index areas may not provide representative estimates for a full spectrum of strong and weak stock subcomponents within a system. Peak spawner counts from the most productive habitats may not be representative of the total stock under conditions of low productivity or declining returns. Further, escapement goals are generally based on production functions for aggregate stock and river populations of a species. Curves and goals thus represent an average stock and may be disproportionately driven by large strong stocks in the aggregate.

Definition of Stock Management Units (SMUs) The majority of SMUs are The SMUs are well- There is an unambiguous defined with a clear defined and include description of each SMU rationale for conservation, definitions of the major that may include the fishery management and populations with a clear geographic location, run stock assessment rationale for conservation, timing, migration patterns, Guide g requirements. fishery management and and/or genetics of post stock assessment component populations requirements. with a clear rationale for conservation, fishery management and stock assessment requirements. Pink – Yes Pink – Yes Pink – No Met? Chum – Yes Chum – Yes Chum – No Rationale

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 77 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

SG60 – See SG80 SG80 – This standard is met. Each species is comprised of a hierarchy of subcomponents including stocks (e. g., early and late runs) and demographically-independent populations (e.g. species returning to home rivers or lakes). Major stocks of each species are defined based on run timing, and spawning distribution. This stock structure is considered in conservation, fishery management and stock assessment requirements. Stocks including major populations are well defined based on river system, run timing, and spawning distribution. Major substocks include five groups of pink salmon; summer and fall runs of chum, and early and late coho runs. Substocks can be distinguished over the course of the fishing season based on run timing, size and sex ratio. Assessments are made of the major component stocks and management and include considerations for each. SG100 - Descriptions and rationale for stock management are not unambiguous. Harvest and escapement of stock components are understood based on run timing and spatial distribution, respectively. Information is generally sufficient to estimate the significance of fishery harvest at the species and river system level but not at the substock level within a river system. Substock-specific estimates of harvest and escapement are limited. The SG100 level is not met.

References Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Pink = 60-79 Chum = 60-79 Draft scoring range Sockeye < 60 Coho < 60 Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Pink – 80 Overall Performance Indicator score Chum – 80 Condition number (if relevant) --

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 78 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

PI 1.3.1 – Enhancement outcomes

PI1.3.1 Enhancement activities do not negatively impact wild stock(s)

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Enhancement impacts It is likely that the It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of enhancement activities do enhancement activities do certainty that the not have significant not have significant enhancement activities do negative impacts on the negative impacts on the not have significant a Guide local adaptation, local adaptation, negative impacts on the post reproductive performance reproductive performance local adaptation, or productivity and or productivity and reproductive performance diversity of wild stocks. diversity of wild stocks. or productivity and diversity of wild stocks. Pink – Yes Pink – Yes Pink – Yes Met? Chum – Yes Chum – Yes Chum – Yes Rationale No hatchery enhancement of any salmon species occurs in unit of certification systems.

References Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Pink = >80 Chum = >80 Draft scoring range Sockeye = >80 Coho = >80 Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Pink – 100 Overall Performance Indicator score Chum – 100 Condition number (if relevant) --

PI 1.3.2 – Enhancement management Effective enhancement and fishery strategies are in place to address effects of PI1.3.2 enhancement activities on wild stock(s) Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Management strategy in place Practices and protocols There is a partial strategy There is a a are in place to protect wild in place to protect wild comprehensive strategy Guide stocks from significant stocks from significant in place to protect wild post negative impacts of negative impacts of stocks from significant enhancement. enhancement. negative impacts of enhancement.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 79 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Pink – Yes Pink – Yes Pink – Yes Met? Chum – Yes Chum – Yes Chum – Yes Rationale No hatchery enhancement of any salmon species occurs in unit of certification systems.

Management strategy evaluation The practices and There is some objective There is clear evidence protocols in place are basis for confidence that that the comprehensive considered likely to be the strategy is effective, strategy is successfully b Guide effective based on based on evidence that the protecting wild stocks from post plausible argument. strategy is achieving the significant detrimental outcome metrics used to impacts of enhancement. define the minimum detrimental impacts. Pink – Yes Pink – Yes Pink – Yes Met? Chum – Yes Chum – Yes Chum – Yes Rationale No hatchery enhancement of any salmon species occurs in unit of certification systems.

References

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Pink = >80 Chum = >80 Draft scoring range Sockeye = >80 Coho = >80 Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Pink – 100 Overall Performance Indicator score Chum – 100 Condition number (if relevant) --

PI 1.3.3 – Enhancement information Relevant information is collected and assessments are adequate to determine PI1.3.3 the effect of enhancement activities on wild stock(s) Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Information adequacy Some relevant information Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range a is available on the qualitative and quantitative of relevant quantitative Guide contribution of enhanced information is available on information is available on post fish to the fishery harvest, the contribution of the contribution of total escapement (wild enhanced fish to the enhanced fish to the

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 80 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

plus enhanced), and fishery harvest, total fishery harvest, total hatchery broodstock. escapement (wild plus escapement (wild plus enhanced) and hatchery enhanced) and hatchery broodstock. broodstock. Pink – Yes Pink – Yes Pink – Yes Met? Chum – Yes Chum – Yes Chum – Yes Rationale No hatchery enhancement of any salmon species occurs in unit of certification systems.

Use of information in assessment The effect of enhancement A moderate-level A comprehensive activities on wild stock analysis of relevant analysis of relevant status, productivity and information is conducted information is conducted diversity are taken into and used by decision and routinely used by account qualitatively. makers to quantitatively decision makers to b Guide estimate the impact of determine, with a high post enhancement activities on degree of certainty, the wild-stock status, quantitative impact of productivity, and diversity. enhancement activities on wild-stock status, productivity, and diversity. Pink – Yes Pink – Yes Pink – Yes Met? Chum – Yes Chum – Yes Chum – Yes Rationale No hatchery enhancement of any salmon species occurs in unit of certification systems. References KamchatNIRO Report, 2018. Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Pink = >80 Chum = >80 Draft scoring range Sockeye = >80 Coho = >80 Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Pink – 100 Overall Performance Indicator score Chum – 100 Condition number (if relevant) --

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 81 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

5.3 Principle 2 5.3.1 Principle 2 background For the purposes of this assessment, primary species in the catch are defined as those not included under Principle 1 in the Unit of Assessment but subject to management tools and measures intended to achieve stock management objectives reflected in either target or limit reference points. MSC assessment criteria further distinguish Principle 2 species based on level of harvest. “Main species” constitute 5% or more of the catch by weight. There are also provisions for identifying a “main” primary species if there is concern that the fishery is having a negative impact on the stock status or if the volume of the fishery is very large. All other species are identified as “not main.” For the purposes of this assessment, all gears are combined for scoring purposes.

Primary species include non-target, managed species that are intercepted by the fishery during pink and chum salmon harvesting activities. These include sockeye salmon, coho salmon, capelin, Saffron cod (navaga) and Rainbow smelt.

• Sockeye salmon are a main primary species because they regularly exceed 5% of the catch by weight in odd-numbered years of the sub-dominant pink salmon return. In other years, catch percentages are lower because total catch of pink salmon in the Unit of Assessment is very large. Sockeye catch may be sufficiently large to impact affected populations.

• Coho salmon are a main primary species because they comprise 5% of the total commercial salmon harvest on average and 13% during odd-numbered years of the sub- dominant pink salmon return. Coho catch may be sufficiently large to impact affected populations.

• Chinook salmon are not considered a main primary species because this species is not subject to commercial fishing or sale. Commercial harvest, commercial seasons are scheduled to avoid Chinook run times, and incidental catch levels are very small. Chinook salmon are considered bycatch as current regulations prohibit retention.

• Capelin, Saffron cod (navaga) and Rainbow smelt are minor species because none comprise more than 5% of the total salmon harvest in the UoA. Therefore, none are a main primary species.

• There are no main secondary fish species.

• No significant bird bycatch has been reported or observed in this fishery but based on experience with other salmon fisheries in the U.S. and Canada, a likelihood of some level of diving seabird bird mortality associated with tangling in the fishing gear cannot be discounted. GSA3.7.1 directs that out of scope species including birds, are always considered a main species regardless of their catch volume, Therefore, diving seabirds are identified as a main secondary species in this assessment. Table 14. Scoring elements

Component Scoring elements Designation Data-deficient Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) of Primary Minor No Karaginsky Bay

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 82 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Primary Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Minor No Primary Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Minor No Primary Char (Salvelinus malma, S. leucomaensis) Minor No Primary Saffron cod (Eleginius gracilis) Minor No Primary Rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax) Minor No Diving birds (Gavia adamsii, G. arctica, G. Secondary Main No stellate) Secondary Starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus) Minor No Secondary Miscellaneous marine species Minor Not assessed ETP Sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) N/A No ETP Larga seal (Phoca largha) N/A No ETP Steller sea eagle (Haliaeetus pelagicus) N/A No ETP Long-billed murrelet (Brachyramphus perdex) N/A No Habitat Coastal shoreline (sand) Minor No Habitat Riverine streambed (gravel/cobble) Minor No

Primary Species Sockeye Salmon Distribution - Sockeye occur throughout the north Pacific from Washington USA to Kamchatka. Two large populations comprise the majority of the sockeye return in Kamchatka, the Ozernaya (with Kurilsky Lake) in western Kamchatka and the Kamchatka River in eastern Kamchatka. Within the UoA sockeye are found in all the target rivers.

Life History - Sockeye salmon prefer lake and lake-river systems because they rear primarily in lakes and can achieve large abundances in these systems (Bugaev 1995). However, only the riverine form is present in the target rivers (Bugaev et al. 2018). Young sockeye salmon run to the sea mainly as yearlings, rarely as two-year-olds. The duration of the sea period of all above groups is mostly three years (Bugaev 2011).

Stock Structure - Sockeye runs are generally comprised of populations returning to specific spawning and rearing areas. These populations are typically demographically and genetically distinct. Sockeye salmon in large systems like the Ozernaya River have a complex hierarchical population structure. Stocks in smaller systems like the target rivers are less structured.

Status - Sockeye salmon abundance is currently at relatively high levels. Returns to Kamchatka streams have increased substantially since restrictions of the high seas drift net fishery and the shift to more productive ocean conditions for salmon in the North Pacific since the late 1970s. More accurate harvest reporting may also have contributed to higher numbers since 2008, as a result of changes to the management system.

The number of sockeye salmon spawners counted in the target rivers (combined) averaged 86 thousand fish between 2004 and 2018 varying between 4–281 thousand per year (Figure 47). Relatively high escapement numbers were observed between 2005–2010, when estimated

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 83 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

escapements averaged 140 thousand spawners. Sockeye escapements after that time period are thought to be biased low due to a reduction in aerial escapement monitoring effort (Bugaev et al. 2018). More recent surveys were conducted primarily to monitor pink and chum salmon and did not include the peak of the sockeye spawning, accordingly sockeye escapement data after 2010 should be considered under-estimates. Nevertheless, average sockeye escapement estimates between 2004 and 2018 exceeded management targets (Figure 46). Given the reduction in aerial survey monitoring, KamchatNIRO believes that sockeye salmon escapements generally met escapement targets of 35-45 thousand spawners (Bugaev et al. 2018). Management - The escapement goal analysis for Western Kamchatka sockeye salmon was similar to that conducted for chum salmon. The analysis used data on sockeye salmon spawners (parents) and adult recruits (progeny) of multiple age classes from 1987 to 2011 in the West Kamchatka subzone. Longer-term changes in climate made it possible to stratify data by two productivity clusters: the 1987–1999 cluster was characterized by a low level of productivity; and the 2000-2011 cluster was characterized by a high level of productivity (Figure 48). Based on this analysis, MSY is optimized at 35.5-45.5 thousand sockeye salmon spawners in all the target rivers (Table 15). The minimum escapement (Slim) for the target rivers is 19.4 thousand spawners.

30,000 Sockeye

20,000

10,000 Harvest (metric tonnes) (metric Harvest

0 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

Figure 45. Total annual harvest of sockeye salmon in West Kamchatka (source: North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission).

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 84 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Figure 46. Combined sockeye salmon escapement survey counts to the Icha, Oblukovina, Krutogorova, Kolpakova and Korovskaya rivers, 2004-2018. Source Bugaev et al. 2018.

Figure 47. Average sockeye salmon escapement survey counts to the Icha, Oblukovina, Krutogorova, Kolpakova and Korovskaya rivers, 2004-2018. Source Bugaev et al. 2018.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 85 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Figure 48. Spawner– Recruit analysis for Western Kamchatka sockeye salmon. Source: Bugaev et al. 2018. Table 15. Limit, target and precautionary reference points (thousands of spawners) for sockeye salmon target stocks. Source: Bugaev et al. 2018. River Basin Slim Smsy (target) S*msy (precautionary) Icha 4.5 8.3 10.6 Oblukovina 3.3 6.1 7.8 Krutogorova 2.3 4.2 5.4 Kolpakova 6.1 11.1 14.2 Vorovskaya-Udova 3.2 5.8 7.5 Combined 19.4 35.5 45.5

Coho Salmon Distribution - Coho salmon are generally distributed in streams and rivers throughout the subarctic and temperate north Pacific from the Sea of Okhotsk to northern California (Sandercock 1991). Distribution in Kamchatka is generally limited to the southern portion of the Peninsula where they may be found in most mid-large and large bodies of water. Commercial quantities occur from Palana Village south to the Kambalnaya River. Significant populations in southwest Kamchatka occur in the Bolshaya River and in the rivers of the Central-West region including the Vorovskaya, Krutogorova, Pymta, Kol, and Kikhchik.

Life History - Coho return over a protracted period from August to December with spawning as late as March. Spawning typically occurs in a wide range of rivers and streams, including the uppermost accessible tributaries. Low water temperatures and the presence of shallow gravel areas allow coho salmon to spawn along nearly the entire lengths of the rivers. Coho salmon prefer to spawn in areas with intra-gravel water flow and/or areas with groundwater upwelling. Juvenile coho may rear in streams for one to three years before undergoing a physiological transformation to smolts and migrating to the sea. The predominate age of return is 2.1 (70%),

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 86 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

followed by 1.1 (26%) and 3.1 (4%). Adults typically return to spawn at 3 to 5 years of age after 1 year at sea. West Kamchatka coho typically average 63.3 cm in length and 3.55 kg in weight.

Stock Structure - Rivers with significant groundwater upwelling areas typically can include two distinct coho salmon runs - summer and autumn (early and late). The early run includes fish returning in August and September. The late run includes fish returning beginning in late September.

Status - Kamchatka coho salmon stocks have been at relatively high levels since 2009 based on commercial catch information (). KamchatNIRO indicates that current aerial surveys are insufficient to assess coho salmon escapement levels (Bugaev et al. 2018). Aerial surveys were relatively well funded through 2009. Since that time aerial surveys have been timed to monitor the most commercially important species, pink and chum salmon due to budget constraints. Information on coho salmon has been gathered opportunistically, but aerial surveys were typically completed by early September. Thus, the actual survey data presented reflects only the early portion of the spawning run in West Kamchatka rivers.

The number of coho salmon spawners counted in the target rivers (combined) averaged 95 thousand fish between 2004 and 2018 (Figure 51). However as noted above, coho escapements have been underestimated since 2009. Additional surveys were flown later in September in 2013 and 2014 and coho escapement data for those years corresponds to the average long-term population for coho salmon (Bugaev et al. 2018). Management - An escapement goal analysis was completed for Western Kamchatka coho salmon using extrapolated escapement data. KamchatNIRO extrapolated missing coho escapement data using historical relationships during the 1997-2008 reference period (Figure 50). The analysis used extrapolated data on coho salmon spawners (parents) and adult recruits (progeny) of multiple age classes from 1988 to 2010 in the West Kamchatka subzone. Longer-term changes in climate made it possible to stratify data by two productivity clusters: the 1988–1999 cluster was characterized by a low level of productivity; and the 2000-2010 cluster was characterized by a high level of productivity (Figure 52). Data from 2002 and 2010 led to insignificant parameter estimates and were excluded from the analysis. Based on this analysis, MSY is optimized at 34.1– 47.2 thousand coho salmon spawners in all the target rivers (Table 16). The minimum escapement (Slim) for the target rivers is 29.5 thousand spawners.

Since several years ago, intensity of fishing with coastal set gillnets increased significantly in even years when catches of pink salmon are relatively low. This is because large and expensive in exploitation coastal trap nets are less profitable that gillnets in situation of relatively low catches. But using this fishing gear for fishing salmon in Kamchatka has serious side-effects. In particular, quite often the cheap set gillnets can be lost with caught fish and thus result in unaccounted catch. Also, as this gear is very numerous, it is difficult to control them which also may result in unaccounted fishing mortality. This gear is mostly target valuable Pacific salmon species (i.e. not pink salmon) which migrate close to shoreline, in particularly, coho salmon. The coastal set gillnets are fully prohibited now south to 54 latitude (in Kamchatka-Kuril fisheries subzone), but are allowed to the north of this latitude with several limitations (see 5.2.1.), i.e. in the most of fishing parcels of this fishery they are allowed.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 87 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

10,000 9,000 Coho 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000

Harvest (metric tonnes) (metric Harvest 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

Figure 49. Total annual harvest of coho salmon in West Kamchatka (source: North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission).

Figure 50. Actual and extrapolated number of coho salmon spawners in the West Kamchatka subzone, 1988- 2015. Source: Bugaev et al. 2018.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 88 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Figure 51. Combined coho salmon escapement survey counts to the Icha, Oblukovina, Krutogorova, Kolpakova and Korovskaya rivers, 2004-2018. Source Bugaev et al. 2018. .

Figure 52. Spawner– Recruit analysis for Western Kamchatka coho salmon. Source: Bugaev et al. 2018.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 89 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Table 16. Limit, target and precautionary reference points (thousands of spawners) for coho salmon target stocks. Source: Bugaev et al. 2018. River Basin Slim Smsy (target) S*msy (precautionary) Icha 8.5 9.8 13.5 Oblukovina 5.8 6.7 9.3 Krutogorova 2.7 3.1 4.3 Kolpakova 6.4 7.4 10.3 Vorovskaya-Udova 6.1 7.1 9.8 Combined 29.5 34.1 47.2

Chinook Salmon Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) are considered bycatch as current regulations prohibit retention. Chinook salmon are not targeted by the commercial fishery and their spawning migration is earlier than the target species (Bugaev et al. 2018).

Chinook salmon production in Asia is primarily limited to the Kamchatka peninsula, where significant populations may be found in large rivers of the western and eastern coasts. The bulk of the Chinook salmon reproduction occurs on the eastern coast of the peninsula in the basin of the Kamchatka River (KamchatNIRO 2017). On the west coast of Kamchatka, Chinook salmon may be found in the Palana, Tigil, Khairyuzovo, Icha, Oblukovina, Krutogorova, Bolshaya, Kolpakova, Vorovskaya, Kikhchik, and Opala rivers (MRAG 2016).

Life History - Western Kamchatka Chinook typically average 6 – 10 kg in size but may reach 20 to 30 kg. Adults typically return to spawn at 3 to 5 years of age after 2 to 4 years at sea. Predominate ages are 1.3, 1.4 and 1.2 (MRAG 2016). Age composition has shifted since the 1990s with fewer older fish (5+ 6+) in the run. Spawning occurs in large rivers and streams. Chinook return to freshwater from May through July and spawn in July and August. Juvenile Chinook generally rear in streams for one year but some individuals may spend from a few months to three years before emigrating Substocks of Chinook salmon have not been identified within western Kamchatka rivers. Average size is typically greater in the early portion of the run because the portion of females in catches is larger, and size-weight indicators of females are usually higher in comparison with males.

Status - Chinook numbers have rebounded from low levels observed during the early 2000s. Harvest data from the UoA is not available. In other rivers of Western Kamchatka, Chinook harvest peaked during the 1970s and then declined until the recent improvements (Figure 53 - Figure 55). Similar patterns have been observed for Chinook salmon stocks throughout the North Pacific and are related in part to patterns of ocean productivity. In Kamchatka, declines were also exacerbated by commercial and illegal harvest in some areas (e.g. Bolshaya River). More conservative fishery management and reductions in illegal harvest have contributed to improvements.

Chinook are a very minor component of the UoA fishery, as commercial fishing for Chinook salmon is closed.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 90 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Figure 53. Chinook salmon catch (tons) Bolshaya River commercial fisheries, 1933-2010 (Shevlyakov et al. 2014). Source: MRAG 2016.

Figure 54. Run size of Chinook salmon to the Vorovskaya River in 1969-2009 (brown points and trend line) relative to the long-term average (horizontal line) (Shevlyakov et al. 2014). Source: MRAG 2016.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 91 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Number of fish (thousands) Number of

Figure 55. Recent escapement trends of Chinook salmon in the Vorovskaya, Kol and Opala rivers (Shevlyakov et al. 2016). Source: MRAG 2016. Saffron Cod (navaga) Saffron cod (Eleginus gracilis) are occasionally caught early during the beginning or end of salmon fishing season. This species spans the North Pacific, from Korea and the Sea of Okhotsk in the west to the northern Gulf of Alaska and eastern Banks Island in the east. It normally occurs in shallow coastal waters at less than 60 m depth but may also be found at depths up to 200 m. Saffron cod may also enter brackish and even fresh waters, occurring quite far up rivers and streams, but remaining within regions of tidal influence. Saffron cod begin to mature during their third year of life. They feed on fish and small crustaceans. They are commercially fished in many areas of the northwestern Pacific. The country with the largest catch is Russia. It is used for human consumption in the Russian Federation and Japan, fresh or frozen.

Saffron cod can be harvested as bycatch in commercial fisheries in Western Kamchatka. Over the past seven years (2011-2017), the average saffron cod catch in Western Kamchatka was 15.2 thousand mt (Bugaev et al. 2018). Intensive fishing of saffron cod can occur outside of the salmon fishing season in other fisheries. In the West Kamchatka subzone in 2017, the catch of saffron cod peaked before the salmon fishing season began, from April to June, when 58.6% of the total annual catch was harvested (Bugaev et al. 2018).

Spawning stock abundance is dependent on food availability. Recent fishery catch data suggest that the stock abundance in the West Kamchatka subzone is high. According to the results of the bottom survey performed in 2017, the total stock of saffron cod is estimated at 156,586 mt, with an estimated abundance of about 82,990 mt in the Kamchatka-Kuril subzone and 73,595 mt in the West Kamchatka subzone. Commercial harvest volume by various fishing companies in Sobolevo Management Unit in 2015–2018 is presented in Table 17. The majority of catch was harvested by companies outside of the UoC (Bugaev et al. 2018).

Saffron cod is mainly caught outside of the salmon fishing season, and catch of saffron cod during the salmon fishing season is likely well below 5% of the total catch; therefore, saffron cod is considered a minor primary species.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 92 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Table 17. Saffron cod catch (kg) by fishing companies in the Sobolevo Management Unit in 2015-2018.

Company Year Catch Kolpakovsky rybokombinat LLC 2015 1,077 2015 4,142 Zarya LLC 2016 7,998 2016 5,130 Crystal LLC 2017 49

2016 6,015 Crystal Fish LLC 2017 38

Zapadny Bereg LLC 2018 112,178

Rainbow smelt Rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax) is an anadromous species that ranges in the North Atlantic, Arctic and North Pacific drainages including Alaska and Russia. Rainbow smelt reproduce in the far Eastern seas of Russia.

Rainbow smelt was harvested both in the sea plots and in the river plots associated with the Icha, Oblukovina, Krutogorova, Kolpakova, and Vorovskaya Rivers. During this period, rainbow smelt catches ranged from 9.8 to 438.3 mt, an average of 139.6 mt (Figure 56).

Figure 56. Rainbow smelt catches in and adjacent to the Icha, Oblukovina, Krutogorova, Kolpakova, and Vorovskaya Rivers in 2011-2018. Source: Bugaev et al. 2018. According to a bottom trawl survey conducted by “TINRO” in 2016-2017, the total population and biomass of rainbow smelt in the western Kamchatka shelf was estimated to be 25.8 thousand mt, with 18.1 thousand mt (70%) of the biomass in the West Kamchatka subzone. KamchatNIRO’s

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 93 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

analysis found that biological indicators and age structure of rainbow smelt have been stable in the West Kamchatka subzone over the past 6 years (Bugaev et al. 2018).

Rainbow smelt comprise far less than 5% of the total catch in the salmon fishery and are considered a minor primary species.

Capelin Capelin (Mallotus villosus) may be caught as bycatch in the salmon fishery, and are also the target of a separate fishery, which takes place mainly before the salmon fishing season gets underway. Capelin reproduce from late May to early July, with a peak in mid-June. In the West Kamchatka subzone, the beginning of spawning and active spawning are shifted to later dates, by about a week.

Capelin are managed with recommended catch levels. Historically, the catch has been well below the recommended catch level, due to low demand. In 2016, however, market conditions led to greatly increased demand for capelin, and the catch increased dramatically, slightly exceeding the recommended catch level for that year.

According to aerial survey results, the stock abundance of capelin in the West Kamchatka subzone varied from 8.3 thousand mt (1999) to 229.2 thousand mt (1998). The stock abundance was estimated at 13.1 thousand mt in 2016, but this is believed to be a significant underestimate because the survey took place after the spawning peak. The commercial spawning stock is predicted to reach about 25 thousand mt in 2019 (Bugaev et al. 2018).

Capelin is mainly caught outside of the salmon fishing season, and catch of capelin during the salmon fishing season is likely well below 5% of the total catch; therefore, capelin is considered a minor primary species.

Secondary Species For the purposes of this assessment, secondary species in the catch are defined as those not included under Principle 1 in the Unit of Assessment and not identified as primary. These include both retained and nonretained catch. Retained secondary species in this fishery predominately include char, which are harvested in significant numbers for commercial use. Non-retained catch includes a variety of species, none of which comprise a significant volume of catch. There are no main secondary species.

Retained species include those which provide a commercial value significant enough to warrant processing and sale (and thus an economic incentive for capture). All retained fish delivered to the plants for processing and sale are weighed and numbers are reported to the management agencies. Information about retained species is collected by fisheries inspection and research institute.

Other species that are not typically processed for commercial value are treated as bycatch. Bycatch of non-retained species comprises a negligible portion of the harvest in the fishery. Due to the very low percentage of bycatch relative to the total fishery, no ‘main’ secondary species are identified. Bycatch can include a variety of marine and freshwater species including codfish (Gadidae), flatfish (Platichthys stellatus sp.), sculpins (Cottidae) and jellyfish (Blikshteyn 2011; Semanov et al. 2016; Lajus 2020).

Trap nets and seines employed in this fishery generally keep the entire catch of all target and non- target species alive until it gets loaded into boats or trucks for delivery to the processor. Small numbers of small-sized bycatch species might become gilled in net. Some sorting of bycatch may occur at the fishing sites and some bycatch may be delivered to fish processing plants along with

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 94 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

the target species. Fishers don’t typically handle fish directly as the catch is dipped or brailed from the trap or seine; however, an attempt is made to remove bycatch species as the catch is removed from the nets. Fishers might brail only commercially important species, while leaving more bottom- oriented bycatch species (like flatfish) behind until they are ready to empty the net completely. If discarded, flatfish and cottids probably stay alive because they are very resistant to handling.

Bycatch species delivered to the processing plants are sorted from the retained catch at the start of the processing lines. Amounts typically do not exceed 15 or 20 kg per delivery. Any non-target species delivered to the plants are generally processed for fish meal along with heads and guts of the commercial catch. There is a large market for fish meal in Russia.

Because of its low volume, bycatch is not assessed by the fishery or the management system. There is no official reporting of bycatch such as cod, flounder, silver smelt and birds in these fisheries (Shevlyakov 2014). Bycatch species are reported to be abundant throughout the region and fishery managers do not consider harvest levels to significantly affect these species. Bycatch assessments in other similar salmon fisheries in the Russian Far East, including Iturup, Sakhalin Island, and Ozernaya sockeye, have found similarly low levels of bycatch. For instance, a quantitative bycatch sampling program conducted in 2011 for the Ozernaya sockeye fishery (Blikshteyn 2011) found that by weight, bycatch numbers comprised a negligible percentage of the total harvest consisting of tons of retained species. Fisheries managers consider incidental levels of harvest in salmon fisheries to pose no danger to bycatch species (Shevlyakov et al. 2016).

Char is not considered highly vulnerable and does not meet the threshold to be considered a “main” secondary species. No specific information on other secondary species in this fishery was available, but KamchatNIRO indicates that bycatch of flounder and cod is small (Bugaev et al. 2018). It is highly unlikely that the catch of any of the secondary species accounts for 5% or more of the total catch. Therefore, there are no “main” secondary species for the purposes of this assessment.

Char Char are widely distributed and abundant throughout the Kamchatka region. Char abundance throughout the region is believed to be increasing. Life history of these species is diverse and includes anadromous and resident individuals. Char generally move upstream following the coho during late summer and return back downstream along with the juvenile salmon outmigration in spring.

Two species of char – Dolly varden (Salvelinus malma) and white-spotted char (S. leucomaensis) – are caught as bycatch during salmon fishing, retained and sold. Target commercial char fisheries also occur in some areas. Char catch as a percentage of total harvest during salmon seasons varies from year to year, due to differences in pink salmon abundance in even vs odd years, and from river to river. Char comprise less than 2% of the catch on average in the UoA, hence are classified as a minor secondary species. Previous assessments of Western Kamchatka fisheries also classified chars as minor secondary species (MRAG 2016, 2018).

Harvest levels are established for char by the management system based on historical catch levels, i.e. some elements of management of this species is presented, but research supporting this management is not as comprehensive as for Pacific salmon. Fishery independent information on stock status of char is not collected (Shevlyakov et al. 2017). The total commercial harvest of char is typically 70-80% of recommended catch during salmon season. Harvest rates are typically much less in alternate years when large abundance of pink salmon results in less fishing effort due to limitations in fish processing capacity. Recent increases in commercial harvest of char are likely a result of more accurate catch reporting since management system changes in 2008 rather

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 95 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

than an expansion of fishing effort. Char are not managed for specific stock levels or escapement objectives. Rather, catch levels and age composition are monitored over time to identify any changes in numbers which might be indicative of overfishing (Shevlyakov et al. 2016). Trends in these indicators have been observed to generally fluctuate around long-term averages, which have led KamchatNIRO to conclude that current harvest levels and fishing rates are sustainable (Shevlyakov et al. 2016).

Char are included in the official quota system for regional catch. Generally, the two species are not recorded individually, but both appear in the fishery statistics under the common name char. The majority of the catch reported as “char” is S. malma (Bugaev et al. 2018).

According to KamchatNIRO, abundance of char varies in both 30-year and 6-year cycles. Abundance on the west coast of Kamchatka is experiencing a longer-term increasing trend, and catches increased until 2015, though populations may be experiencing a short-term decline since 2016. In general, abundance is thought to reflect oceanographic conditions, which have been favorable for S. malma in recent years, contributing to their stock increase (Bugaev et al. 2018).

Char can be harvested in rivers year-round, but winter fishing is poorly developed, and the resource is under-utilized in some places to due inaccessibility of transport. On the west coast of Kamchatka, the Icha, Kolpakova, Oblukovina, Kol, Pymta, Kikhchik, Ozernaya, and Opala rivers have the most productive char stocks (Tiller 2007; Bugaev et al 2018). KamchatNIRO’s scientific analysis has found that char in Western Kamchatka maintains a stable size-age structure, which indicates the stock is stable in this region (Bugaev et al. 2018).

Data on char harvest in the West Kamchatka subzone and areas of the Icha, Oblukovina, Krutogorova, Kolpakova, and Vorovskaya rivers in 2009–2018 is presented in Figure 57through Figure 60. During this period, on average, 851.0 mt of char was harvested in all water bodies in the West Kamchatka subzone. The annual catch ranged from a low of 292.5 mt in 2018 to a high of 1444.8 mt in 2015.

Bycatch of Char in 2009-2018 in the Icha, Oblukovina, Krutogorova, Kolpakova, and Vorovskaya Rivers averaged 77.7 (46.5–93.4%) of the total catch of Char in the West Kamchatka subzone. Char catches from 2009 to 2018 were distributed as follows: Oblukovina River: 27.3% of the total catch (19.5–49.7); Vorovskaya River: 23.3% (9.6–40.3); Kolpakova River: 18.5% (4.0–29.5); Krutogorova River: 17.0% (10.6–28.1); and Icha River: 13.9% (4.4–39.1). In this area, char is harvested both in the sea and river plots.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 96 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Figure 57. Total char catch in the West Kamchatka subzone in 2009-2018. Source: Bugaev et al. 2018.

Figure 58. Char catch in the Icha, Oblukovina, Krutogorova, Kolpakova, and Vorovskaya Rivers as a percentage of the total catch in the West Kamchatka subzone in 2009–2018. Source: Bugaev et al. 2018.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 97 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Figure 59. Total white-spotted char catch in and adjacent to the Icha, Oblukovina, Krutogorova, Kolpakova, Vorovskaya rivers in 2011–2018. Source Bugaev et al. 2018.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 98 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Figure 60. Bycatch of Char in and adjacent to the Icha, Oblukovina, Krutogorova, Kolpakova, and Vorovskaya rivers in 2009–2018.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 99 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

There are three species of diving birds with a potential to interacting with salmon fishing gear: yellow-billed loon Gavia adamsii (белоклювая гагара), for which one case of mortality is reported in the coastal trapnet in Kronotsky Bay in June 1985 (Kamchatka Red Data Book, 2018), the black-throated diver Gavia arctica (чернозобая гагара) and red-throated diver (Gavia stellata) with similar life history, which are known to interact with fishing gear although not in Kamchatka. Two first species are included in the Red Data Book of Russia, but only part of their range is protected, and Kamchatka is not included in this part. The first species is included also in the regional Kamchatka Red Data Book. The last species is not included either in national or regional Red Data Books. Therefore, all these species should be considered as main secondary species in this assessment. The species may occur in the UoA during their seasonal migrations (G. adamsii), two other species may nest in the lakes near the UoA.

ETP Species For the purposes of this assessment, endangered, threatened, or protected species are those that are recognized by national legislation, binding international agreements (e.g., CITES) to which jurisdictions controlling the fishery under assessment are party, or ‘out-of-scope’ species (amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) that are listed in the IUCN Red List as vulnerable (VU), endangered (EN) or critically endangered (CE). In this case, national legislation provides for protection of ETP species identified in the Russian Federation Red Data Book, also known simply as the Red Book. The Red Book is based largely on the International Union for Protection of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), which formally designates protected species subject to enhanced regulatory protection. Related natural conservation legislation was adopted in the 1980s-1990s including laws for protection of natural environment and fauna, natural (wildlife) areas under special protection, and ecological expertise along with a number of various decrees by the Russian Federation Government. These regulations established conservation priorities for the Red Book’s rare fauna and flora species and liabilities for damage inflicted to the species and their habitats.

Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) are red-listed in Kamchatka. There is one red-listed species of marine mammal in this area, the Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus). Another seal species, harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) is quite common. One red-listed bird species, the Steller sea eagle (Haliaeetus pelagicus), is present. Although no ongoing observer program exists for the fisheries, federal scientists, managers, and inspectors regularly visit the fishing sites and processing plants throughout the season. Over the course of the many years of fishing operations, none of these species is observed to have adverse impacts from the fishery. The fishing authorities have determined that the fishery has such low impacts that it needs no specific data collections on interactions with ETP species.

Steelhead Steelhead are a sea-run form of rainbow trout present in large rivers of Western Kamchatka. Both resident and sea run life histories occur in the same systems and are demographically and genetically related. Steelhead may reach 10-12 kg in size but are typically half that. Kamchatka steelhead enter rivers in September-November, i.e. later than main fishing season of Pacific salmon. Steelhead spawn in May and June after overwintering in freshwater. Spawning may be broadly distributed in rivers and streams. Unlike salmon, not all steelhead adults die after spawning. Adults typically may reach twelve years of age and spawn repeatedly over their lifespan. Juvenile steelhead may rear in streams for one to several years before emigrating.

Catch of any Red listed species in Russia is prohibited and they must be immediately released if caught. Steelhead are also largely protected from significant catch in the commercial salmon

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 100 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

fishery by season dates. Run timing of adults in fall is outside the period of the fishery. Emigration timing of adults and juveniles is prior to beginning of the fishing season.

Marine Mammals and Birds Information on population abundance of Kamchatka marine mammals is well documented in the scientific literature (Burkanov 1986, 1988; Lagerev 1988; Kosygin et al. 1986). Steller sea lions are included in the Red book of Kamchatka (2006) and hunting of this species is illegal. This species inhabits the coast of western Kamchatka year-round, but its distribution and number changes seasonally. Approximately 2,500 sea lions gather in a rookery on Sivuchiy Cape during winter before dispersing generally northward during spring and summer. Small groups or individual sea lions are occasionally observed in the fishing area in summer. Sea lions sometimes enter the trap or fish well where they feed on fish. Large males sometimes damage nets to get at salmon. In Russia, the major Steller Sea Lion rookeries were protected under a Northern Fur Seal and Sea Otter conservation act in the late 1950s. They were listed as endangered (category 2) in the Russian Red Data Book in 1994 and harvest was prohibited. These measures had a positive effect in the western portion of the range as the population increased around Sakhalin Island, the Kuril Islands, and in the northern Sea of Okhotsk. Take of sea lions is illegal as it is a protected species.

Other seals are abundant in the area and frequently observed around the marine trap nets. The most numerous species in the Russian Far East is spotted seal or larga. A number of researchers consider that harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) in the Russian Far East is represented by subspecies called P. vitulina largha, but others consider them as a separate species P. largha. This species is found in local waters year-round. Large numbers gather in rookeries along the western coast of Kamchatka from February until mid-March. These seals concentrate near estuaries and capes to feed almost exclusively in salmon during salmon spawning runs. These seals constantly enter marine net traps, eat or damage fish, and then freely leave the nets. Beach seines do not normally affect marine mammals. Incidental take of these seals or sea lions by tangling in gear has not been observed due to the nature of the gear.

Seals may be hunted with the proper license, but the harvest allocation is considerably underused because of degradation of hunting infrastructure. Licenses can be obtained for commercial harvest but have not by the assessment companies. Seals are regarded as a nuisance by fishers. KamchatNIRO scientists report that in the past, prior to adoption of the company policy prohibiting firearms on boats, fishermen drove off seals from nets. The available information indicates that this occurred at a low level, was not systematic, and fishermen generally complied with the law.

Other marine animals present in the area include killer whales and white whales. There was no mention by government officials or fishing industry representatives of other sea mammals captured or killed by the gears. The nature of the fixed trap net gear substantially reduces opportunities for encounters with marine mammals. Beach seines and gill nets do not normally encounter or affect marine mammals.

One red listed bird species, Steller sea eagle (Haliaeetus pelagicus) depends on Pacific salmon as an important food item. Steller sea eagle feeds on various animals such as aquatic birds, small mammals, marine invertebrates, but mostly they prey on Pacific salmon. They feed both on live fish and dead fish. Some other birds and mammals feed on the remains from fish killed by Steller sea eagle. In a whole, the population of this species is stable, but it is considered that nesting gathering in the mouth of the Kamchatka River is under threat because of declines of salmon stocks in this area (Red list of Kamchatka, 2006).

Another related species, H. albicilla, white-tail eagle, also depends on salmon as a food source. Similarly, with the previous Steller sea eagle, the population is quite stable in general. Some other birds of prey, such as the bald eagle (H. leucocephalus) and golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos),

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 101 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

also depend of salmon in their feeding, but to a lesser extent than the aforementioned species. As they are distributed throughout Kamchatka, they also may be less affected by local declines of salmon.

Long-billed murrelet Brachyramphus perdex is included in the Russia Red Data Book, where it is indicated that the main risks for this species is sea pollution by oil products and destroying of forests in the coastal area (Krasnaya Kniga Rossiskoy Federatsii, 2008). Lobkov (2002) reports four cases of death of the long-billed murrelet in salmon coastal setnets in south-eastern Kamchatka (Zhupanovo village, 24-25 June 1987– 3 specimens and 13 June 1993 – one specimen). According to estimations of total abundance of this species, its abundance is likely higher than 9 thousand birds, and it is likely that no reduction of their abundance took place (Lobkov, 2002).

Management The Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology is responsible for managing sensitive species. The Red list of Russian Federation is regularly updated. Leading experts are involved in the updating of the Red List. Including of a species in the Red List not only certifies its official status, but also provides the necessary basis for management decisions. Species included on the Red List are subdivided into the following categories: 0 – probably extinct, 1 – under threat of extinction, 2 – decrease of abundance, 3 – rare, 4 – status is unclear, 5 – recovering. Based on the Law of the Russian Federation “On animal world”, all the red listed species are protected regardless the categories they belong to. If they are accidently caught in fishing gear, they should be recorded in logbooks and released with minimal possible damage.

Organizationally, the Red List is under responsibility of the Commission on rare and endangered animals, plants and fungi, which is created and operates in accordance with the procedure approved by Order of State Committee on Ecology of the Russian Federation from 24.09.1998 № 542 "On the maintenance work on keeping the Red Book of the Russian Federation." The Commission includes representatives of leading Russian scientific organizations, including the Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences named by A.N. Severtsov and the State Organization "All-Russian Research Institute for Nature Conservation". The functions of this Commission is to provide recommendations on including endangered species in the Red Book of the Russian Federation or the exclusion of species (subspecies, populations) of wild animals, wild plants and fungi from the Red Book of the Russian Federation. Each region in Russia (oblast, autonomous republic) has its own Red lists. Red list of Kamchatka was prepared by Pacific Institute of Geography and published in 2007. In total, it includes 123 species of animals – 13-invertebrates, 30 fish species, 60 birds and 23 terrestrial and marine mammals.

Habitats Condition The footprint and scale of human development in western Kamchatka is very small and impacts on watershed and river habitats and functions are very limited. Human habitation is concentrated in only a few sites. Alterations of these sites may be substantial, but impacts appeared to be quite localized. Similarly, road construction was very limited in the basins and related habitat effects appeared minor relative to the scale of the watershed and impacts were likely localized to a few areas. Coastal habitats are shaped entirely by natural processes rather than human activities.

Fishing activities with traps, seines and gill nets do not have a significant long-term impact on habitat. Any effects of stationary trap construction or operation are localized and temporary. The traps are anchored to the sea bottom with large bags full of sand. Permits are required to dig. Net leads and wings are weighted to rest on the bottom, but trap boxes constructed on steel frames are constructed on floats and do not contact the bottom where mechanical damage to benthic

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 102 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020 organisms might occur. KamchatNIRO scientists report no harmful effect on bottom flora or fauna. Assessments of this gear in other regions (i.e., Iturup and Sakhalin) have also shown minimal impacts. There is a special agency, State Sanitary-epidemiological Inspection, that monitors whether the fishery affects the fishing operation zone. In a case of violations, it is a usual practice to levy fines on the company.

Beach seines used in the river and estuary may be dragged along the bottom but any impact is minor and temporary. The river bottom is comprised of gravel and cobble which is regularly redistributed by floods.

Environmental Protection Protection of the salmon habitat is achieved through observance of the current laws of the Russian Federation. Any type of utilization either of natural resources directly or that impacts them indirectly, including fisheries, water and timber utilization, construction, etc., must be evaluated as to the extent of impact on the environment. The evaluation itself is performed by an expert commission having state ecological expertise, and the main federal agency responsible for conducting the state ecological expert review is the Rosprirodnadzor. In addition, activity related to natural utilization that has already been permitted is regulated to the extent to which it impacts the environment by a series of standards documents at the federal, departmental and local levels.

For the protection of fish habitat within the area of its competence, responsibility is borne by the Rosprirodnadzor under Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology of Russian Federation, and the Federal Ecological, Technological and Atomic Oversight Service (Rostekhnadzor), the Agency of Fisheries of Russian Federation, and local governments of the territorial subjects of the Russian Federation. The Natural Protection Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation is responsible for enforcing laws relating to natural utilization.

Building/construction projects are regulated by a governmental agency (Rospotrebnadzor Sanitation Service) which requires completion of an environmental Impact Study (EIS) prior to approval of a project permit. Projects are monitored and can be delayed by the service if the builder does not fulfill the requirements. Assessments address discharges, disposal, drainage, soil pollution, the burial of wastes in the environment, accidents and catastrophes. The EIS includes a project description, descriptions of the environments subject to impact, and a characterization of the extent of the impact (based on a worst-case maximum), including a determination of the subsequent value of the losses, the form of compensation both in kind and in monetary terms, and development of the engineering for loss compensation. Also included are descriptions of the extent to which the conditions for land use and the requirements issued by the respective government agencies of supervision and control have been followed, a study of the risks associated with possible accidents, as well as the adequacy of the anticipated material resources and financial reserves to localize and eliminate the effects of accidents, and a study of the fullness and effectiveness of the anticipated measures for protecting the health of the population living in the surroundings of the environmental area. Decisions adopted must conform to the laws and standards of the Russian Federation and the Kamchatsky Kray.

The main indicator of success with respect to actions aimed at protecting fish (salmon) habitat is the record size of the harvests of Pacific salmon. It should be noted, however, that other factors such as sea conditions also impact to stock abundance and catches.

Stakeholders have reported development of significant gold-mining activities in the Icha River watershed with the potential to significantly affect salmon habitats and stocks. The Aginsky gold mining factory (which uses chemicals) is located on the Aga stream, that goes into Icha river. At the moment, there is no objective and official information that salmon stocks of Icha watershed are not being impacted by mining, moreover independent scientists and local activists insist that

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 103 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

such an impact may exist. Official monitoring data (e.g., chemicals going into water, area of spoiled spawning grounds) is not publicly available at this time (http://www.kamniro.ru/presscenter/news/krupnomasshtabnaya_dobycha_zolota_opasna_dlya_ kamchatki; http://www.vniro.ru/files/trydi_vniro/archive/tv_2015_t_157_article_11.pdf).

Ecosystem Structure and Function The salmon life cycle encompasses a vast ecosystem including natal rivers and lakes, the near- shore ocean, and the high seas of the North Pacific Ocean. Salmon migrate across large areas of the North Pacific Ocean, which provides major feeding habitats for various salmon stocks originating from Asia and North America (Myers et al. 2009; Urawa et al. 2009). Juveniles gain over 90% of their biomass in the ocean before returning to freshwater to spawn (Groot and Margolis 1991). Ecosystem effects of salmon harvest and enhancement can be significant.

Marine-derived nutrients from salmon carcasses can have a significant impact on freshwater and riparian communities. The flux of salmon biomass entering fresh water from the ocean can be massive (Gende et al. 2002; Schindler et al., 2003). It is known that these nutrients form a base for the development of zooplankton in coastal areas, which serves as food for young salmon just after downstream migration. Russian scientists estimate that each pink salmon carcass is 0.5% organic phosphorus (Kizevetter 1971), and in dominant pink salmon years, carcasses provide a large amount of nutrients to the ecosystem. For example, KamchatNIRO has estimated that the pink salmon run in 1994 contributed about 110,000 mt of carcasses or 550 mt of organic phosphorus to the ecosystem (Shevlyakov 2014). Some dead fish drift to the sea, but the rest remain in the floodplains of the rivers, where carcasses are transformed into organic material that is incorporated into the food chain.

Removal of Pacific salmon by the fishery has consequences for river ecosystems. The relationships between salmon and the population dynamics of their terrestrial predators has been well documented (Gende et al. 2002). Possibly, the most serious of them is the decrease of food for predator animals and predator birds, which to a considerable extent consists of spawning salmon. The following animals depend on salmon in their diet: brown bear (Ursus arctos), Kamchatka fox (Vulpes vulpes), sable (Martes zibellina), ermine (Mustela erminea kaneii), mink (M. vison), Steller’s sea eagle (H. pelagicus), Pacific seagull (Larus schistisagus), whooper swan (Cygnus cygnus) and many other mammals and birds.

Brown bears depend on salmon for food. The number of Kamchatka bears is inseparably linked with the abundance of spawning salmon entering rivers. In periods of high salmon abundance, bear populations grow due to increases in the birth rate and survival of offspring, and, on the contrary, in the years of depression, salmon stocks limit the number of consumers, both young and adults. With introduction of the large-scale salmon fishing, former relationships in the local ecosystem changed. It is assumed that in the wild ecosystem, without human influence, fluctuations of salmon abundance were higher than now. Indirectly, this can be judged from the periodically occurring famine of the indigenous peoples inhabiting Kamchatka (Steller 1999). According to modern ideas, the periods of low salmon returns could be a consequence of a change in the cycles of salmon population growth and its fall as a result of mechanisms of density- dependent regulation of the size of populations.

In different years, depending on the periods of operation and the accounting methods used, the number of brown bear on the peninsula was estimated from 8-10 thousand to 15-20 thousand individuals (Ostroumov, 1968; Gordienko and Gordienko, 2005). In the modern period as of April 2015, according to experts of the Agency of Forestry and Wildlife Conservation in Kamchatka, there are about 21.5 thousand individuals, of which 5,665 are in the area of the Kamchatka River. It is clear that these values possess some uncertainties; however, at present they are the only estimates obtained using standard methods in the field. Therefore, it is seen that there is no decrease of bear population in Kamchatka, and even some increase.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 104 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Salmon also play a significant role in marine ecosystems. It is clear that salmon influence the food webs in the North Pacific Ocean although the effect varies widely between systems and is dependent on many factors like timing, scale and alternative nutrient sources, etc. (Naydenko 2009). Resolving interaction strengths in the food web is made difficult by limited data and confounding effects of environmental forcing (Essington 2009). Ecosystem models that have been developed for the Eastern Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands and the Gulf of Alaska (Gaichas and Francis 2008, Aydin et al. 2008) do not suggest a critical or unique role of salmon with respect to the structure of the food web in the ocean. Gaichas and Francis (2008) used network theory to identify potentially key species in the Gulf of Alaska food web on the basis of high connectivity and four species (Pacific cod, Pacific halibut, walleye pollock and arrowtooth flounder) were identified as highly connected species.

Extensive research has been conducted by the Russian Scientific Institutes on (1) Juvenile Anadromous Stocks in Ocean Ecosystems; (2) Anadromous Stocks in the Bering Sea Ecosystem (BASIS); and (3) Anadromous Stocks in the Western Subarctic Gyre and Gulf of Alaska Ecosystems (Temnykh et al. 2010). This work also involved substantial monitoring and research of related ecosystem components including food web composition, production and dynamics.

Enhancement of Pacific salmon across the Pacific Rim since the 1970s has resulted in very large abundance in the North Pacific Ocean (Mahnken et al. 1998; Irvine et al. 2009; Ruggerone et al. 2010). There is some evidence that high salmon abundances in the ocean might adversely affect wild salmon through competition (Peterman 1991). Ocean growth of pink salmon inversely correlated to their own abundance and survival of chum, Chinook, and sockeye appears to be reduced in years of high pink salmon abundance (Ruggerone et al. 2003, Ruggerone and Goetz 2004, Ruggerone and Nielsen 2004, Ruggerone et al. 2005; Ruggerone et al. 2010). There is growing concern that the ocean carrying capacity of pink and chum salmon has been globally reached. However, salmon populations in the fishery under assessment have not been significantly enhanced.

The regional scientific agencies are conducting ongoing research and monitoring of the aquatic ecosystem of area rivers. Stationary or seasonal research stations are established in many areas.

Scoring elements

Component Scoring elements Main/not main Retained? Data-deficient? Principle 1 Chum Salmon -- Yes No Principle 1 Pink Salmon -- Yes No Primary Sockeye Salmon Main Yes No Primary Coho salmon Main Yes No Primary Chinook Salmon Not Main No No Primary Saffron cod (navaga) Not Main Yes No Primary Rainbow smelt Not Main Yes No Secondary Diving birds (misc. species) Main No No Secondary Char Not Main Yes No Secondary Starry flounder Not Main Yes No Secondary Miscellaneous marine species Not Main No No ETP Steller sea lion -- No No ETP Steller sea eagle -- No No Habitat Sand, silt, gravel bottom Main -- No Ecosystem -- No

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 105 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

5.3.2 Principle 2 Performance Indicator scores and rationales PI 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the point where recruitment PI 2.1.1 would be impaired (PRI) and does not hinder recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Main primary species stock status

Main primary species are Main primary species are There is a high degree of likely to be above the PRI. highly likely to be above certainty that main the PRI. primary species are above OR the PRI and are fluctuating OR around a level consistent If the species is below the with MSY. PRI, the UoA has If the species is below the a Guide measures in place that are PRI, there is either expected to ensure that evidence of recovery or a post the UoA does not hinder demonstrably effective recovery and rebuilding. strategy in place between all MSC UoAs which categorise this species as main, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding.

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Main primary species include sockeye and coho salmon.

SG60 – see SG80

SG80 –Long-term harvest and limited escapement data provide strong evidence that sockeye and coho are highly likely above the point where recruitment would be impaired by the current commercial fishery. Numbers have varied but historical escapements have continued to produce substantial returns and harvests over the last decade. Sockeye in particular are at generally at record high levels of production throughout western Kamchatka. In part, this is related to an extended period of favorable ocean conditions for these species throughout the northern Pacific. These stocks have also benefited by improvements in fishery management structures and enforcement which appear to have substantially reduced the illegal and unreported harvest which reduced spawning escapements.

Freshwater habitat conditions in western Kamchatka, with few exceptions, are excellent for salmon production. Watersheds are virtually pristine and support tremendous diversity of aquatic systems including rivers, streams, lakes and wetlands which provide ideal conditions for salmon production. These conditions are conducive to high levels of salmon productivity and lead to inherent resilience to harvest which in turn can sustain robust levels of fishery exploitation.

Management to ensure significant spawning escapement provides a conservative standard for protecting populations from a point of recruitment impairment. Highly variable annual run sizes are characteristic of salmon, with occasional poor run years and escapements into portions of some systems. Long term population viability and fishery sustainability for salmon is maintained under these circumstances by a

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 106 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

diverse meta-population structure including multiple, interacting populations and subpopulations, and by only a portion of each population or brood year cohort returning to spawn in any given year.

While escapements of sockeye and coho may periodically fall below optimum levels, historical data indicate that escapements are sufficient to sustain significant production and harvest, particularly in years of favorable environmental conditions. Commercial exploitation of coho and sockeye by commercial fisheries for pink and chum salmon accounts for only a limited effect on spawning escapements of these species. The majority of the coho run occurs outside the period of the pink and chum salmon fishery. A substantial portion of the harvest of sockeye appears to occur by illegal fishing in road-accessible areas of the Bolshaya system – sockeye returning to other west Kamchatka rivers are subject to a lower incidence of illegal fishing and more consistently achieve optimum escapement objectives. Because sockeye and coho are observed to sustain significant levels of production, it is likely that these species are within biologically based limits of exploitation consistent long-term sustainability.

SG100 – Coho and sockeye escapements in rivers are uncertain and inconsistent in recent years. It cannot be concluded with a high degree of certainty that coho and non-Ozernaya sockeye populations are fluctuating around MSY at this time (although they generally appear to be above the point of significant long-term recruitment impairment).

Minor primary species stock status

Minor primary species are highly likely to be above the PRI.

b Guide OR

post If below the PRI, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of minor primary species.

Met? Yes

Rationale

The SG 100 standard is met for minor primary species including Chinook salmon, saffron cod (navaga), rainbow smelt, and capelin. Chinook are not subject to commercial fishing or sale but small numbers may occasionally be caught during early season fisheries in some rivers. A downturn in Chinook salmon productivity related in part to an extended period of unfavorable marine conditions and historical commercial exploitation appears to have reduced abundance relative to historical levels. However, commercial fisheries for Chinook have been closed and abundance has increased substantially over the last decade. Sport harvest of Chinook is allowed as stock assessments indicate this species is currently above the point of reproductive impairment. Closure of the commercial fishery to harvest of Chinook salmon effectively ensures that the fishery does not impede its recovery. Targeted harvest of the other species occurs prior to the salmon fishery so catches are relatively small and unlikely to impact their stock status.

References

MRAG 2016; Bugaev et al. 2018

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range >80

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 107 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score 90

Condition number (if relevant) --

PI 2.1.2 – Primary species management strategy There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder PI 2.1.2 rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch

Management strategy in place

There are measures in There is a partial strategy There is a strategy in place for the UoA, if in place for the UoA, if place for the UoA for necessary, that are necessary, that is managing main and minor a Guide expected to maintain or to expected to maintain or to primary species. not hinder rebuilding of the not hinder rebuilding of the post main primary species at/to main primary species at/to levels which are likely to be levels which are highly above the PRI. likely to be above the PRI.

Met? No (Sockeye & Coho) Yes Yes Yes (others) Rationale

SG60 –See SG80

SG80 - The harvest strategy in place is designed to regulate harvest levels and achieve escapements consistent with production of high sustained yields of sockeye and Coho in commercial fisheries. The strategy involves establishing fishing seasons, scheduled passing days of no fishing to limit exploitation rates and distribute escapement throughout the season, in-season monitoring of harvest, species composition, biological indicators, and spawning escapements, and in-season fishery management based on this information. Fishery times and areas are designed and regulated specifically to fill the available natural spawning areas and to achieve corresponding escapement objectives. Coho are provided an added measure of protection because fishing is curtailed in the later portion of the run.

SG100 – This standard is not met for sockeye and coho because the aggregate SMU-based strategy employed in Western Kamchatka may not meet population-specific objectives for in some rivers and because monitoring of escapement is incomplete for these species in recent years. Budget cuts have substantially reduced aerial survey efforts from historical levels. There is an effective management strategy for protection and rebuilding of Chinook salmon involving closure of the commercial fishery during the period of Chinook return that meets the SG100.The Rainbow smelt and saffron cod are actively managed and meet the SG100.

Management strategy evaluation b The measures are There is some supports Guide objective Testing high considered likely to work, basis for confidence that confidence that the partial

based on plausible the measures/partial strategy/strategy will work, post argument (e.g., general strategy will work, based based on information experience, theory or on some information

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 108 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

comparison with similar directly about the fishery directly about the fishery fisheries/species). and/or species involved. and/or species involved.

Met? No (Sockeye & Coho) Yes Yes Yes (others) Rationale

SG60 – Coho and Sockeye, See SG80 Chinook & others, See SG100

SG80 –Documentation of in-season restrictions based on abundance and assessments of spawning escapement provides an objective basis for confidence that management measures are effective for sustaining sockeye and coho. Fishery restrictions based on time and area closures are regularly adopted in-season based on real-time information on run size and catch composition. Examples of recent fishery actions are detailed in Section 3. Measures have consistently produced significant spawning escapements in most years.

SG100 - The current harvest strategy has been in place since only 2008 and may not have been fully tested under a wide range of conditions including the inherent variability in abundance and run timing of salmon. In particular, it is not clear whether the system has been challenged by an extended interval of low salmon productivity. The current system may not have effectively regulated harvest of coho salmon to achieve MSY escapement objectives in many area rivers and sockeye from rivers other than the Ozernaya.

Management measures for Chinook salmon based on closure of the commercial fishery during the period of Chinook return have practically eliminated commercial harvest of Chinook salmon. Experience with salmon plus evidence of increasing Chinook spawning escapement has demonstrated that eliminating commercial harvest and limiting recreational harvest will lead to successful rebuilding. Stock assessments indicate that a higher percentage of the annual run is escaping to spawning grounds under these regulations which were adopted in 2010.

Other minor primary species are targeted and actively managed in other fisheries. The salmon fishery occurs after the bulk of the harvest occurs for these species.

Management strategy implementation

There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the measures/partial that the partial C Guide strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully post successfully. and is achieving its overall objective as set out in scoring issue (a).

Met? No (Sockeye & Coho) Yes Yes (others) Rationale

SG80 –Documentation of in-season restrictions based on abundance and assessments of spawning escapement, provide some evidence that management measures are being implemented successfully to maintain sockeye and coho above a point of recruitment impairment. Increases in Chinook abundance following closure of the commercial fishery provide clear evidence that measures are being effectively implemented. Stock assessments are in place to monitor abundance of other primary species and limit harvest in targeted fisheries when necessary.

SG100 – The current system may not have effectively regulated harvest of coho salmon or sockeye to achieve yield-based escapement objectives in many area rivers. Experience with salmon plus evidence

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 109 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

of increasing Chinook spawning escapement has demonstrated that eliminating commercial harvest and limiting recreational harvest will lead to successful rebuilding of Chinook. Stock assessments indicate that a higher percentage of the annual run is escaping to spawning grounds under these regulations which were adopted in 2010. Stock assessments are in place to monitor abundance of other primary species and limit harvest in targeted fisheries when necessary.

Shark finning

D Guide It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of finning is not taking place. shark finning is not taking certainty that shark post place. finning is not taking place.

Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

Sharks are not caught in this fishery.

Review of alternative measures

There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial review potential effectiveness and of the potential of the potential practicality of alternative effectiveness and effectiveness and measures to minimise practicality of alternative practicality of alternative e Guide UoA-related mortality of measures to minimise measures to minimise unwanted catch of main UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of post primary species. unwanted catch of main unwanted catch of all primary species and they primary species, and they are implemented as are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate.

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

SG60 & SG80 - There is no unwanted catch of main primary species (coho and sockeye). Both are target species of the commercial fishery. However, for the past several years, intensity of fishing with coastal set gillnets (where legal north of 54 degrees N) increased significantly in even years when catches of pink salmon are relatively low. This is because large and expensive coastal trap nets are less profitable that gillnets in situation of relatively low catches. But using this fishing gear for fishing salmon in Kamchatka can result in unaccounted catch when gillnets are lost. This gear is mostly targeting valuable Pacific salmon species (i.e. not pink salmon) which migrate close to shoreline, particularly, coho salmon. Based on recent reviews, the coastal set gillnets are fully prohibited now south to 54 latitude (in Kamchatka-Kuril fisheries subzone) but are allowed in most parcels to the north of this latitude with several limitations (see 5.2.1.).

SG100 – Regular review of the effectiveness of management measures for the protection of Chinook is incorporated in the current management program. These measures were adopted following extensive review of the previous management strategy which included commercial harvest, but biennial review does not occur.

References

MRAG 2016; Bugaev et al. 2018

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 110 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Sockeye and Coho-80 Overall Performance Indicator score Others-95 Overall-90 Condition number (if relevant) --

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 111 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

PI 2.1.3 – Primary species information Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to determine PI 2.1.3 the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main primary species

Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is adequate to estimate the information is available and available and is adequate impact of the UoA on the is adequate to assess the to assess with a high main primary species with impact of the UoA on the degree of certainty the respect to status. main primary species with impact of the UoA on main respect to status. primary species with OR respect to status. a Guide OR If RBF is used to score PI post 2.1.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is adequate to estimate Some quantitative productivity and information is adequate to susceptibility attributes for assess productivity and main primary species. susceptibility attributes for main primary species.

Met? Yes No No

Rationale

SG60 - A large amount of quantitative information is collected to support the harvest strategy for primary species. This includes stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data on biological characteristics of the run, run timing, spawning distribution, and spawning escapement. Detailed information is collected on harvest in the commercial salmon fishery. Numbers are estimated at multiple stages of the harvest and processing chain. Detailed records are required and kept by the fishery and the government. Changes in the management system over the previous decade ensure accuracy of catch reporting by removing incentives for inaccurate accounting to avoid taxes or remain within a designated allocation. Catch data are reported on a real-time basis during the fishing season. Assessments also include direct estimates of natural stock productivity on a regional and population-specific basis. The SG60 is met.

SG80 –However, continuing reductions in aerial survey effort, which is the basis for inseason and post season stock assessment, raises concern for the sufficiency of information on spawning escapements for a representative range of component populations in the future. The SG80 standard is not met due to reductions in the accuracy and precision of wild abundance estimates resulting from recent reductions in aerial survey efforts.

Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor primary species

Some quantitative b information is adequate to Guide estimate the impact of the

UoA on minor primary post species with respect to status.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 112 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Met? Yes

Rationale

There are stock assessment programs for minor primary species. The salmon fishery catches very few minor primary species; certainly, much less than the targeted fisheries which are managed based on stock abundance. Quantitative information on the effectiveness of commercial season closures for reducing catch of Chinook is available in the form of harvest reports. Spawning escapement data has demonstrated an increase in abundance following these measures. The SG100 is met.

Information adequacy for management strategy

c Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to support measures to support a partial strategy support a strategy to Guide manage main primary to manage main primary manage all primary species. species. species, and evaluate with post a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective.

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

SG60 – See SG80

SG80 - Information on harvest and escapement is generally adequate to support measures and a partial strategy for to manage main primary species.

SG100 – SG100 is not met because future management abilities to regulate exploitation based on abundance to achieve established escapement goals with a high degree of certainty is jeopardized by reductions in aerial survey effort.

References

MRAG 2016; Bugaev et al. 2018

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score 70

Condition number (if relevant) 2 and 3

Condition 2. Provide quantitative information on escapement of sockeye and coho salmon adequate to assess the impact of the UoA with respect to status.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 113 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Condition 3. Provide quantitative information on the use and or catch of coastal set gillnets, incidence of loss and potential for impact of gear loss and unaccounted mortality on coho salmon.

PI 2.2.1 – Secondary species outcome The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit PI 2.2.1 and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Main secondary species stock status

Main secondary species Main secondary species There is a high degree of are likely to be above are highly likely to be certainty that main biologically based limits. above biologically based secondary species are limits. above biologically based OR limits. OR If below biologically based limits, there are measures If below biologically based in place expected to limits, there is either ensure that the UoA does evidence of recovery or a not hinder recovery and demonstrably effective rebuilding. partial strategy in place such that the UoA does not hinder recovery and a Guide rebuilding.

post AND

Where catches of a main secondary species outside of biological limits are considerable, there is either evidence of recovery or a, demonstrably effective strategy in place between those MSC UoAs that have considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding.

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

There are no main secondary fish species. No secondary fish species comprises anywhere near 5% of the total catch which would categorize it as a main secondary species. No secondary species is less resilient or otherwise vulnerable. Non-retained catch includes a variety of species, none of which comprise a significant volume of catch. Main secondary species are all bird species that do not qualify

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 114 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

as ETP (per MSC requirements, all “out of scope” non-ETP species must be classified as secondary main). As such, there are three secondary main bird species.

No bird bycatch has been reported or observed in this fishery, but based on some published sources and experience with other salmon fisheries in the U.S. and Canada, a likelihood of some level of diving bird species mortality associated with tangling in the fishing gear cannot be discounted. There are three species of diving birds with a potential to interacting with salmon fishing gear: yellow-billed loon Gavia adamsii (белоклювая гагара), for which one case of mortality is reported in the coastal trapnet in Kronotsky Bay in June 1985 (Kamchatka Red Data Book, 2018), the black-throated diver Gavia arctica (чернозобая гагара) and red-throated diver (Gavia stellata) with similar life history, which are known to interact with fishing gear although not in Kamchatka. Two first species are included in the Red Data Book of Russia, but only part of their range is protected, and Kamchatka is not included in this part. The first species is included also in the regional Kamchatka Red Data Book. The last species is not included either in national or regional Red Data Books. Therefore, all these species should be considered as main secondary species in this assessment. The species may occur in the UoA during their seasonal migrations (G. adamsii), two other species may nest in the lakes near the UoA. Any incidental levels of mortality of diving seabirds in the fishery is highly likely to be so low as to be effectively insignificant with respect to species status, which is confirmed by nature observations. However, the lack of associated observational data precludes a high degree of certainty. Therefore, the SG 100 standard is not met.

Minor secondary species stock status

Minor secondary species are highly likely to be above biologically based limits.

OR b Guide If below biologically based post limits’, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of secondary species

Met? Yes

Rationale

The SG100 standard is met. Secondary species comprise a very small proportion of the catch. Fishing methods, locations, and periods are very highly selective for migrating salmon.

Char are highly likely to be above biologically based limits corresponding to a point of recruitment impairment based on historical trends in catch volume and age composition estimated by KamchatNIRO from commercial catch sampling. Catches appear to be fluctuating around long-term average values. KamchatNIRO has also concluded that current harvest levels are sustainable based on a broad and relatively stable size and age composition of this iteroparous species. (Overfishing would truncate the size structure because high mortality would reduce survival to older ages.)

No other secondary species is harvested in numbers sufficient to significantly affect status. The fishery is remarkably clean from the standpoint of bycatch due to the focus on times and areas of salmon abundance. The low incidence of other secondary species documented in this fishery provides a high degree of certainty that the fishery does not significantly affect production of these species.

References

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 115 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

MRAG 2016; Bugaev et al. 2018; Shevlyakov et al., 2014, 2016, 2017, Krasnaya Kniga Kamchatki, 2018, Krasnaya Kniga Rossiskoi Federatsii, 2008, Ptitsy Rossii egir.ru/bird.1.html .

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range >80

More catch data is needed on chars to verify Information gap indicator whether they are main or minor secondary species.

Data-deficient? (Risk-Based Framework needed) No

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score 90

Condition number (if relevant) --

PI 2.2.2 – Secondary species management strategy There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA regularly PI 2.2.2 reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Management strategy in place

There are measures in There is a partial strategy There is a strategy in place, if necessary, which in place, if necessary, for place for the UoA for are expected to maintain the UoA that is expected to managing main and minor or not hinder rebuilding of maintain or not hinder secondary species. main secondary species rebuilding of main a Guide at/to levels which are secondary species at/to highly likely to be above levels which are highly post biologically based limits or likely to be above to ensure that the UoA biologically based limits or does not hinder their to ensure that the UoA recovery. does not hinder their recovery.

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The only main secondary species in this assessment are diving seabirds as discussed in PI 2.2.1. However, the assessment team does not consider a specific strategy or partial strategy to manage mortality (maintain or not hinder recovery) of these species because the impact is already negligible based on the gears used. The fishing gear in use with the potential to interact with diving birds is set gillnets and these are used for less than 5% of the salmon catch in the UoAs. In addition, they are used in-river and not marine areas where most diving seabirds forage. Divers forage mostly in lakes during their nesting period (G. arctica and G. stellata) and in sea during migrations, but the migrations usually take place in May, i.e. before the salmon fishing season. Use of fixed trap nets and beach seines ensures

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 116 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

a low capture rate of secondary species in marine areas. These gears are very effective in concentrating harvest on salmon during spawning migrations while also avoiding significant catches of other non- migratory local fish species. The SG100 is not met because a comprehensive strategy for managing secondary species has not been defined. Catch monitoring demonstrates use of gears with low capture rate and ensures that incidental harvest levels of minor secondary species such as char in the salmon fishery do not substantially reduce sustainability. Other minor secondary species are generally not retained, and many are released alive in order to limit fishery impacts.

The SG100 is not met because a strategy for managing secondary species has not been explicitly defined. The management system regards bycatch reduction strategies beyond current levels as unnecessary because current exploitation rates are considered to be minor.

Management strategy evaluation

The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high considered likely to work, basis for confidence that confidence that the partial b Guide based on plausible the measures/partial strategy/strategy will work, argument (e.g. general strategy will work, based based on information post experience, theory or on some information directly about the UoA comparison with similar directly about the UoA and/or species involved. UoAs/species). and/or species involved.

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The only main secondary species in this assessment are diving seabirds as discussed in PI 2.2.1. However, the assessment team does not consider a specific strategy or partial strategy to manage mortality (maintain or not hinder recovery) of these species because the impact is already negligible based on the gears used and information available (only one case of mortality in association with coastal trap nets in 1985). Diver species were known to die because of interaction with the high sea salmon driftnets, but not this type of fishing is prohibited. Objective basis of confidence that this arrangement is working comes in the form of negligible interactions with diving seabirds as explained in the background section and under 2.1.1. The SG80 is met.

The SG 100 is not met because a regular quantitative bycatch sampling program is not conducted for species other than salmon.

Management strategy implementation

There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the measures/partial that the partial c Guide strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully post successfully. and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a).

Met? Yes No

Rationale

SG80 – Periodic observer observations of salmon fisheries throughout the region provide evidence that the fishing strategy is being implemented successfully to harvest salmon with minimal catch of other secondary species, as the trap nets inherently have low bycatch rates and allow for live releases of some bycatch species. Documentation of harvest patterns, fishery regulations, and assessments of spawning escapement throughout Eastern Kamchatka, provide some evidence that management measures are

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 117 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

being implemented successfully to maintain Sockeye, Coho and Chinook Salmon above a point of recruitment impairment. Regarding diving seabirds (the only main secondary species), as stated previously, gears used in marine areas known to overlap with these species are known to capture them very rarely. Prohibition of high sea driftnets drastically practically removed mortality of these species.

The SG 100 is not met because a regular quantitative bycatch sampling program is not conducted for other species, many of which are not retained or only partially retained. This standard is not met for Sockeye, Coho and Chinook salmon, which are not actively managed based on local escapements, nor for diving seabirds.

Shark finning

d Guide It is likely that shark finning It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of is not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning post is not taking place.

Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

Scoring issue need not be scored if no secondary species are sharks.

Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch

There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial review potential effectiveness and of the potential of the potential practicality of alternative effectiveness and effectiveness and measures to minimise practicality of alternative practicality of alternative e Guide UoA-related mortality of measures to minimise measures to minimise post unwanted catch of main UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of

secondary species. unwanted catch of main unwanted catch of all secondary species and secondary species, and they are implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate.

Met? N/A N/A N/A

Rationale

The only main secondary species in this assessment are diving seabirds as discussed in PI 2.2.1. However, the assessment team does not consider a regular review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to be necessary because interactions are already negligible based on the gears used and locations fished. Thus, this scoring issue is not applicable.

References

Shevlyakov et al., 2014, 2016, 2017, Krasnaya Kniga Kamchatki, 2018, Krasnaya Kniga Rossiskoi Federatsii, 2008, Ptitsy Rossii egir.ru/bird.1.html .

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range >80

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 118 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

More catch data is needed on chars to verify Information gap indicator whether they are main or minor secondary species.

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score 80

Condition number (if relevant) --

PI 2.2.3 – Secondary species information Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is adequate PI 2.2.3 to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on main secondary species

Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is adequate to estimate the information is available available and adequate to impact of the UoA on the and adequate to assess assess with a high main secondary species the impact of the UoA on degree of certainty the with respect to status. main secondary species impact of the UoA on main with respect to status. secondary species with a Guide OR If RBF is used to score respect to status. PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: OR If RBF is used to score post PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is adequate to estimate Some quantitative productivity and information is adequate to susceptibility attributes for assess productivity and main secondary species. susceptibility attributes for main secondary species.

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

SG 60, 80 and 100 are met for secondary fish species for which none are main. No significant bird bycatch has been reported or observed in this fishery but based on experience with other salmon fisheries in the U.S. and Canada, a likelihood of some level of diving bird species mortality associated with tangling in the fishing gear cannot be discounted. GSA3.7.1 directs that out of scope species including birds, are always considered a main species regardless of their catch volume. Therefore, diving seabirds are identified as a main secondary species in this assessment. Any incidental levels of mortality of diving seabirds in the fishery is highly likely to be so low as to be effectively insignificant with respect to species status. However, the lack of associated observational data precludes a high degree of uncertainty. Therefore, the SG 100 standard is not met.

b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 119 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Some quantitative information is adequate to Guide estimate the impact of the UoA on minor secondary post species with respect to status.

Met? No

Rationale

Quantitative information is available on the level of annual harvest of char in this fishery. Sustainability of current char harvest levels is inferred from long term trends in catch and size composition. However, estimates of abundance are not available for use in estimating exploitation rates of char. Qualitative information on the amount of other minor secondary species affected by the fishery is available from limited observer sampling. This information is sufficient to confirm that catch of other secondary species is relatively insignificant. However, catch and the status of bycatch species is not quantified in regular management practice. Therefore, SG100 is not met.

Information adequacy for management strategy

Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to support measures to support a partial strategy support a strategy to manage main secondary to manage main manage all secondary c Guide species. secondary species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of post certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective.

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The only main secondary species in this assessment are diving seabirds as discussed in PI 2.2.1. However, the assessment team does not consider a specific strategy or partial strategy to manage mortality (maintain or not hinder recovery) of these species because the impact is already negligible based on the gears used. Information available to support this conclusion exists as explained under the previous scoring issue; there is low probability of interaction between in-river set gillnets and coastal diving seabirds. This information is sufficient to determine negligible impact based on the current fishing strategy. The SG80 is met.

SG 100 - Qualitative information on the amount of other minor secondary species affected by the fishery is available from limited observer sampling in similar fisheries throughout the region. This information is sufficient to confirm that the catch of other secondary species in relatively insignificant. However, catch and the status of bycatch species is not quantified in regular management practice, so does not meet SG100.

References

MRAG 2016; Bugaev et al. 2018; Shevlyakov et al., 2014, 2016, 2017, Krasnaya Kniga Kamchatki, 2018, Krasnaya Kniga Rossiskoi Federatsii, 2008, Ptitsy Rossii egir.ru/bird.1.html .

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 120 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Draft scoring range >80

More catch data is needed on chars to verify Information gap indicator whether they are main or minor secondary species.

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score 80

Condition number (if relevant) --

PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI2.3.1 The UoA and associated enhancement activities do not hinder recovery of ETP species

Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue

Effects of the UoA on population/stocks within national or international limits, where applicable

Where national and Where national and/ or Where national and/ or international requirements international requirements set international set limits for ETP species, limits for ETP species, the requirements set limits the effects of the UoA and combined effects of the MSC for ETP species, there a Guide associated enhancement UoAs and associated is a high degree of activities on the enhancement activities on the certainty that the post population/stock are known population/stock are known and combined effects of and likely to be within highly likely to be within these the MSC UoAs and these limits. limits. associated enhancement activities are within these limits.

Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

National legislation provides for protection of ETP species identified in the Russian Federation Red Data Book. Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss are red-listed in Kamchatka, but are generally not found along the eastern coast of Kamchatka. There is one red-listed species of marine mammals in this area - Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus). Another seal species is quite common - Largha seal (Phoca largha). Two red listed bird species Steller sea eagle (Haliaeetus pelagicus) and long-billed murrelet Brachyramphus perdix present. The murrelet is included in the Russia Red Data Book, where it is indicated that the main risks for this species is sea pollution by oil products and destroying of forests in the coastal area (Krasnaya Kniga Rossiskoi Federatsii, 2008). Lobkov (2002) report four cases of death of the long-billed murrelet in salmon coastal setnets in south-eastern Kamchatka (Zhupanovo village, 24-25 June 1987– 3 specimens and 13 June 1993 – one specimen). According to estimations of total abundance of this species, its abundance is likely higher than 9 thousand

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 121 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

birds, and it is likely that no reduction of their abundance took place, at least in the southeastern part of Kamchatka (Lobkov, 2002).

Although no ongoing observer program exists for the fisheries, federal scientists, managers, and inspectors regularly visit the fishing sites and processing plants throughout the season. Over the course of the many years of fishing operations in this fishery, none of these species is observed to have adverse impacts from the fishery. The fishing authorities have determined that the fishery has such low impacts that it needs no specific data collections on interactions with ETP species.

No numerical limits on impacts, such as through setting Potential Biological Removal Level (the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population), has been set for any ETP species. However, national legislation requires that fishing operations avoid adverse impacts on Red Book listed species present in this area (steelhead salmon, Steller sea lions, larga seal, Steller sea eagles, white-tail eagle, bald eagle, golden eagle, long-billed murrelet). Additionally, rookeries for Steller sea lions have been protected in Russia. The low occurrence of ETP species in the area of this fishery provide a high likelihood that the effects of the fishery are within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. None of these species interact with the fishery or any other salmon fishery in the region to any significant degree. Therefore, it is highly likely that the combined effects of the MSC UoAs are within national requirements. Other marine animals present in the area, including seals, killer whales, white whales, and cormorants, are managed or protected by federal regulation. For the purposes of this assessment, all gears are combined for scoring purposes as impacts are negligible.

Direct effects

Known direct effects of the Direct effects of the UoA There is a high degree UoA including including enhancement of confidence that enhancement activities are activities are highly likely to there are no b Guide likely to not hinder not hinder recovery of ETP significant recovery of ETP species. species. detrimental direct post effects of the UoA including enhancement activities on ETP species.

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

It is reported by KamchatNIRO (2018) that the Steller sea lion and Larga seal constantly interact with fishing gear, eat and damage the entangled fish. Nevertheless, the gear design provides high degree of certainty that entanglement of foraging ETP mammals does not occur, which is proved by the absence of such fishery reports. Company policy prohibits the use of firearms during the fishery operation; thus the animals are normally driven away by movement and noise of working fishermen. The licensing system for seal hunting exists, but the local hunting infrastructure has declined. No cases of steelhead salmon catch were ever reported by companies or scientists. The fisheries are not enhanced, thus not bringing any changes in trophic relationships. In addition, the populations of Steller sea lions and larga seals are stable or increasing. Mortality of long-billed murrelet in coastal trapnets (only few cases are registered in area in Southeastern Kamchatka; nowhere near this UoA) is negligible in relation to their total abundance, other factors such as oil pollution and deforestation pose higher risks for this species, and no decreasing population trends are identified. Regarding interactions specifically with gillnets, Shevlyakov (2011) reports no captures of mammals and describes the ability of the sea lions to rip the nets. The SG80 can be granted.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 122 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

SG100 – there is no systematic observation program for such ETP species as Steller sea lion and Larga seal in the portion of fishery. The aerial monitoring is designed especially for mass salmon species, and currently is in reduced state, thus it is unlikely to provide any information on steelhead salmon. Direct impact assessments and status monitoring information for Steller sea lion and Larga seal is limited. SG100 is not met.

Indirect effects

Indirect effects have been There is a high degree considered for the UoA of confidence that including enhancement there are no c Guide activities and are thought to be significant highly likely to not create detrimental indirect post unacceptable impacts. effects of the UoA including enhancement activities on ETP species.

Met? Yes No

Rationale

SG80 - No significant indirect effects of fisheries have been identified which might pose unacceptable risk to these species. The likelihood of significant indirect effects of the fishery on protected species is considered to be very low due to the low degree of interaction. If any indirect effects exist, they would likely result from ecosystem effects of the fisheries such as prey competition with Steller Sea Eagles. However, the management vector to maintain high levels of salmon production might be regarded as beneficial from a food chain perspective for species such as sea lions, seals and eagles. KamchatNIRO has conducted feeding studies of seal which have demonstrated that salmon are a primary seasonal food item. Indirect effect on birds is not identified.

SG100 - The SG100 guidepost is not met due to the lack of indirect impact assessments and status monitoring information for Steller sea lions, larga seal and steelhead salmon, as well as lack of quantification of derelict gillnet gear (the subject of a condition under component 2.1).

References

MRAG 2016; Bugaev et al. 2018; Krasnaya Kniga Kamchatki, 2018, Krasnaya Kniga Rossiskoi Federatsii, 2008, Ptitsy Rossii egir.ru/bird.1.html . Lobkov (2002); Shevlayakov (2011).

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range >80

More catch information needed on chars Information gap indicator to verify whether they are main or minor secondary species.

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score 80

Condition number (if relevant) --

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 123 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

PI 2.3.2 – ETP species management strategy The UoA and associated enhancement activities have in place precautionary management strategies designed to: - meet national and international requirements PI 2.3.2 - ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Management strategy in place (national and international requirements)

There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a comprehensive place that minimise the place for managing the strategy in place for UoA-related mortality of UoA and enhancement managing the UoA and ETP species due to the activities’ impact on ETP enhancement activities’ UoA including species, including impact on ETP species, a Guide enhancement activities, measures to minimise including measures to and are expected to be mortality, which is minimise mortality, which is post highly likely to achieve designed to be highly designed to achieve national and international likely to achieve national above national and requirements for the and international international requirements protection of ETP species. requirements for the for the protection of ETP protection of ETP species. species.

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

SG60 - See SG80 SG80 - National legislation provides for protection of ETP species identified in the Russian Federation Red Data Book. In addition to general protection of ETP species, in particular, imposing fines for their retaining, the timing and operation of the fishery assure minimal adverse interactions with ETP species. The strategy involves fishery times and areas where ETP species are uncommon and a ban on retention of these species. Catch of any Red listed species in Russia is prohibited and in case of catch, they must be immediately released. The absence of enhancement precludes impacts on ETP species. In addition, the nature of the fishery (gear use, deployment practices, short season, etc) means that interactions with ETP species is very rare and ETP species that could interact with the fishery are not suffering population declines. Therefore, a dedicated strategy specifically for managing and mitigating impact to ETP species, beyond the current regulatory requirements and continuing to operate the fishery as usual, is not necessary. Therefore, SG80 is met. SG100 -This SG is not met because it is not clear that the fishing strategy was specifically designed to manage ETP impacts, thus does not qualify as a “comprehensive strategy” in MSC parlance. Management strategy in place (alternative)

There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a comprehensive b place that are expected to place that is expected to strategy in place for Guide ensure the UoA including ensure the UoA including managing ETP species, to enhancement activities do enhancement activities do ensure the UoA including post not hinder the recovery of not hinder the recovery of enhancement activities do ETP species. ETP species. not hinder the recovery of ETP species.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 124 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Met? Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable

Rationale

There is no salmon enhancement in the UoA.

Management strategy evaluation

The measures are There is an objective The strategy/ considered likely to work, basis for confidence that comprehensive strategy is based on plausible the measures/strategy will mainly based on c Guide argument (e.g., general work, based on information directly about experience, theory or information directly about the UoA and/or species post comparison with similar the UoA and/or the species involved, and a UoA/species). involved. quantitative analysis supports high confidence that the strategy will work.

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

SG60 - See SG80

SG80 - Observations of a low incidence of ETP catch in the fishery consistent spatial and temporal in occurrence of ETP species in the fishery, provide an objective basis for confidence that the fishery strategy will work based on qualitative information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved, hence the SG80 is met.

SG100 - Information is not specifically collected on ETP species in this fishery due to the low incidence of these species in the fishery and the corresponding low level of concern hence the SG100 is not met.

Management strategy implementation

There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the measures/strategy that the is being implemented strategy/comprehensive d Guide successfully. strategy is being implemented successfully post and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a) or (b).

Met? Yes No

Rationale

SG80 – The available information from KamchatNIRO and independent observer reports for other salmon fisheries in the region provides clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. The incidence of interactions with endangered or threatened species is reportedly very low hence the SG80 is met. SG100 – Information is not specifically collected on ETP species in this fishery due to the low incidence of these species in the fishery and the corresponding low level of concern, hence the SG100 is not met.

e Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 125 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial review potential effectiveness and of the potential of the potential practicality of alternative effectiveness and effectiveness and Guide measures to minimise practicality of alternative practicality of alternative UoA-related mortality of measures to minimise UoA measures to minimise UoA post ETP species. and enhancement related and enhancement related mortality of ETP species mortality ETP species, and and they are implemented they are implemented, as as appropriate. appropriate.

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

SG60 – see SG80 SG80 – Effective protection of ETP species is regularly reviewed in the normal course of activity by regional fishery management and environmental protection agencies of the Government, hence the SG80 is met. SG100 – Formal reviews are not scheduled in the normal course of events given the low level of concern, hence the SG100 is not met.

References

MRAG 2016; Bugaev et al. 2018

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator 80 score

Condition number (if relevant) --

PI 2.3.3 – ETP species information Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA and enhancement activities impacts on ETP species, including: - Information for the development of the management strategy; PI2.3.3 - Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and - Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 126 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is adequate to estimate the information is adequate to available to assess with a impact of the UoA and assess the UoA related high degree of certainty associated enhancement mortality and impact and the magnitude of UoA- and on ETP species. to determine whether the associated enhancement UoA and associated related impacts, mortalities OR if RBF is used to score enhancement may be a and injuries and the PI 2.3.1 for the UoA: threat to protection and consequences for the Guide recovery of the ETP status of ETP species. Qualitative information is species. post adequate to estimate productivity and OR if RBF is used to score susceptibility attributes PI 2.3.1 for the UoA: for ETP species. Some quantitative information is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species.

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

SG60 - See SG80

SG80 – Some quantitative information on the negligible incidence of interaction of the fishery with ETP species is sufficient to determine that any related mortality or impact is sufficiently low as to not threaten protection or impede recovery. In addition, quantitative information pertaining to population status and trends of ETP pinnipeds and seabirds is sufficient to determine that the UoA fisheries do not pose a threat to their protection. Although no ongoing observer program exists for the fisheries, federal scientists, managers, and inspectors regularly visit the fishing sites and processing plants throughout the season. Over the course of the many years of fishing operations, none of these species are observed to have adverse impacts from the fishery. The fishing authorities have determined that the fishery has such low impacts that it needs no specific data collections on interactions with ETP species, hence the SG80 is met.

SG100 – Impacts, mortalities and injuries are not explicitly quantified hence the SG100 is not met.

Information adequacy for management strategy

Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to support measures to measure trends and support a comprehensive manage the impacts on support a strategy to strategy to manage b Guide ETP species. manage impacts on ETP impacts, minimize mortality species. and injury of ETP species, post and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives.

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

SG60 - See SG80

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 127 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

SG80 - Quantitative information pertaining to population status and trends of ETP pinnipeds and seabirds is sufficient to measure trends. As mentioned earlier, a strategy, beyond operating the fishery such that it continues to have minimal interactions, is not needed and the information available is sufficient to determine that the UoA fisheries do not pose a threat to their protection. Information from observations by scientists, managers, and inspectors, though not from a formal observer program, on the lack of impacts is adequate to support the management strategy for ETP species; the SG80 is met.

SG100 - Impacts, mortalities and injuries are not regularly quantified; the SG100 is not met.

References

MRAG 2016; Bugaev et al. 2018; Krasnaya Kniga Kamchatki, 2018, Krasnaya Kniga Rossiskoi Federatsii, 2008, Ptitsy Rossii egir.ru/bird.1.html . Lobkov (2002)

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score 80

Condition number (if relevant) --

PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome The UoA and its associated enhancement activities do not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of PI2.4.1 the area covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Commonly encountered habitat status The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely There is evidence that the reduce structure and to reduce structure and UoA is highly unlikely to function of the commonly function of the commonly reduce structure and a Guide encountered habitats to a encountered habitats to a function of the commonly post point where there would be point where there would be encountered habitats to a serious or irreversible serious or irreversible point where there would harm. harm. be serious or irreversible harm. Yes Yes Yes Met?

Rationale SG60 - See SG100 SG80 - See SG100 SG100 – The allocation of parcels to fishing companies requires that fishing activities occur at the same locations year after year. This limits the footprint of the gear to a small portion of the available habitat. The fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 128 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

serious or irreversible harm. No significant marine habitat impacts are associated with marine trap net use. The only conceivable effects would involve highly localized and temporary disturbances of the substrate due to net anchors or possibly occasional movement of weighed lead lines. Any related damage to the bottom communities is minor and local relative to redistribution of sediments during storms. Limited habitat effects result from beach seine or gill net site preparation activities in river fishing parcels prior to the fishing season. These might include removal of snags such as boulders or trees which might snag nets. Beach seines operation can impact the bottom, but this damage is considered minor compared to spring flooding in the rivers. Site preparation activities regulated and monitored by the government. Enhancement programs for salmon do not occur in the UoA. VME habitat status The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely There is evidence that the reduce structure and to reduce structure and UoA is highly unlikely to function of the VME function of the VME reduce structure and b Guide habitats to a point where habitats to a point where function of the VME post there would be serious or there would be serious or habitats to a point where irreversible harm. irreversible harm. there would be serious or irreversible harm. Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Met?

Rationale

No Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems or potential VME are identified in the area of the unit of assessment.

Minor habitat status There is evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and c Guide function of the minor post habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.

Met? No

Rationale Limited habitat effects might result from beach seine or gill net site preparation activities in river fishing parcels prior to the fishing season. Areas where these activities occur can be considered minor habitats. Serious or irreversible harm is not observed from these fishery-related activities, however there is no direct evidence of this, hence the SG100 is not met. Impacts due to enhancement activities within the UoA The enhancement The enhancement There is a high degree of activities are unlikely to activities are highly unlikely certainty that the d Guide have adverse impacts in to have adverse impacts in enhancement activities are post habitat. habitat. do not have adverse impacts in habitat.

Met? Yes

Rationale

No enhancement occurs in the UoA

References

MRAG 2016

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 129 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator 95 score

Condition number (if relevant) --

PI 2.4.2 – Habitats management strategy There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA and associated PI2.4.2 enhancement activities do not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Management strategy in place

There are measures in There is a partial strategy There is a strategy in place place, if necessary, that in place, if necessary, that for managing the impact of a Guide are expected to achieve is expected to achieve the all MSC UoAs/non-MSC the Habitat Outcome 80 Habitat Outcome 80 level fisheries UoA and post level of performance. of performance or above. associated enhancement activities on habitats.

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

SG60 - See SG80 The fishing strategy involves use of trap nets, gill nets and beach seines, none of which has significant physical habitat effects; fishing gear has minimal impact relative to natural disturbances such as storms and floods. Cumulative impacts from non-MSC fisheries are similarly negligible. The enhancement strategy involves no operation of hatcheries in the UoA hence the SG80 is met.

SG100 - The degree to which the fishing strategy is specifically intended to manage the impact of fishing activities on habitats is unclear. Therefore, the SG100 is not considered to be met.

Management strategy evaluation

The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high b considered likely to work, basis for confidence that confidence that the partial Guide based on plausible the measures/partial strategy/strategy will work, argument (e.g. general strategy will work, based based on information post experience, theory or on information directly directly about the UoA, comparison with similar about the UoA, enhancement activities and/or habitats involved.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 130 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

UoAs/ enhancement enhancement activities activities/habitats). and/or habitats involved.

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

SG60 - See SG80 SG80 - The limited scale of the fishery relative to the available habitat provides an objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work and is being implemented successfully; the SG80 is met.

SG100 - Testing does not occur; the SG100 is not met.

Management strategy implementation

There is some There is clear quantitative quantitative evidence evidence that the partial c Guide that the measures/partial strategy/strategy is being strategy is being implemented successfully post implemented successfully. and is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a).

Met? Yes No

Rationale

SG80 - Information from observations by scientists, managers, and inspectors, though not from a formal observer program, demonstrates that the fishing operations occur within parcels and with the gear authorized. Observations of habitat conditions in the fishery zone provide clear evidence that habitat impacts are very low or negligible at a regional scale. Quantitative evidence on the successful implementation of habitat protection measures has been provided for the Ozernaya in the form of a physical habitat assessment completed as a condition of another assessment; the Ozernaya results apply throughout the West Kamchatka system as the fishing activities and habitat are so similar hence the SG80 is met.

SG100 - Clear quantitative evidence on effects of fishing and related activities on the habitat is not available. Therefore, the SG100 is not considered to be met.

Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs

There is qualitative There is some There is clear quantitative that the UoA that the UoA and d evidence quantitative evidence evidence complies with its that the UoA and associated enhancement management associated enhancement comply with both activities Guide requirements to protect activities comply with both its management VMEs. its management requirements and with

post requirements and with protection measures protection measures afforded to VMEs by other afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, where relevant. fisheries, where relevant.

Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 131 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Rationale

There are no VMEs in the area of the unit of assessment.

References

MRAG 2016

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score 80

Condition number (if relevant) --

PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA PI2.4.3 and associated enhancement activities and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Information quality

The types and distribution The nature, distribution The distribution of all of the main habitats are and vulnerability of the habitats is known over broadly understood. main habitats in the UoA their range, with particular area are known at a level of attention to the occurrence OR If CSA is used to score detail relevant to the scale of vulnerable habitats. PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: and intensity of the UoA. a Guide Qualitative information is OR If CSA is used to score post adequate to estimate the PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: types and distribution of the main habitats. Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats.

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 132 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

SG60 - See SG80

SG80 - The nature and distribution of habitat types, including vulnerable areas, in the fishery area are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery. The operation of the fishing gear requires the proper kind of substrate, and exploration early in the development of the fishery determined suitable sites. The distribution and quality of available spawning habitat is well known from ongoing spawning ground surveys. Streams have been mapped at a regional scale.

SG100 – Habitat quantity and quality have not been formally detailed for all known habitats in the region.

Information adequacy for assessment of impacts

Information is adequate to Information is adequate to The physical impacts of the broadly understand the allow for identification of gear and enhancement nature of the main impacts the main impacts of the activities on all habitats of gear use and UoA and enhancement have been quantified fully. enhancement activities on activities on the main the main habitats, including habitats, and there is spatial overlap of habitat reliable information on the with fishing gear. spatial extent of interaction and on the timing and b Guide OR If CSA is used to location of use of the score PI 2.4.1 for the fishing gear. post UoA: Qualitative information is OR If CSA is used to adequate to estimate the score PI 2.4.1 for the consequence and spatial UoA: attributes of the main Some quantitative habitats. information is available and is adequate to estimate the consequence and spatial attributes of the main habitats.

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

SG60 - See SG100

SG80 - Habitat types are identified and there is reliable information on the spatial extent, timing and location of use of the fishing gear. Fishing gear impacts on the sand bottom in coastal and riverine fishing areas is known to be minimal and to have all signs of fishing obliterated during natural events such as storms and floods. Sufficient information is available to determine that fishery activities do not have a quantifiable impact on habitat. All such activities are licensed and monitored by the government. Enhancement does not occur in the UoA.

SG100 – Quantitative evidence of required assessment of habitat related impact as per SA3.13.1 and SA3.13.2 is limited. As a result, the 100-scoring guidepost for this indicator is not met.

Monitoring c Adequate information Changes in all habitat Guide continues to be collected to distributions over time are

detect any increase in risk measured. post to the main habitats.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 133 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Met? Yes No

Rationale

SG60 - See SG80

SG80 - Risks of fishery impacts to habitat may be assessed based on the number and location of fishing parcels which are licensed and regulated by the government. Similarly, all fishery construction and operation are regulated by the government. There is a special agency, State Sanitary-epidimeological Inspection which controls whether the fishery affects the fishing operation zone. In a case of violations, it is a usual practice to impose fines to the company. This information is sufficient to detect any risk to habitat due to changes in the fishery.

SG100 – Physical habitat assessments have not been conducted (due to the lack of significant impacts) hence the SG100 is not met.

References

MRAG 2016

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score 80

Condition number (if relevant) --

PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome The UoA and associated enhancement activities do not cause serious or PI2.5.1 irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem structure and function

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Ecosystem status

The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that the disrupt the key elements unlikely to disrupt the key UoA is highly unlikely to a underlying ecosystem elements underlying disrupt the key elements Guide structure and function to a ecosystem structure and underlying ecosystem

point where there would be function to a point where structure and function to a post a serious or irreversible there would be a serious or point where there would be harm. irreversible harm. a serious or irreversible harm.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 134 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

SG60 - See SG80

SG80 – Information on the distribution, scale and effect of the fishery provides justification for a conclusion 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. For the purposes of this assessment, all gears are combined for scoring purposes as impacts are negligible.

North Pacific Ecosystem - Potential ecosystem concerns related to fishing might involve effects of changes in salmon abundance on ecosystem structure, trophic relationships, and biodiversity. For instance, decreases in salmon abundance due to fishing might favor prey species of salmon and harm predator species of salmon. However, the salmon fishery has complex short and long-term effects on salmon abundance. Salmon fishery management to provide escapements consistent with maximum sustained yield generally increases average abundance in the ocean and return relative to what can be expected in an unmanaged system. Conversely, high exploitation rates and management for optimum rather than equilibrium escapements will substantially reduce the average number of fish escaping to freshwater.

Effects of salmon abundance on ecosystem productivity in the ocean have been the subject of extensive research over the last 20 years and the scientific literature generally suggests that high abundance of salmon on the high seas due to the net effects of fishery management and hatchery enhancement throughout the north Pacific Rim has may have contributed to ecosystem changes. However, the contribution from any specific area to total salmon abundance in the ocean is relatively small. Therefore, the UoAs are highly unlikely to serious or irreversible harm to the structure and function of the North Pacific ecosystem.

Riverine Ecosystem - Effects of salmon abundance on ecosystem productivity in freshwater have also been well documented in other systems. Larger escapements provide more food for salmon predators such as bears and eagles and also more marine derived nutrients to support primary and secondary productivity. However, while fishery management may affect abundance, it also reduces the variability in abundance relative to what can be expected in an unmanaged system. On balance these effects are not expected to result in serious or irreversible harm to any other component of the ecosystem. Therefore, the UoAs are highly unlikely to serious or irreversible harm to the structure and function of the riverine ecosystem.

SG100 - The governmental scientific agency is conducting a series of ecosystem assessments in Kamchatka. These include evaluations of the effects of salmon abundance by species on individual characteristics and population dynamics of other salmon species, assessments of food marine derived nutrient contributions and effects of salmon to freshwater ecosystems, and food web productivity. These assessments provide a basis for evaluating fishery effects on ecosystem structure and function. However, a specific analysis of the likelihood of the fishery to disrupt key elements underlying North Pacific or riverine ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm has not been reported hence the SG100 is not met.

Impacts due to enhancement

Enhancement activities Enhancement activities There is evidence that the are unlikely to disrupt the are highly unlikely to enhancement activities are b key elements underlying disrupt the key elements highly unlikely to disrupt Guide ecosystem structure and underlying ecosystem the key elements

function to a point where structure and function to a underlying ecosystem post there would be a serious or point where there would be structure and function to a irreversible harm. a serious or irreversible point where there would be harm.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 135 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

a serious or irreversible harm.

Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

No enhancement occurs in this UoA.

References

MRAG 2016

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score 90

Condition number (if relevant) --

PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management strategy There are measures in place to ensure the UoA and enhancement activities do PI 2.5.2 not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Management strategy in place

There are measures in There is a partial strategy There is a strategy that place, if necessary which in place, if necessary, consists of a plan, in place take into account the which takes into account which contains measures potential impacts of the available information and to address all main a Guide UoA on key elements of the is expected to restrain impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem, and at least post ecosystem so as to some of these measures achieve the Ecosystem are in place. Outcome 80 level of performance.

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

SG60 - See SG80

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 136 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

SG80 - Measures include fishery management goals for spawning escapements adequate to meet ecosystem needs in freshwater systems; including food for bears and provision of marine derived nutrients. This strategy also involves significant monitoring and research of ecosystem components at a regional scale. The partial strategy takes into account available information, monitors new information from the extensive research, and is expected to restrain impacts of the fishery activities on the ecosystem should the research identify any need.

SG100 - It is not apparent that the strategy involves a specific plan containing measures to address all main impacts of the fishery on the North Pacific and riverine ecosystems, nor that all functional relationships between the fishery and the components and elements of the ecosystem are well understood, hence the SG100 is not met.

Management strategy evaluation

The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high considered likely to work, basis for confidence that confidence that the partial based on plausible the measures/ partial strategy/ strategy will work, b Guide argument (e.g., general strategy will work, based based on information experience, theory or on some information directly about the UoA post comparison with similar directly about the UoA and/or ecosystem UoA/ ecosystems). and/or the ecosystem involved. involved.

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

SG60 - See SG80

SG80 - General experience and information from other systems indicate that the fishery measures are likely to minimize risks of serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. Salmon populations are inherently dynamic with large interannual variation on run sizes due to normal environmental variation in abundance. Related ecosystems are affected by these same dynamic conditions. Management of fisheries to provide significant natural spawning escapements and minimal disruption from enhancement ensure future production of salmon to fuel future fisheries while also providing fish and marine derived nutrients critical to sustaining freshwater and nearshore marine ecosystems. The SG80 is met.

SG100 – Systematic testing of the ecosystem effects of fishery is limited and the SG100 is not met.

Management strategy implementation

There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the measures/partial that the partial c Guide strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully post successfully. and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a).

Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

SG80 - See SG100

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 137 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

SG100 – Monitoring of new information from the extensive research regularly occurs. Qualitative information and observations readily indicate that stream and nearshore ecosystems are intact, diverse, and productive. Western Kamchatka is one of the most remote and pristine areas in the eastern Pacific; the SG100 is met.

Management of enhancement activities

There is an established There is a tested and There is a comprehensive artificial production evaluated artificial and fully evaluated strategy in place that is production strategy with artificial production expected to achieve the sufficient monitoring in strategy to verify with d Guide Ecosystem Outcome 60 place and evidence is certainty that the level of performance. available to reasonably Ecosystem Outcome 100 post ensure with high likelihood level of performance. that the strategy is effective in achieving the Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance.

Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

No enhancement occurs in the area of the Unit of Assessment.

References

MRAG 2016

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score 90

Condition number (if relevant) --

PI 2.5.3 – Ecosystem information There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA and associated PI2.5.3 enhancement activities on the ecosystem

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Information quality a Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to identify the key elements broadly understand the post of the ecosystem.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 138 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

key elements of the ecosystem.

Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

SG60 - See SG80

SG80 - The salmon life cycle encompasses a vast ecosystem including natal rivers and lakes, the nearshore ocean, and the high seas of the North Pacific Ocean. Key ecosystem elements include trophic structure and function (in particular key prey, predators, and competitors), community composition, productivity pattern (e.g. upwelling or spring bloom, abyssal, etc.), and characteristics of biodiversity. Key elements of the salmon ecosystem are broadly understood based on extensive work by scientists associated with the management system. Extensive research has been conducted on freshwater and marine aquatic ecosystems. This information consists of Kamchatka-specific research and research conducted in other salmon-producing regions; the SG80 is met.

Investigation of UoA impacts

Main impacts of the UoA Main impacts of the UoA Main interactions between and associated and associated the UoA and associated enhancement activities on enhancement activities on enhancement activities b Guide these key ecosystem these key ecosystem and these ecosystem elements can be inferred elements can be inferred elements can be inferred post from existing information, from existing information from existing information, and have not been and some have been and have been investigated in detail. investigated in detail. investigated in detail.

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

SG60 - See SG80

SG80 - Marine-derived nutrients from salmon carcasses can have a significant impact on freshwater communities as well as those communities in the freshwater to terrestrial interface. The relationships between salmon and the population dynamics of their terrestrial predators has been well documented in other systems. It has been reported that these nutrients also form a base for rich development of zooplankton in coastal area, which serves a food for young salmon just after downstream migration. Many aspects of ecosystem dynamics have been investigated in detail. For instance, estimates of the contribution of marine derived nutrients from salmon carcasses have been made for the Bolshaya system and research is underway on food web productivity. SG80 is met.

SG100 - Of particular concern to salmon fishery management throughout the North Pacific Region is the effect of ocean environmental conditions on stock productivity. Short term and long-term variability in stock productivity is now understood to be strongly related to patterns of ocean productivity. Ocean productivity regimes have been observed shift periodically to more or less favorable conditions. The region is currently in a very productive ocean regime for many northern salmon stocks including Kamchatka pink and chum. These patterns and their effects are generally understood but future patterns are cannot be forecast. Thus, salmon productivity and sustainability would be negatively affected by a shift to a less favorable regime. It remains unclear whether knowledge of fishery-ecosystem interactions is sufficient to recognize changes and to revise management objectives and practices in a timely fashion. Thus, while information on fishery-ecosystem functions and elements is sufficient to meet 80 scoring guideposts, it does not rise to the standard of the 100 scoring guideposts.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 139 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Understanding of component functions

The main functions of the The impacts of the UoA components (i.e., P1 target and associated species, primary, enhancement activities on secondary and ETP P1 target, primary, c Guide species and Habitats) in secondary and ETP the ecosystem are known. species and Habitats are post identified and the main functions of these components in the ecosystem are understood.

Met? Yes No

Rationale

SG80 - It is clear that salmon influence the food webs in the North Pacific although the effect varies widely between systems and is dependent on many factors like timing, scale and alternative nutrient sources, etc. SG80 is met.

SG100 - Like most large marine ecosystems, resolving interactions strengths among food web constituents is made difficult by limited data and confounding effects of environmental forcing. SG100 is not met.

Information relevance

Adequate information is Adequate information is available on the impacts of available on the impacts of the UoA and associated the fishery and associated d Guide enhancement activities on enhancement activities on these components to allow the components and post some of the main elements to allow the main consequences for the consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. ecosystem to be inferred.

Met? Yes No

Rationale

SG80 - Sufficient information is available on the impacts of the fishery on these components to allow some of the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. Main consequences include changes in competition levels between salmon species and nutrient contributions to freshwater food webs from marine derived nutrients delivered by salmon carcasses. Scientists of the government research institutes have collected substantial information on pink salmon and their role in the ecosystem. Information on salmon ecosystems throughout the Pacific rim has also provided a good understanding of the salmon’s function in freshwater ecosystem, particularly for supporting aquatic and terrestrial food webs either directly by feeding predators and scavengers or indirectly by the delivery of marine derived nutrients. Active fishery management might also help stabilize returns by avoiding excessively large escapements which can depress future returns under some conditions. Enhancement with hatcheries can substantially increase salmon numbers in certain times and areas although hatchery contributions to chum salmon runs remain uncertain. Enhancement of Pacific salmon across the Pacific Rim since the 1970s has resulted in very large abundance in the North Pacific Ocean. There is some evidence that high salmon abundances in the ocean might adversely affect wild salmon through competition. As hatchery production does not occur in the UoA, no adverse impacts are expected. The SG80 is met.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 140 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

SG100 – Information is not sufficient to evaluate fishery impacts on all ecosystem elements. The SG100 is not met.

Monitoring

Adequate data continue to Information is adequate to e Guide be collected to detect any support the development increase in risk level. of strategies to manage post ecosystem impacts.

Met? Yes No

SG80 - Extensive research has been conducted on salmon ecosystems in western Kamchatka, particularly for sockeye but also for other salmon species. In marine waters, extensive research has been conducted by the Russian Scientific Institutes on (1) Juvenile Anadromous Stocks in Ocean Ecosystems; (2) Anadromous Stocks in the Bering Sea Ecosystem (BASIS); and (3) Anadromous Stocks in the Western Subarctic Gyre and Gulf of Alaska Ecosystems (Temnykh et al. 2010).

SG100 – Detailed strategies for managing ecosystem impacts have not been identified.

References

MRAG 2016; Aydin et al. 2008; Bugaev et al. 2018a, 2018b; Burkanov 1988; Kosygin et al. 1986; Ostroumov 1968

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator 80 score

Condition number (if relevant) --

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 141 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

5.4 Principle 3 5.4.1 Principle 3 background Legal & Customary Framework The current Russian Federation became independent of the former Soviet Union in 1991. As a federation, it consists of numerous jurisdictions with various levels of autonomy. The legal system is based on civil law system with judicial review of legislative acts. The federal government has centralized authority in Moscow, where final decisions are made. The fisheries management consists of complex levels of authority for management and research, with ultimate authority centralized in Moscow. At the same time, recent years more decisions are delegated to the regional level, in particularly, in the Far East, to the Far East Scientific Commercial Fisheries Council in Vladivostok. In-season management is entirely delegated to local agencies. The Federal Agency for Fisheries is governed directly by the government of Russia, is the ultimate authority, reviewing recommendation passed up from the local level and passing directives back, as described in the next section. The main governmental act framing the salmon fisheries management is the law of 20 December 2004 FZ-166 “On Fishery and Conservation of Aquatic Biological Resources”. The particular law states the basics for accounting the abundance of the aquatic biological resources and their exploitation using a precautionary approach on behalf of the human rights for favorable environment in the future, taking into account interests, rights and relations of all interested parties in the area of fishing, providing the transparency of information on the status of the resources. The law was amended in 2008 and provides more authority to regional management bodies, allowing them to assign quota for individual lease holders for 20 years. Before the reform salmon fisheries were regulated under TAC, and now – under recommended catch, which is not so strictly regulated. As it is widely considered, these changes resulted in more effective and accurate catch reporting of the commercial fisheries, because, due to introduction of Olympic system, there were no more reasons for companies to underreport. There are a number of other, more generic legislative acts addressing the resource usage and minimizing the environmental anthropogenic impacts, such as the law of 20 December 2001 FZ- 7 “On the Protection of Environment” and the law of 19 July 1995 FZ-174 “On the Ecological Expertise”. The law “On the Protection of Environment” defines the responsibilities of governmental bodies, human rights for the favorable environment, economic mechanisms of nature conservation, ecological standards and expertise, liability for violations, necessity for improvement of scientific knowledge, regulation of disputes, and the basics for international cooperation in the sphere of environment protection. The law of 24 April 1995 FZ-52 “On Animal World” (extracted from article 22) states, that any activity resulting in changes of animal environment and deterioration of condition of their reproduction, feeding, rest and migration routes must be performed in accordance with rules of nature conservation. Some references concerning conservation of environment are contained also in federal laws directly related to fisheries: “On Fisheries and conservation of aquatic biological resources" and “The rules of fishing for the Far Eastern Fishery basin”. Recently adopted State program “Development of fishery industry” (18 December 2014) (http://government.ru/media/files/ulCPlqzA6Nw.pdf) has a goal to enable the transition from export-commodity type to innovative development based on conservation, reproduction, rational use of aquatic biological resources, introduction of new technologies, the development of import- substitution sub-sectors; providing the sufficient amount of domestic fishery production and competitiveness of Russian fishery products on domestic and foreign markets. Although the main task of the program to increase fisheries production, quite high attention is also paid to conservation of aquatic biological resources and expanding of scientific research, including ecosystem research.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 142 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Management Structure - Consultation, Roles & Responsibilities Management of Kamchatka salmon fisheries is administered by Federal and Regional governmental agencies. Kamchatka Kray, which includes Kamchatka Oblast and Koryak Autonomous Okrug is the subject of the Russian Federation and is a part of Far Eastern Federal Region (Okrug). It is under the direction and control of the Government of the Russian Federation. Fisheries of Russia are managed and controlled by Federal Fishery Agency (FAR) of the Russian Federation, which is located in Moscow and is also represented by a local office in Kamchatka. Operational management of all activities is performed by the Governor of the Kamchatsky Kray. The description of roles and responsibilities of most important governmental control agencies is presented below. Federal Fishery Agency Federal Fishery Agency (FAR) (Федеральное агентство по рыболовству or Federal'noe Agentstvo po Rybolovstvu, http://fish.gov.ru) is an executive authority of the Russian Federation, established by the Presidential Decree No. 724 issued 05.12.2008, by converting the pre-existing Russian Federation State Committee for Fisheries (Rossrybolovstvo). The President issued the Decree No 863 on 30 December 2008, which established that FAR reports directly to the Government of Russian Federation. RF Government Decree of 11 June 2008 No 444 approved the current Regulations governing the FARs operations. FAR interacts with various agencies at the federal level while controlling its territorial departments. It is responsible for oversight of departments under its jurisdiction, which define the rules and the annual Total Available Catches or recommended catches (for those species which are not under TAC regulation, like Pacific salmon), as well as define the areas of fisheries. Also, FAR conducts communication and coordination with foreign government agencies, international committees and international organizations on issues of fisheries, policy and technical programs related to the application of innovative technologies in the fisheries complex, and prepares federal-level and agency level reports on the fishing industry. The head of FAR supervises deputies and departments, which are responsible for the management of the fishing fleet, protection and rational use of resources, reproduction of aquatic biological resources and their habitats. FAR is also responsible for monitoring water resources and stocks of commercial species and control over the distribution of TAC/recommended catch among the users. FAR also provides related to fisheries social services, conducts research and engineering, directs federal fishing vessel and fishing ports, and controls the activity of artificial breeding. Northeastern Territorial Administration of FAR FAR has territorial departments in all regions of the Russian Federation, which have been created in order to accelerate the implementation of many of the functions of the FAR on the level of Russian Federation subjects. Northeastern Territorial Administration of FAR (SVTU) (Северо- восточное территориальное управление ФАР, СВТУ or Severo-vostochnoe upravlenie FAR) is the local management and enforcement arm of FAR for Kamchatka Kray and Chukotka Autonomous Okrug, which is located in city of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. SVTU has final approval of fishing concessions and in-season fishery management regulation actions (to open and close fisheries). They give fishing companies permission to harvest, monitor fishing companies and processors to ensure regulation compliance, and patrol streams to reduce poaching activities. SVTU posts all approved management decision of Anadromous Fish Commission on its website (www.terkamfish.ru). Federal Fishery Research Institutes FAR includes a network of scientific research organizations conducting the research and development of both applied and fundamental nature in accordance with the program entitled “Scientific and engineering support of the Russia’s fisheries industry.” Federal Agency of Fisheries has 15 scientific research organizations under its direct supervision – of which nine are marine scientific research institutes; they are assigned to appropriate regions on the legal basis and are

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 143 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

responsible for the state level monitoring of stocks and additional resources and inclusion of the said resources in harvesting process and also responsible for rational and efficient usage of the bio-resources. The abovementioned scientific research institutes have a legal status as federal state unitary enterprise. Their activities are regulated by the charters approved by FAR. All-Russia Institute for Fisheries Research and Oceanography, VNIRO (Всероссийский научно- исследовательский институт Рыболовства и Океанографии, ВНИРО or Vserossiiskii nauchno-issledovatelskii institute rybolovstva i okeanografii) of Moscow is a head institute in the field of fishery related research. Research for the Pacific aquatic biological resources is conducted by the following scientific regional research institutes: TINRO-Center (Vladivostok) (Тихоокеанский научно-исследовательский институт Рыболовства и Океанографии, ТИНРО-Центр or Tikhookeanslii nauchno-issledovatelskii institute rybolovstva i okeanografii) with branches in Khabarovsk and Anadyr; MagadanNIRO (Magadan) (Магаданский научно- исследовательский институт рыбного хозяйства и океанографии, МагаданНИРО or Magadanskii nauchno-issledovatelskii institute rybolovstva i okeanografii), KamchatNIRO (Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky) (Камчатский научно-исследовательский институт рыбного хозяйства и океанографии, KamchatNIRO or Kamchatskii nauchnoissledovatelskii institute rybolovstva i okeanografii) and SakhNIRO (Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk) (Сахалинский научно- исследовательский институт рыбного хозяйства и океанографии, СахНИРО or Sakhalinskii nauchno-issledovatelskii institute rybolovstva i okeanografii). Studying of aquatic biological resources of the Arctic, northern Atlantic Ocean, Baltic Sea and Atlantic Ocean and that of Black and Caspian seas, sea of Azov and biological resources of internal freshwater bodies is performed by other territorial institutions. KamchatNIRO conducts research of marine and freshwater resources in the Kamchatka region to monitor the status of commercial species, including salmon, and preparing annual forecasts of commercial species and the proposal on the volume of their potential catch. Each October KamchatNIRO issues forecast for recommended catch of salmon for the next season. The forecast is developed based on the amount of salmon required for optimal filling the spawning grounds (i.e., optimal spawning escapement), the number of juveniles from natural spawning grounds (based on sampling of juveniles in the sea and their survivorship there), and the release of juveniles from hatcheries (taking into account their survivorship in the sea). Annual forecasts by KamchatNIRO of potential catch are sent to TINRO-Centre where they are approved in the special Far East Salmon Council (FESC) and then sent to VNIRO, which examines and approves the forecast on the Scientific Council. Following the adoption of the forecast VNIRO sends it to the FAR for approval. Approval forecast is the basis for the organization of fishing in the region. Northeastern Rybvod (SevvostRybvod) SevvostRybvod (Севвострыбвод) is directly managed by the Federal Fisheries Agency. The area of responsibility of this organization covers Kamchatka Krai and Chukotka Autonomous Okrug. Responsibilities include incorporation of management actions connected with recovery of damaged habitats, artificial reproduction of aquatic biological resources, and also participation in international agreements on protection of aquatic resources. The role of SevvostRybVod in management of salmon fisheries in Kamchatka is not very important, since the artificial reproduction in Kamchatka is not of such high significance as it is, for example, in Sakhalin-Kuril region. SVTU controls hatchery permitting and management in the Kamchatka Kray. Sevvostrybvod operates five hatcheries in Kamchatka including two in the Western coast of the Peninsular (Bolshaya river basin). Federal Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology of the Russian Federation encompassing the Federal Service for Supervision in the Sphere of Ecology & Natural Resources Use (Rosprirodnadzor) Rosprirodnadzor (Росприроднадзор) is the Federal agency in a sphere of enforcement and control. According to the Presidential Decree No. 400 issued 30.06.2004, it is responsible for State

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 144 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

supervision of usage and protection of water bodies, wildlife and their habitats, federal level wildlife preserves. Federal Agency for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Supervision (Rosselkhoznadzor) Rosselkhoznadzor (Россельхознадзор) is the Federal enforcement and control agency for biological resources under the Russian Ministry of Agriculture. Responsibilities include accounting for and analysis of violations of technical regulations and other regulatory documentation, supervision of compliance with Russian Federation laws by the state agencies, local government, and the public supervision of marine fishery ports and vessels, and administration of the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. In total, activities of any enterprise operating on rivers are controlled by 14 different State commissions, but their role is not as significant as those described above. Public Council for FAR FAR Policies and Regulation of fisheries are created by a consultative process. In 2008, FAR created the Public Council (PC) in Moscow (Общественный совет по рыболовству, Obschestvennyi sovet po rybolovstvu), which facilitates public discussions of accepted and proposed regulations. The PC is composed of wide range of fishermen associations, environmental institutions, environmental services, the World Wildlife Fund and other interested community organizations. In the consultative process the PC is joined by government agencies and territorial Association of Fishermen, fisheries departments and offices of subjects of Russian Federation. The government policies are finally adopted and implemented following the process of consideration of the proposed policies and discussions between the PC and the interested parties. Far East Scientific Commercial Fisheries Council (FESFC) Far East Scientific Commercial Fisheries Council, FESFC (Дальневосточный рыбопромысловый совет, Dalnevostochny rybopromyslovy sovet) is an independent council made up of representative of the Federal Fisheries Agency, scientific research institutes, non- profit commercial associations of commercial fisheries, minority peoples of the North and Russian Far East, and the union of the pool of professional fishers. The personnel composition of the FESFC is approved by order of FAR based on the recommendations of the Russian Federation territorial subject. However, half of its members must be either from scientific or similar fish conservation or natural resources agencies. The council has the authority to engage other competent authorities, interested parties (or stakeholders) as needed, upon approval of a vote of its members. Meetings are held in Vladivostok at least twice a year. The FESFC meetings can be attended by any interested party, where they may express their opinions and participate in the discussions. Central to the responsibilities of the FESFC is the compilation of scientific information concerning the management of marine bio-resources in the Russian Far East for submission to the Federal Fisheries Agency for final approval. In addition, it reviews and submits its recommendations on fisheries regulations, construction of fish hatcheries and the recommendations for the distribution of quota among its subjects. Ministry of Fisheries of Kamchatka Krai Under the new management system, the regional government has the responsibility for in-season management of fisheries. The Kamchatka Ministry of Fisheries (Министерство рыбного хозяйства Камчатского края, Ministerstvo rybnogo khozyaystva Kamchatskogo kraya) is primarily responsible for establishing and operating of the Commission on the Regulation of Harvesting (catch) of Anadromous Fishes (AFC), and providing information on the fishery (such as catch and escapement data collected by KamchatNIRO).

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 145 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Commission on the Regulation of Harvesting Anadromous Fishes (AFC) The AFC (Комиссия по регулированию вылова (добычи) анадромных видов рыб, Komissia po regulirovaniu vylova (dobychi) anadromnykh vidov ryb) has the responsibility for the distribution of recommended yearly catch of salmon among users and identifying areas of commercial fishery, recreational fishing, and traditional fishery of the indigenous population. The AFC was established by regional bodies in 2008 to implement management changes identified in new federal regulation. The AFC is chaired by the regional governor and consists of government, industry and interested stakeholders. These include representatives from Federal executive bodies, including the federal security and environment protection authorities, as well as representatives of the regional government, federal, public associations, consolidations of legal entities (associations and unions), and scientific organizations. The list of members of AFCs is suggested by the Governor and approved by the Territorial Administration of FAR (SVTU). Upon the request of companies, the AFC sets up the recommended catch for a management unit area and accepts applications from the users, each of which cannot exceed the total recommended catch for management unit. In case of approaching recommended catch for some management unit, AFC can close fishing or increase the recommended catch following recommendations of KamchatNIRO. The recommended catch is authorized by FAR and accounts for the number of salmon required for filling in the spawning areas and broodstock hatcheries, as well as quotas for sport fishing and harvest by the indigenous population. The AFC meets regularly (by October 2015, 21 meeting took place), and makes in season fishery management decisions. Based on the reports about filling of the spawning grounds, the AFC makes operational decisions on the time and duration of fishing by either closing fishing in spawning grounds in case of insufficient filling or by increasing the quotas in order to harvest excessive spawners from the mouths of rivers to avoid overflow of spawning grounds. The AFC’s decisions are made through discussions and consultations with stakeholders. All meetings are open to the public. All decisions of AFCs on fisheries management are subject to final approval by Territorial Administrations of FAR. Meeting minutes and decisions are posted on the Territorial Administration website (http://www.terkamfish.ru). Functioning of the Commission is regulated by the order of RF Ministry of Agriculture No. 170, dated April 8, 2013, “Concerning Approval of the Rules of Activity of the Commission on Regulation of Harvesting Anadromous Fish”. The key items are the following: Item 6. The Commission composed of the Chairman, Deputy Chairman, Executive Secretary and members of the Commission is formed. Item 7. The Commission is headed by the highest official of a corresponding Russian Federation constituent (head of the supreme executive authority of the state government body of Russian Federation constituent) (hereinafter referred to as Commission Chairman). The Commission Chairman conducts meetings of the Commission, makes decisions on procedural issues and signs minutes of the meetings. In the absence of the Commission Chairman its activity is managed by the Deputy Commission Chairman. The Executive Secretary of the Commission assists the Commission Chairman and Deputy Commission Chairman in organization of work of the Commission and work group formed within the Commission, as well as keeps minutes of the meetings and organizes work on their filing to a territorial authority of the Russian Federal Fisheries Agency. Item 8. The Commission consists of representatives of federal executive authorities, including a representative of the federal executive authority in the sphere of defense, a representative of the federal executive authority in the sphere of organization of safety of the Russian Federation, a representative of the federal executive authority in the sphere of environmental protection, representatives of bodies of state power of Russian Federation constituents, public associations, alliances of legal entities (associations and unions), as well as scientific organizations under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federal Fisheries Agency. Item 9. Public associations, alliances of legal entities (associations and unions), as well as scientific organizations under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federal Fisheries Agency file

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 146 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

proposals related to composition of the Commission to the executive government body of a corresponding Russian Federation constituent. Federal executive authorities (their territorial bodies) and the executive government body of a corresponding Russian Federation constituent file proposals on composition of the Commission to the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation, who issues an order on approval of personal composition of the Commission for every Russian Federation constituent on the territory of which procurement (yield) of anadromous species of fish will be carried out. Item 10. Commission’s activity is carried out in a form of meetings organized as and when necessary. Item 11. All members of the Commission have equal rights during discussion of issues being considered at a meeting. Item 12. The Commission is authorized to make decisions in case more than half of its members are present at the meeting. A decision of the Commission is deemed made in case more than half of its members that are present at the meeting voted for. If votes of Commission’s members divide equally, vote of a person chairing the Commission will be decisive. Item 13. Commission’s resolution is documented in a protocol no later than in 2 days after conduct of a regular meeting to be signed by the Commission Chairman or, in its absence, by Deputy Commission Chairman chairing the meeting, and initialled by the Executive Secretary, as well as by all members of the Commission present at the meeting. Item 14. In case a member of the Commission does not agree with a decision made, it is entitled to express its special opinion in writing, which shall be added to the minutes of the meeting. Item 15. Minutes of the meeting shall be sent to a territorial administration of the Russian Federal Fisheries Agency within 2 days after its signing to be approved within 2 business days. In case the territorial body of the Russian Federal Fisheries Agency does not approve the minutes of the Commission, it shall notify the Commission thereof in writing within 2 days after receipt of the minutes, indicating reasons preventing approval of minutes of the meeting. Item 16. After the minutes of the meeting is approved by the territorial body of the Russian Federal Fisheries Agency, it is published on its official website and sent to executive government bodies of Russian Federation constituent within 2 business days and is binding. Interdistrict Environmental Prosecutor’s Office of Kamchatka The Interdistrict Environmental Prosecutor’s Office of Kamchatka (Камчатская межрайонная природоохранная специализированная прокуратура, Kamchatskaya mezhrayonnaya prirodookhrannaya spetsializirovannaya prokuratura) is a specialized department of the Prosecutor’s Office of Kamchatka Krai, which is responsible for supervision over the implementation of laws in the area of ecology and exploitation of natural resources. It also has full powers to perform investigation of violations if there are no responses from other specialized enforcement bodies occurs. The Prosecutor’s Office involves experts for an investigation, acts as a complainant at the court and provides relevant information. It is quite difficult to assess overall effectiveness of fishery management system in Russia in the framework of this certification, but for that can be useful to consider generalized economic indicators. Kauffman et al. (2013) reviewed governance indicators of numerous countries for period 1996-2012 for the World Bank: governance indicators follow a normal distribution where percentile rank varies from 0 to 100 and value equal to 50 refers the average country. The analysis concluded that Russia scores at lower than mean levels, with most scores ranging from 20 to 40.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 147 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Fishery Objectives & Measures Preseason management The local research fisheries institution, KamchatNIRO, plays a key role in producing fishery forecasts. The forecasts use a regression model of abundance of parental and progeny generations using equations of Ricker, Sheppard and others. The base for forecasts are data obtained by observers on commercial fisheries, surveys of number of spawners entering the river (visual foot counting, aerial visual and photo registration, hydro acoustic techniques, and marking) data on downstream migration of juveniles, and data on trawling of juveniles before feeding migration to high seas mouth during spawning migrations (Figure 61). Catch data are available for Bolshaya River from 1934. In the 1945, the research station of KamchatNIRO begun to work at the Bystraya River, which is a tributary of Bolshaya River. This may be taken as a date of beginning of regular fishery-oriented research in this area. In general, most of data used for forecasts is available from 1957.

Figure 61. Main stages of issuing of the forecast (recommended catch) of Pacific salmon (Rassadnikov 2006). The recommended catch is calculated as a difference between total number of returning fish estimated for a season and the target amount of spawners, taking in account a total area of spawning grounds in the district and optimal density of spawners, which depends on river and species. At higher than optimal spawning density on the spawning grounds, overspawning results in decrease of recruits per spawner due to resorption of gonads and destruction of redds by later spawners. An obvious overspawning event occurred in the northwestern Kamchatka in 1983, when huge amount of spawners entered rivers because fishing facilities of the companies were not sufficient to prevent them. As a result, mortality of progeny was very high, and the next generation was weak. Due to this, since this period odd generation of Pink depressed and even generation dominants until present.

Given that dynamics of populations in the same area is usually synchronous, several reference populations are studied in more details, at so-called fish monitoring stations, and then the forecast is extrapolated to the entire area. One of stations is situated in Bolshaya River. In the downstream part of Opala and Kikhchik Rivers there are seasonal stations where KamchatNIRO collects data

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 148 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

from commercial catches. The proportion of each population in the area is considered to be constant and is determined based on long-term fisheries and research data.

The initial forecast provided by the local research team must be approved on different levels (Figure 62). Firstly, the Research Council of KamchatNIRO should approve. Then KamchatNIRO sends the annual forecast to the TINRO-Center; the latter summarizes the forecasts from all regional NIROs (Research Institutes for Fishery and Oceanography). Forecasts are discussed on the Far East Salmon Council, which was created within the TINRO-center with the goal of coordinating the research and forecasting of salmon in the Far Eastern basin. FESC decides on the final value of the forecast of recommended catch and sends the forecast to VNIRO. Because of the change from TAC management to recommended catch management, approval by the State Ecological Expertise on federal level has been also excluded from the process. This makes the process quicker and more transparent, but, at the same time, potentially less precautionary. During the period of approval, discussion with stakeholders takes place with active participation of representatives of fisheries companies, local administrations and federal ministries. On the basis of this forecast FAR approves the recommended annual catch for each fishery subzone. The pre-season forecast is used primarily for planning purposes and possibly to establish quotas for some non-commercial fisheries.

Figure 62. A procedure of issuing of the Pacific salmon recommended catch (Rassadnikov 2006). Inaccuracy of fisheries forecast varies among species (Figure 63). In average, for entire Western Kamchatka area for period 1993 – 2009 it is equal to 73% for pink, 16% for chum, 14% for sockeye, 34% for coho and 101% for Chinook salmon.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 149 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Figure 63. Forecasted (blue) and actual (red) catch of Pacific salmon in the Western coast of Kamchatka (data from Rassadnikov 2006, 2009; Rassadnikov and Starovoitov, 2007, Starovoitov and Rassadnikov, 2008).

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 150 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

In-season process Each coastal set net or river beach seine is served by a crew of fishermen. The crew leaders report directly to the company’s Directors. Each crew keeps fishing log according to the template specified by the FAR. This log records: • coordinates of seine; • daily catch (in metric tons); • species composition and by-catch; Each company submits information on the catch volumes and species composition to SVTU daily which is then summarized for reporting to the AFC. The AFC opens and closes fishery times and areas based on harvest and escapement relative to expectations and objectives (Figure 64). To allow sufficient amount of fish to approach spawning grounds, the management system introduces system of pass days when fishery is prohibited. The system of pass-days creates kind of moving window for fish to safely approach the spawning grounds (Shevliakov et al. 2011). It is known that pass-days are used in the river fishing parcels regularly (two-three per week). Moreover, if spawning escapement is not sufficient, additional off days are set up in the river, and, if needed, in the sea. Usually, all these operations are done by decisions of AFC based on recommendations of KamchatNIRO.

Figure 64. In-season management of Pacific salmon fishery. Approved value of annual recommended catch may be adjusted by AFC based on real-time data on the number of the salmon approaching the fishing areas and spawning grounds. In order to assist in this adjustment, KamchatNIRO monitors the dynamics of catches and biological indicators of sockeye in the main areas of operation, in the migration routes and the reproduction of the species. The monitoring results are used for developing operational guidelines on salmon fishing.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 151 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

The procedure of termination of fishing is not complex and can be done by AFC based on recommendations of KamchatNIRO. Following this decision, SVTU terminates all fishing activity if necessary, and may implement special closed days to obtain spawning escapement goals. Based on experience of last years, there are two free-of-fishing days per week in Bolshaya River (usually coincide with weekends). Increase of quota now, when approval by State Ecological Expertise is not necessary anymore, is also not difficult and can be done by AFC based on recommendations of KamchatNIRO. Such a management system existed during 1990s, before introduction of the State Ecological Expertise and was considered quite convenient. Since 2009 regulations of salmon fisheries were changed not only due to introduction of 20-year lease for fishing parcels, but also due to changing from the Total Available Catch (TAC) system and introduction of “Olympic system” of management based on achieving spawning escapement. Due to this fisheries management became less complicated and more decisions can be accepted on local level. In Kamchatka, the “Olympic system” was firstly introduced in 2010. The main principles of this management model are the following: - determining a management unit as group of fishing parcels situated in close geographical area (usually combination of sea and river parcels) inhabited by salmon populations with similar biology; - self-dependence of users in terms of use their gear, in particularly, they are not obliged to use all their gear but only some, depending on situation; - user defines himself size of his quota which, however, cannot exceed total quota for management unit determined by AFC. The companies report their catches to SVTU on daily basis. After sum of catches of all companies fishing in the management unit achieved the total quota, the fishing terminated if AFC decided not to increase quota. The main advantage of this system of management is opportunity for users to plan their fishing operations and free competition between them. Moreover, it provides more operative reporting of catches. Disadvantages are possible exceeding of quota allocated for management unit if two or more companies simultaneously (in the same day) report catches which altogether increase total quota. Thus, the companies do not have individual responsibility not to exceed the quota. Also, companies can report false catches (exceeding the actual) in order to have opportunity to buy illegally obtained caviar. Enforcement SVTU controls the compliance with the law and rules of fishing. SVTU contains in total 12 departments and among them the department of state control, supervision and protection of aquatic resources and habitats with enforcement functions. SVTU includes 12 local departments situated in every administrative district of Kamchatka Oblast. Fishing area assessed in this report is in the territory of Sobolevsky district departments. The level of protection is variable during the year. In the fishing season, in addition to usual 6 inspectors, the groups up to 15 inspectors are created. SVTU has responded to concerns of bribery and corruption of enforcement officers by monitoring agents through undercover surveillance of officers and monitoring changes in officer life styles; encouraging reporting by competitors and acquaintances; and by increasing penalties including fines and job loss for convictions. SVTU reports that illegal fishing by fishing companies has diminished to low levels since the beginning of the Olympic System and the removal of individual quotas for the companies. Partly, it is explained just by change of organization of fisheries - now companies do not have incentives to hide their catch, and their reports are more objective. At the same time, sanctions on companies are severe, including fines and loss of fishing privileges (cancellation of leases), which reduce incentives to fish illegally or launder illegal roe. SVTU stated that inflated catches reported by

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 152 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

fishing companies to cover purchases of illegal roe have not been detected, and that exchange of information with tax inspectors is used to compare roe production with reported fish quantities. However, other participants in the fishery did report knowledge of companies increasing reported landings to account for illegal roe purchases. The assessment team was unable to determine if such misreporting occurred or the quantity of misreported catch/illegal roe that may have occurred. As the amount of illegal fishing and misreporting by fishing companies has decreased, the dominant component of illegal fishing comes through poachers from outside the region and from residents, including indigenous people. Most poaching occurs along the Bolshaya River, as a road provides access to much of the river. Shevlyakov (2013a) estimated that criminal poaching represents 5-10% of legal harvest in Kamchatka and traditional poaching represents 3-5%, for a likely range of 8-15%. SVTU inspectors perform enforcement activities during joint raids with employees of the territorial department of the Police, Federal Security Services (FSS) and the Ministry for Civil Defense, Emergencies and Elimination of Consequences of Natural Disasters (EMERCOM). FSS is responsible for controlling the transfer activities of the vessels, EMERCOM is responsible for checking the origins of the vessel, and the Police has full powers to initiate the proceedings. In addition to the regular seasonal plan of raids, occasional raid efforts are made if the violations are witnessed and requested to consider at the weekly meetings of the Anadromous Fish Commission by individuals or public organisations. These requests are discussed according to the rules of the Federal Law of 02 May 2006 N 59-FZ “On the order of consideration of the civil requests in Russian Federation”.

Patrolling teams are also formed by public organisations, such as Interregional Public Organization “Komissiya po protivodeystviyu korruptsii” and “Ekologitcheskaya Bezopasnost”. Their responsibilities, defined in the contracts with enforcement bodies, only include observation and reporting. According to the agreements with enforcement bodies signed in 2016-2017, in 2018 Public Organization “Komissiya po protivodeystviyu korruptsii” provided 3 inspectors to enhance the joint patrolling team in the Sobolevsky District of the UoA.

The fishery companies under pre-assessment take active part in the protection of the spawning grounds of salmon, because they are strongly motivated not to lose their resource. In 2017, two largest local fishery associations “Rybaki Zapadnoy Kamchatki” and “Okhotsky Rybak”, signed an agreement, which describes the commonly accepted approaches for cooperation, information sharing, providing financial and technical support to SVTU and FSS, and enhancement of efficiency of activities aimed at conservation of natural resources. During the fishing season of 2017, 14 employees from private security company “Impuls” were hired by LLC Zarya and Zapadny Bereg, and conducted patrolling on the Oblukovina, Krutogorova, Kolpakova and Vorovskaya rivers helping to SVTU. In 2018, similar activities were performed by 9 employees. Together with SVTU inspectors, during 16 joint patrols trips in July 2018, 23 trips in August 2018, and 26 trips in September 2018, 83 violations were revealed in total, and 58 administrative protocols were issued by SVTU and police. Association “Rybaki Zapadnoy Kamchatki” also provided funding in 2017 and 2018 for several aerial observation flights of SVTU. In 2017, during the aerial survey, an illegal camp and caviar shop were discovered in the area of the Kolpakova River, and the activities of poachers from spawning grounds were stopped.

It is quite difficult to estimate how effective are the enforcement measures to reduce illegal fishing in the Sobolevsky District of Kamchatka Krai. According the information obtained from SVTU FAR, in total, during 2014-2018 period 182 violations were reported. The yearly figures of number of violations and the volume of illegally harvested fish (tons) in rivers was as follows: 2014 - 18/0.208; 2015 - 19/0.319; 2016 - 56/1.592; 2017 - 32/0.433; 2018 - 57/1.671 (Bugaev et al., 2018). Although it is stated that the increasing trend in illegal fishing can be explained by the years of

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 153 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

high salmon abundance, the actual situation which takes place within the 12-mile territorial marine zone is not clear because the data collected by FSS are not available. Available data (Open letter from head …) informs that during the aerial and vessel patrolling effort in 2018, three administrative violations were reported, and 2450 meters of abandoned gillnets were collected. Active use of set gillnets in the area create opportunities for illegal fishing. Some fishing companies (but not companies under this certification) subcontract additional fishermen using gillnets and then buy their catch. Although using of set gillnets has several limitations (section 5.2.1), given a large number of users involved in this fishing, it is very difficult to control them. Fisherman may not strictly control their nets, which are often lost. The assessment team recorded several such nets while travelling along the West Kamchatka shore (Figure 65), and fisherman may sell catch by themselves, i.e. illegally.

Figure 65. Washed out lost set gillnet at the West Kamchatka coast, 11 July 2019 Legal challenges are not currently reported. According the open-access database with court decisions, some previous legal challenges of the client companies Icha-fish and Krutogorovskoye with debts and illegitimate usage of other companies’ finances were effectively solved at the Arbitrary Court of the Kamchatka Krai.

Protected, Endangered, or Threatened Species The Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology is responsible for managing sensitive species. Red lists of Russian Federation are regularly updated. The last edition was published in 2001, and the next one is issued in 2015. Leading experts are involved in the updating of the Red List. Including of a species in the Red List does not only certifies its official status, but also provides necessary basis for management decisions. Species included to the Red List are subdivided into the following categories: 0 – probably extinct, 1 – under threat of extinction, 2 – decrease of abundance, 3 – rare, 4 – status is unclear, 5 – recovering. Based on the Law of the Russian Federation “On animal world”, all the red-listed species are protected regardless the categories

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 154 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

they belong to. If they are accidently caught in fishing gear, they should be recorded in logbooks and released with minimal possible damage.

Organizationally, the Red List is under responsibility of the Commission on rare and endangered animals, plants and fungi, which is created and operates in accordance with the procedure approved by Order of State Committee on Ecology of the Russian Federation from 24.09.1998 № 542 "On the maintenance work on keeping the Red Book of the Russian Federation." The Commission includes representatives of leading Russian scientific organizations, including the Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences named by A.N. Severtsov and the State Organization "All-Russian Research Institute for Nature Conservation" The functions of this Commission is to provide recommendations on including endangered species in the Red Book of the Russian Federation or the exclusion of species (subspecies, populations) of wild animals, wild plants and fungi from the Red Book of the Russian Federation. Each region in Russia (oblast, autonomous republic) has its own Red lists. Red list of Kamchatka was prepared by Pacific Institute of Geography and published in 2007. In total, it includes 123 species of animals – 13-invertebrates, 30 fish species, 60 birds and 23 terrestrial and marine animals.

Environmental protection Protection of the salmon habitat is achieved through observance of the current laws of the Russian Federation. Any type of utilization either of natural resources directly or that impacts them indirectly, including fisheries, water and timber utilization, construction, etc., must be evaluated as to the extent of impact on the environment. The evaluation itself is performed by an expert commission having state ecological expertise, and the main federal agency responsible for conducting the state ecological expert review is the Rosprirodnadzor. In addition, activity related to natural utilization that has already been permitted is regulated to the extent to which it impacts the environment by a series of standards documents at the federal, departmental and local levels.

For the protection of fish habitat within the area of its competence, responsibility is borne by the Rosprirodnadzor under Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology of Russian Federation, and the Federal Ecological, Technological and Atomic Oversight Service (Rostekhnadzor), the Agency of Fisheries of Russian Federation, and local governments of the territorial subjects of the Russian Federation. Interdistrict Environmental Prosector’s Office of Kamchatka is responsible for enforcing laws relating to natural utilization.

Building/construction projects are regulated by a governmental agency (Rospotrebnadzor Sanitation Service) which requires completion of an environmental Impact Study (EIS) prior to approval of a project permit. Projects are monitored and can be delayed by the service if the builder does not fulfil the requirements. Assessments address discharges, disposal, drainage, soil pollution, the burial of wastes in the environment, accidents and catastrophes. The EIS includes a project description, descriptions of the environments subject to impact, and a characterization of the extent of the impact (based on a worst case maximum), including a determination of the subsequent value of the losses, the form of compensation both in kind and in monetary terms, and development of the engineering for loss compensation. Also included are descriptions of the extent to which the conditions for land use and the requirements issued by the respective government agencies of supervision and control have been followed, a study of the risks associated with possible accidents, as well as the adequacy of the anticipated material resources and financial reserves to localize and eliminate the effects of accidents, and a study of the fullness and effectiveness of the anticipated measures for protecting the health of the population living in the surroundings of the environmental area. Decisions adopted must conform to the laws and standards of the Russian Federation and the Kamchatsky Kray.

In cases of detection of unreported organic waste dumps, in particular, of illegal origin, the responsibility for elimination of material and estimating consequences for natural habitats belongs

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 155 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

to the Federal Agency for Veterinary and Phytosanitary supervision (Rosselkhoznadzor). The collecting of abandoned machines and vessels is performed by the territorial division of the Ministry for Civil Defence, Emergencies and Elimination of Consequences of Natural Disasters (EMERCOM) and Rostechnadzor. According to the position of the Prosecutor A.V. Yavorsky, the serious problem with storaging the illegally harvested biological resources and another wastes of fishery origin existed for a very long time (http://www.kamprok.ru/ekologicheskaya-konferentsiya- prodolzhaem-publikovat-doklady-uchastnikov-konferentsii-problemy-ekologicheskogo-prava- prepyatst/). In the 2009, according to the FSS of Kamchatka Krai there were more than 540 tons of fish and crab wastes. According to the Fishing Rules for Far East Basin, biological wastes should be grinded and disposed in the exclusive economic zone of Russian Federation. According to the analytical data, provided by AFC (Open letter from acting…), most of the commercial fishing companies in Sobolevsky District, including the companies from Client group, have their own recycling capacities, allowing to produce bony flour and fat, while other remains are disposed in the sea from the ships. But many smaller processors exist in the area receiving fish from undefined sources, which are not prone to utilize the wastes. According to the enforcement bodies, storage onshore or disposal of grinded material in the sea requires serious labor and optimization costs which are typically not pre-determined by the regional budget. For the several years, the situation was actively discussed on the regular meetings of the AFC and Ministry of Natural Resources, but it probably cannot be easily solved. In 2017, the Head of the FAR, Ilya Shestakov, stated the suggestion to offer several legislative changes, including the immediate elimination of the illegal production without waiting for the court final decision (https://fishnews.ru/news/30874).

The main indicator of success with respect to actions aimed at protecting fish (salmon) habitat is the record size of the harvests of Pacific salmon. It should be noted, however, that other factors such as sea conditions also impact to stock abundance and therefore catches. Research plan For long time research of Pacific salmon is performed in the framework of large state research programs. Until mid-1990’s the studies of salmon in the Far East Russian Federation were performed according to the complex target program “Salmon,” which was controlled by the former Committee on Fisheries of Russian Federation (FAR). This program was designed for every 5 years starting with mid-1980s. Studies in second half of 1990s were performed according to 5- year programs, which took into account the basin and partly the ecosystem approaches. In 2005, the TINRO-center with the participation of regional NIROs, have developed “The concept of the Far East basin program for the complex study of Pacific salmon for period 2006-2010”, which was approved by RosRybolovstvo (which is now FAR). In accordance with this concept TINRO-center has developed the “Far East basin program for complex study of Pacific Salmon for period 2007- 2012”. in 2009, VNIRO has developed the departmental comprehensive target research program for fisheries of Russian Federation for 2010-2014 named “Scientific support and monitoring of conservation of reproduction and rational using of resources of fisheries base”. Within that program the “Far East basin program of complex study of Pacific Salmon for period 2010-2014” was adopted in which the succession of approach and research directions was preserved. At the end of the year, the results of these programs were discussed in the Far East Salmon Council at TINRO-center and published in the annual edition of The Bulletin of the Implementation of the “Concept of the Far East basin program for the complex study of Pacific Salmon”. A total of 9 bulletins for the period 2006-2014 have been published (in 2011-2014 the books were entitled “Bulletin of study of Pacific salmon).

Currently, scientific research on Pacific salmon in Kamchatka is performed under state funding, mostly, in KamchatNIRO, according to the institute’s research plan. In the institute, there is a

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 156 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Department of freshwater and anadromous fish (head A.V. Bugaev), which includes three laboratories: Laboratory of abundance and improving of forecasting of salmonids (head Y.A. Shevlyakov), Laboratory of sea studies of salmon (head V.G. Yerokhin), and Laboratory of freshwater aquatic resources and aquaculture (Pogodaev Ye.A.). Also, in KamchatNIRO there is a Laboratory of population genetics of commercial fish (head N.V. Shpigalskaya).

Laboratory of abundance and improving of forecasting of salmonids is one of the most important and large scientific divisions of the Institute. The laboratory staff consists of 52 highly qualified specialists, scientific and technical workers. The main tasks of this laboratory are stock assessment and recommendations for the rational use of Pacific salmon resources. For this purpose, laboratory specialists monitor the most important stocks of salmon at special seasonal observation stations in different parts of Kamchatka. Annual observations are made on the structure and abundance of spawners, reproduction patterns and embryogenesis in natural conditions, biology of juveniles in the freshwater period of life, and observation on their downstream migration. Annually, aerial surveys are carried out to control the filling of spawning grounds. There is a large number of observations of the status of ecosystems of important water bodies, such as Dalneye, Kurilskoye and Azabachye lakes; rivers Kamchatka, Bolshaya, etc.

Laboratory of sea studies of salmon focuses on estimation of the number and habitat conditions of salmon at different ages in the sea (estuarine, early marine, oceanic) and develop on this basis recommendations for improving the fishery forecasts of individual stocks, as well as the operational management of the salmon fisheries.

Laboratory of freshwater aquatic resources and aquaculture, among other tasks, implementation monitoring of Pacific salmon of hatchery origin and develop methods of identification of the origin of Pacific salmon (natural of hatchery) in mixed populations in rivers and in the sea.

Laboratory of population genetics of commercial fish studies the intraspecific structure of Pacific salmon, develops genetic markers for identification of salmon stocks and creates reference databases for identification of the main stocks of North Pacific salmon in the sea. The laboratory utilizes modern research techniques such as microsatellite DNA analysis, haplotypic variability of mitochondrial DNA and single nucleotide substitution (SNP). Work is under way to preserve the biological diversity of salmon populations for artificial reproduction and in the long-term monitoring of stocks under anthropogenic pressure.

In addition to KamchatNIRO, research on Pacific salmon is done in other local institutions of the Far East and by the headquarter of fisheries research in Russia VNIRO in Moscow. Therefore, the system of salmon research in Russia covers all important parts of the Pacific salmon distribution range and various aspects of its biology.

International Management Russia is party to the Convention for the Conservation of Anadromous Fish Stocks in the North Pacific Ocean, and a member of the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission (NPAFC). The Commission promotes the conservation of anadromous fish in the Convention area, which includes the waters of the North Pacific Ocean and its adjacent seas north of 33° Latitude and beyond the 200-mile zones of the coastal states. The Commission requires member states to:

• Prohibit directed fishing for anadromous fish in the Convention Area. • Minimize to the maximum extent of the incidental taking of anadromous fish

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 157 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

• Prohibit the retention on board a fishing vessel of anadromous fish taken as an incidental catch during fishing for non-anadromous fish. The Convention authorizes research fishing for anadromous fish on the high seas if consistent with the NPAFC science program. The parties conduct joint research programs including exchange of information. The parties have an obligation to enforce the provisions of the Convention.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 158 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

5.4.2 Principle 3 Performance Indicator scores and rationales PI 3.1.1 – Legal and/or customary framework The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: - Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); PI 3.1.1 - Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and - Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management

There is an effective There is an effective There is an effective national legal system and national legal system and national legal system and a framework for organised and effective binding procedures cooperation with other cooperation with other governing cooperation a Guide parties, where necessary, parties, where necessary, with other parties which to deliver management to deliver management delivers management post outcomes consistent with outcomes consistent with outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2 MSC Principles 1 and 2. MSC Principles 1 and 2.

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

SG60 - There is an effective national legal system in place to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. Therefore, this standard is met. The fishery takes place in Russian internal and territorial waters only and hence falls under exclusive Russian jurisdiction. Within the Russian Government, fisheries policy falls under the purview of the Ministry of Agriculture (Minselkhoz). The implementing body for fisheries management under the Ministry is the Federal Fisheries Agency (FFA) (Rosrybolovstvo), which is the successor of the former State Committee for Fisheries (abolished in 2004), and in turn the Soviet Ministry of Fisheries. The Ministry is responsible for the formulation of Russia’s fisheries policy, while the FFA oversees the daily management of fisheries, including the determination of specific fishing rules and the implementation of regulations set by the Ministry. Within the Russian Government, the Ministry of Agriculture interacts with other federal ministries, e.g. with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (Minprirody) through its implementing Agency for Monitoring of Natural Resources (Rosprirodnadzor), which carries out environmental impact assessments of fisheries regulations. In addition to the territorial administrations, which are an integral part of the FFA, the federal agency has a number of subordinate bodies of governance. These include scientific institutes and educational institutions, such as universities and colleges. The FFA has within its structure a federal fisheries research institute, VNIRO (the Russian Federal Research Institute for Fisheries and Oceanography) with 28 regional branches, the so-called NIROs (Russian abbreviation for the words “Scientific Research Fisheries Oceanography”). In the Far Eastern Fishery Basin VNIRO has five regional offices: MagadanNIRO (Magadan in Magadan Oblast), KamchatNIRO (Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy in Kamchatka Krai), KhabarovskNIRO (Khabarovsk in Khabarovsk Krai), SakhNIRO (Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk in Sakhalin Oblast) and TINRO (Vladivostok in Primorskiy Krai). There are six “technical universities” and nine subordinate colleges. Yet another group of institutions subordinate to the FFA are the federal and regional offices of the Center for Systems for Monitoring of Fisheries and Communication (Fisheries Monitoring Center). There are the technical hubs for all kinds of reporting from vessels, including electronic logbooks, and vessel monitoring systems (VMS). There are seven regional Monitoring Centers.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 159 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

The basic legal document underpinning fisheries management in the Russian Federation is the 2004 Federal Act on Fisheries and Conservation of Aquatic Biological Resources. The Act has been revised several times, last in 2014. Other important legislation at the federal level includes the 2002 Federal Act on the Protection of the Environment (Ob okhrane… 2020), and the 2013 Act on Aquaculture. Regional authorities in Russia have their own executive, legislative and judicial powers. The executive power is led by a Governor’s office with a subordinate “regional administration” or “government”, which in turn consists of a number of departments (where there is a regional administration) or ministries (where there is a government). A change in the Federal Fisheries Act in 2008 required anadromous fisheries in Russia to be managed by commissions set up at the regional level, headed by the leaders of the executive power at regional level, the Governors. Hence, the most important management body involved in the management of salmon in Kamchatsky Kray is the Commission on the Management of Harvesting of Anadromous Fish Stocks (the Anadromous Fisheries Commission, AFC). The AFC makes operational decisions on the fisheries, such as regarding catch volumes, fishing areas and timing and duration of the fishing season (while regulations on fishing gear are set by the FFA). The AFC is headed by the Governor of the region, and other organizations represented are the SVTU, KamchatNIRO, the Federal Security Service (FSB), the Army, the police, the environmental prosecutor and public organizations. The AFC meets as often as needed, usually several times a month and often several times a week. Decisions are made by majority vote and have status as official regulations once their legality (i.e. that they are not in contradiction to federal or regional legislation) has been confirmed by federal authorities, which must happen within three days after the AFC meeting. SG80 - the Russian Federation has an effective salmon fishery management system. Section 7.6.1 (P3 Background) provides details of the Russian management system, including federal and state scientific and management agencies and the laws under which they operate. Management of Kamchatka salmon fisheries is administered by Federal and Regional governmental agencies. Kamchatka Krai, which includes Kamchatka Oblast and Koryak Autonomous Okrug is the subject of the Russian Federation and is a part of Far Eastern Federal Region (Okrug). It is under the direction and control of the Government of the Russian Federation. Fisheries of Russia are managed and controlled by Federal Fishery Agency (FAR) of the Russian Federation, which located in Moscow and also represented by a local office in Kamchatka. Operational management of all activities is performed by the Governor of the Kamchatsky Kray. The Federal Law “On fisheries…” sets that all citizens, public organizations, and associations have the right to participate in decision making process. For these purposes the FAR maintains a multi-level system of public (community) and scientific fishery councils providing opportunities to participate and influence on decision process and regulations. SG100 – given the continuing significance of illegal fishing by some residents of the region, it is not clear that the legal system and cooperation by all parties are 100% effective. Therefore, the SG100 standard is not achieved.

Resolution of disputes

The management system The management system The management system incorporates or is subject incorporates or is subject incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism for by law to a transparent by law to a transparent the resolution of legal mechanism for the mechanism for the b Guide disputes arising within the resolution of legal disputes resolution of legal disputes system. which is considered to be that is appropriate to the post effective in dealing with context of the fishery and most issues and that is has been tested and appropriate to the context proven to be effective. of the UoA.

Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 160 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

SG60,80 - This standard is met because the management system incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes arising within the system, as fishers can take their case to court if they do not accept the rationale behind an infringement accusation by enforcement authorities or the fees levied against them. Verdicts at the lower court levels can be appealed to higher levels. However, most disputes are solved within the system for fisheries management (in the UoA fishery particularly in the AFC), not requiring judicial treatment. There are well-established systems of consultation with user groups in place for the fishery (see PI 3.1.2 below), confirmed in federal and regional legislation and transparent for actors within the fishing industry. SG100 - 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 legal system is based on civil law system with judicial review of legislative acts. An evidence of effectiveness of system of resolution of legal disputes comes from the open-access judicial protocols. All the disputes were resolved and protocols published transparently. The SG100 is therefore awarded. Respect for rights

The management system The management system The management system has a mechanism to has a mechanism to has a mechanism to generally respect the observe the legal rights formally commit to the legal rights created created explicitly or legal rights created c Guide explicitly or established by established by custom of explicitly or established by custom of people people dependent on custom of people post dependent on fishing for fishing for food or dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a livelihood in a manner food and livelihood in a manner consistent with the consistent with the manner consistent with the objectives of MSC objectives of MSC objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2.

Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

SG60,80 - These standards are met. In Russia, the rights of fishery-dependent communities are explicitly stated in the Federal Fisheries Act. The Act states that “the small indigenous peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East” (ethnic groups with a “traditional” lifestyle consisting of less than 50,000 people) shall be given access to fish resources in order to secure their livelihood. It gives “fisheries to protect the traditional lifestyle of small indigenous peoples of the North Siberia and the Far East” extended rights compared to the other types of fisheries listed in the Act (e.g., “industrial fisheries”, “coastal fisheries” and “fisheries for scientific and enforcement purposes”. SG100 - the management system has a mechanism to formally commit to the legal rights created explicitly and practicing by people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2 (SG 100). The federal law on indigenous peoples of the Far North applies to the management system to ensure their traditional fisheries and livelihoods. In accordance with the law, every district establishes fishing sites for indigenous peoples near their homes. While distributing quotas for salmon fishing, the Anadromous Fish Commission first sets a quota for indigenous peoples (the rate of 100 kg per person per year of aquatic biological resources for local population has been established by the government of Kamchatka Krai). The remainder of the quota is distributed among the other users of water resources. Representatives of the Association of Indigenous Peoples of Kamchatka are involved in the distribution of the quota. In the case the interests of the indigenous peoples are violated, the legal system intervenes.

References

“O rybolovstve …” 2004. "Ob okhrane….” 2002. "Ob akvakul'ture …. 2013.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 161 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer

Overall Performance Indicator score 95

Condition number (if relevant) --

PI 3.1.2 – Consultation, roles and responsibilities The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Roles and responsibilities

Organisations and Organisations and Organisations and individuals involved in the individuals involved in the individuals involved in the management process management process management process have been identified. have been identified. have been identified. a Guide Functions, roles and Functions, roles and Functions, roles and responsibilities are responsibilities are responsibilities are post generally understood. explicitly defined and explicitly defined and well understood for key well understood for all areas of responsibility and areas of responsibility and interaction. interaction.

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

SG60 - The functions, roles and responsibilities of the different organizations and individuals involved in the management of the fishery defined in national laws and regulations, as well as in longstanding practice; see SI 3.1.1 a) for an overview of the main bodies of governance at federal and regional levels engaged in the management of the fishery, and SI 3.1.2 b) for an overview of non-governmental organizations involved. Organizations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified, and according to interviews at the site visit, their functions, roles and responsibilities are generally understood. SG 60 is met. SG80 - Organizations 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, thus should be scored at least SG80. All stakeholders, including fishing companies and public organizations, are able to participate in the decision-making process. All interested parties are part of main management body – The Anadromous Fish Commission on local Kamchatka level. On higher levels, also there are structures which allow to participate interested parties such as Public Council for FAR. Each representative has the right to vote and can influence the decision. This collective body bears the responsibilities for the decisions made.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 162 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

SG100 – the guidepost is not met since not all functions, roles and responsibilities are clearly understood. Some overlap in responisbilities might occur. For instance, in case of fishing near river mouth, functions of enforcement agencies – fish inspection and Federal Security Service may overlap (according to law, the fish inspection is responsible for enforcement of fishing in inland waters and Federal Security Service – in marine waters).

Consultation processes

The management system The management system The management system includes consultation includes consultation includes consultation processes that obtain processes that regularly processes that regularly relevant information from seek and accept relevant seek and accept relevant the main affected parties, information, including local information, including local b Guide including local knowledge, knowledge. The knowledge. The to inform the management management system management system post system. demonstrates demonstrates consideration of the consideration of the information obtained. information and explains how it is used or not used.

Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

SG60 - The Russian (and previously Soviet) system for fisheries management has a long tradition of involving industry and other stakeholders in the management process. In recent years, the traditional arenas for interaction between authorities and stakeholders has been supplemented by new platforms for public engagement with management. The Federal Fisheries Act requires that any citizen, public organization or association (of legal entities) has the right to provide their input into the decision-making process within Russia’s system for fisheries management. A formal arena for interaction between government, industry and other stakeholders are the advisory boards, the so-called fishery councils, set up at federal, basin and regional levels. At the federal level, the Public Fisheries Council was established in 2008 in accordance with the requirement in the Federal Public Chamber Act that all federal bodies of governance (with a few exceptions) shall have a public council that will serve as an arena of interaction between the authorities and the general public. The Council consists of members from various federal bodies of governance, the fishing industry, research institutions and other interested stakeholders, such as non-governmental organizations (WWF). Members are proposed by the public (in practice public organizations), and the FFA appoints up to 50 members for periods of two years. Basin-level fishery councils have existed since Soviet times, named “scientific-technical councils”. In line with the general regionalization that took place in Russia during the 1990s, similar bodies were set up at the level of federal subjects, named “regional fisheries councils”. Both were made mandatory in the 2004 Federal Fisheries Act. Rules of procedures for the “basin scientific-technical councils” in the Russian Federation were adopted in 2008. They state that the councils shall advice the authorities on a wide range of fishery-related issues, including conduct of fisheries in the relevant basin; control and surveillance; conservation; recovery and harvesting of aquatic biological resources; distribution of quotas and other issues of importance to ensure sustainable management of fisheries. The fishery councils consist of representatives of federal and regional authorities, the fishing industry, research institutions and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), including the indigenous people of the North, Siberia and the Far East. The basin level councils are headed by federal authorities, the councils at federal subject level by regional authorities. The Far Eastern Basin Scientific-Technical Council (DVNPS) consists of representatives from the FFA, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Federal Security Service (FSB), the Veterinary Agency, the Antimonopoly Agency, scientific institutions, fishing companies and associations and representatives of the indigenous peoples of the Russian Far East and Far North. It is established according to the Federal Fisheries Act. The Council is headed by a Deputy Director of the FFA, i.e. the

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 163 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

federal management authority. As with other public councils at different management levels, the Far Eastern Scientific-Technical Council has an advisory role in all aspects of fisheries management. It has a particularly important role in coordinating stakeholder input to revisions of fisheries legislation and regulations. The Council actively encourages proposals from stakeholders, who are invited to present their case at Council meetings, and acts as a coordinating body for further input into the management process. Meetings are held in different locations of the Far East in Vladivostok at least twice a year. Public and media are usually invited for meetings. The most important arena for interaction between the authorities and the salmon industry is the Anadromous Fisheries Council, the AFC. As mentioned under SI 3.1.1 a) above, all relevant governmental bodies as well as public organizations are represented on the Council, whose decisions are made by majority vote and have status as official regulations once their legality has been checked by the authorities (SVTU). Detailed protocols from the AFC meetings are available on the websites of both federal and regional fisheries authorities. The AFC has met on average 4-6 times per month the last couple of years. Consultation takes place on both fisheries and enhancement activities. At a more general level, all new federal regulations in Russia have to go through public hearings; i.e. all draft proposals for new regulations have to be published at the website https://regulation.gov.ru, administered by the Ministry of Economic Development, where the public are given 15–30 days to provide their comments. Further, the FFA has a dedicated “Open Agency” initiative which is comprehensively detailed on their website. In addition to the use of the Public Fisheries Council and consultation bodies at lower level, this includes the use of internet conferences with citizens, reference groups to discuss policy initiatives, and a general objective to increase public access to information. Management bodies also have functions on their websites by which citizens can get in touch with the authorities. E.g., at the website of the FFA, there is detailed information about how citizens can get in touch via telephone and directly from the website. There is even the possibility to book a personal appointment at the Agency. Stakeholders interviewed at the site visit state that they have tight contact with the authorities also at an informal level, and that they can contact them any time if they have a concern. Hence, the management system includes consultation processes that obtain relevant information from the main affected parties, including local knowledge, to inform the management system. SG 60 is met. SG80 - The processes regularly seek and accept relevant information, and the management system demonstrates consideration of the information obtained. SG 80 is met. SG100 - 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 through public discussions in the Anadromous Fish Commission (AFC) with decisions publicized on the internet. Consultations with stakeholders are conducted on the regional level via the AFC. As part of the consultation process AFC sends information used for pre-season management to all stakeholders. During its meeting, the AFC examines data on the intensity of salmon runs, hydrological regime in the spawning grounds and fill rate of spawning ground by spawners, as well as recommendation of KamchatNIRO on the timing and regulation of fishing. AFC decisions are recorded. The protocols of the AFC meetings are sent to all interested parties and published on web site of Federal Fishery Agency. SG100 is met.

Participation

The consultation process The consultation process provides opportunity for provides opportunity and Guide all interested and affected encouragement for all c parties to be involved. interested and affected post parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement.

Met? Yes No

Rationale

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 164 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

SG80 - As follows from SI 3.1.2 b) above, the consultation process provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved and facilitates their effective engagement, thus the SG80 is met. Meetings in public organizations such as the basin and region level fishery councils, as well as the AFC, are publicly announced and open to all stakeholders. The various hearings available online also provide the opportunity for public involvement. Hence, the consultation process provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved. SG100 - while internal information from the management agencies is technically available to the public, the process for obtaining it can be involved making access difficult. The process does not appear to always encourage and facilitate effective engagement by nongovernmental or industry interests. Mechanisms for involvement of environment and different interest groups as well as the broader community are not well developed, but there are number of non-governmental organizations that are interested in salmon fisheries in Kamchatka area. Stakeholders may have an opportunity for involvement but may have reluctance to participate as a carryover from Soviet days. This does not allow to score this PI 100.

References

“Orybolovstve … 2004”, article 33.

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score 85

Condition number (if relevant) --

PI 3.1.3 – Long term objectives The management policy for the SMU and associated enhancement activities has PI 3.1.3 clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making that are consistent with MSC fisheries standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Objectives

Long-term objectives to Clear long-term objectives Clear long-term objectives guide decision-making, that guide decision- that guide decision- consistent with the MSC making, consistent with making, consistent with a Guide Fisheries Standard and the MSC Fisheries Standard MSC Fisheries Standard precautionary approach, and the precautionary and the precautionary post are implicit within approach are explicit approach, are explicit management policy. within management policy. within and required by management policy.

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 165 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

SG60 - Russian fisheries law defines protection and rational use of aquatic biological resources as the main goal of the country’s fisheries management, including for anadromous species. “Protection and rational use” was an established concept in Soviet legislation on the protection of the environment and exploitation of natural resources, and has remained so in the Russian Federation. “Rational use” bears resemblance to the internationally recognized ideal of sustainability, insofar as the emphasis is on long- term and sustained use of the resource, supported by science for socioeconomic purposes. The Federal Fisheries Act states that the protection of aquatic biological resources shall be given priority to their rational use. The precautionary approach is not mentioned explicitly, but the requirement to protect aquatic biological resources and take the best scientific knowledge into account equals the requirements of the precautionary approach, as laid out in the FAO Code of Conduct. Furthermore, the provisions of international agreements entered into by the Russian Federation stand above those of national law, according to the 1993 Russian Constitution. The Russian Federation has signed and ratified a number of international agreements which adopt the precautionary approach, including the 1995 UN Straddling Stocks Agreement. Hence, SG60 is met.

SG80 - Clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach, are explicit within management policy. The over-arching fisheries and resource regulations cited earlier in this report lay out long-term objectives and long-term goals for the salmon fisheries of the Russian Far East. The regional fisheries management demonstrates its strategy towards sustainable use of fish resources by contribution to fisheries research, increasing control over poaching, development of modern fish-processing factory, contribution to social sphere, and organization of protected areas. The SG80 is met.

SG100 - Not met because objectives consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach are not always required by management policy. Such objectives are not made mandatory for lower-level regulations and policy implementation at national level.

References

Bugaev et al., 2018. “O rybolovstve ….” 2004

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score 80

Condition number (if relevant) --

PI 3.2.1 – Fishery-specific objectives The fishery-specific and associated enhancement management system(s) PI 3.2.1 activities have clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 166 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Objectives

Objectives, which are Short and long-term Well defined and broadly consistent with objectives, which are measurable short and achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving long-term objectives, expressed by MSC’s the outcomes expressed which are demonstrably a Guide Principles 1 and 2, are by MSC’s Principles 1 and consistent with achieving implicit within the fishery 2, are explicit within the the outcomes expressed by post and associated fishery and associated MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, enhancement enhancement are explicit within the management system(s). management system(s). fishery and associated enhancement management system(s).

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

SG60 - Objectives broadly consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 are explicit in the Russian salmon regulations, including to maintain the stocks at sustainable levels and protect other parts of the ecosystem. SG 60 is met.

SG80 - 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 and enhancement activities. These include short term objectives for spawning escapements intended to provide for maximum sustained yield and long-term objectives for fishery sustainability reflected in management regulation. For example, more than 30 regulatory legal acts of the Government of the Russian Federation have been passed in development of provisions of the law including a number of regulations address environmental impact of business. For instance, in the Law “On Protection of the Environment” (2001) (extracted from article 5) states that “Business activities of all subjects must follow such principles as:

• the right of a person on favourable environment;

• scientifically justified combination of interests of person, society and state with a goal of sustainable development and favorable environment;

• conservation, reproduction and rational use of natural resources as necessary preconditions of providing of favorable environment and ecological safety;

• presumption of ecological danger of planned business activities;

• compulsion of environmental assessment of planned business projects;

• priority of preservation of natural ecosystems, natural landscapes and natural complexes;

• protection of biodiversity;

• prohibition of any activity with unpredictable environmental consequences, and prohibition of the realization of projects, which may result in degradation of natural ecosystems and change or destruction of genetic diversity of plants, animals and other organisms, exhausting of natural resources and other negative changes of environment.

Objectives consistent with Principles 1 and 2 are also reflected in the absence of enhancement of species in areas which are under scope of this certification. Most rivers are completely free of hatcheries. According to overall strategy of development salmon fisheries in Russia, hatcheries are among the

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 167 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

priorities to increase fishery productivity. At the moment, however, there are no specific plans to further develop hatchery system in the Kamchatka. SG80 is met.

SG100 - Short and long-term objectives do not always provide clear measurable standards with respect to effects of fisheries on the ecosystem. Objectives are explicit with respect to protecting spawning escapement but are less clear on the environmental/ecosystem end. If ecosystem changes were observed, a response would be expected; but no substantive changes have occurred at the level of current monitoring. Therefore, this performance indicator might partially meet the SG100 for hatchery objectives but does not meet the SG100 for specific objectives related to fishery effects on the ecosystem.

References

Bugaev et al., 2018. “O rybolovstve… “ 2004. “Ob okhrane….” 2002

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score 80

Condition number (if relevant) --

PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes The fishery-specific and associated enhancement management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and PI 3.2.2 strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Decision-making processes

There are some decision- There are established making processes in place decision-making a Guide that result in measures and processes that result in strategies to achieve the measures and strategies post fishery-specific and to achieve the fishery- enhancement objectives. specific and enhancement objectives.

Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

SG60 - Established decision-making procedures at federal and regional levels have evolved over several decades and are now codified in the Federal Fisheries Act, general provisions for fisheries in the Far

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 168 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Eastern Fishery Basin and specific regulations for the salmon fishery. The Ministry of Agriculture decides on policy and regulatory schemes, while the FFA acts as an implementing body under the Ministry, with a main responsibility for secondary legislation and day-to-day regulation of the fishery (see SI 3.1.1 a) above). The FFA acts centrally, but to a large extent also through its regional departments (here: SVTU) and subordinate bodies of governance (such as the rybvods, here: KamchatRybvod). Most of the practical regulation of the salmon fishery is delegated to the Commission on the Management of Harvesting of Anadromous Fish Stocks, which is led by the (regional) Governor. The decision-making processes include the establishment of regulatory measures based on scientific advice and corroborated in stakeholder bodies, public hearings and environmental impact assessments. Consultation mechanisms are further described in SI 3.1.2 b) above, the enforcement system in SI 3.2.3 a) below. Hence, there are decision-making processes in place that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. This applies to the UoA fishery as it does to Russian fisheries in general; see PIs 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 above. SG 60 is met.

SG80 - Well-established and formal decision-making processes result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. The Anadromous Fish Commission (AFC) is a central feature of the decision-making process. The AFC is responsible for the distribution of recommended yearly catch of salmon among users and identifying areas of commercial fishery, recreational fishing, and traditional fishery of the indigenous population. The AFC is chaired by the regional governor and consists of government, industry and interested stakeholders. These include representatives from Federal executive bodies, including the federal security and environment protection authorities, as well as representatives of the regional government, federal, public associations, consolidations of legal entities (associations and unions), and scientific organizations. Upon the request of fishing companies, the AFC sets up the recommended catch for a management unit area and accepts applications from the users, each of which cannot exceed the total recommended catch for management unit. In case of approaching recommended catch for some management unit, AFC can close fishing or increase the recommended catch following recommendations of KamchatNIRO. The AFC meets regularly before and over the course of the fishing season. The AFC’s decisions are made through discussions and consultations with stakeholders. All meetings are open to the public. SG80 is met.

Responsiveness of decision-making processes

Decision-making Decision-making Decision-making processes respond to processes respond to processes respond to all serious issues identified serious and other issues identified in in relevant research, important issues relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and identified in relevant monitoring, evaluation and b Guide consultation, in a research, monitoring, consultation, in a transparent, timely and evaluation and transparent, timely and post adaptive manner and take consultation, in a adaptive manner and take some account of the wider transparent, timely and account of the wider implications of decisions. adaptive manner and take implications of decisions. account of the wider implications of decisions.

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

SG60 - The well-established decision-making procedures at federal and regional level in Russia respond to issues identified in research, monitoring, evaluation or by groups with an interest in the fishery through the arenas for regular consultations between governmental agencies and the public. This happens in the fishery councils at basin and regional level and through ad hoc consultation with the industry and other stakeholders (see PI 3.1.2 above). In addition, there is close contact between authorities and scientific research institutions, primarily between the FFA and VNIRO at the federal level and their subordinate bodies at regional level. In the UoA fishery, the AFC is the primary arena for interaction between the authorities and industry. Stakeholders interviewed at the site visit claim that the authorities’ respond to serious and other important issues, that their response is transparent and timely, and that the ensuing

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 169 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

policy options take adequate account of their advice. They describe both the fishery councils and the AFC as very operational and responsive; their work is based on input from the scientific institutes and rybvods, as well as stakeholders, and they always respond in a timely manner. SG 60 is met.

SG80 - 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. KamchatNIRO uses relevant information to provide pre- season forecasts so that fishermen, buyers, processors, and the Anadromous Fish Commission can plan for the upcoming season. The Anadromous Fish Commission considers a wide range of issues regularly reported by federal and regional agencies and those brought up by stakeholders to make in-season decisions. All stakeholders have an opportunity to attend the Anadromous Fish Commission meetings. SG80 is met.

SG100 - It cannot be concluded that decision-making processes respond to all issues due to the lack of transparency regarding many internal decisions by Russian governmental agencies. For instance, information on run size, harvest by time and area, fishery management actions, and escapement is not typically reported outside the management system except in summary form in the case of serious and other important issues addressed during public processes. The SG100 is not met.

Use of precautionary approach

Decision-making c Guide processes use the precautionary approach post and are based on best available information.

Met? Yes

Rationale

SG80 - The Federal Fisheries Act, which also applies to anadromous fisheries, requires fisheries management to be based on the precautionary approach (see PI 3.1.3 above). Decision-making processes at the national level in Russia are based on scientific recommendations from VNIRO and its regional branches; in the UoA fishery: KamchatNIRO. This happens at all management levels, including within the AFC. The decision-making processes are compliant with the national legislation (Law “On protection of the environment” (2001)) requiring the priority conservation of resources and favorable environment, and are based on best available information provided by research institute KamchatNIRO and territorial branch of FAR - SVTU. The use of diversified Spawner-Recruit models and testing of LRP demonstrate the precautionary approach. Information received in-season assures that the management system uses current information. The target reference point occurs approximately at the midpoint of the optimal escapement range. Higher levels of precaution would occur as the target moved toward the upper end of the range.

Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process

Some information on the Information on the Formal reporting to all fishery’s performance and fishery’s performance interested stakeholders management action is d and management action provides comprehensive generally available on , Guide is available on request information on the request to stakeholders. and explanations are fishery’s performance

provided for any actions or and management actions post lack of action associated and describes how the with findings and relevant management system recommendations responded to findings and emerging from research, relevant recommendations emerging from research,

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 170 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

monitoring, evaluation and monitoring, evaluation and review activity. review activity.

Met? Yes No No

Rationale

SG60. 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. This is achieved by transparent decision-making in the Anadromous Fish Commission, which gathers for meetings once per several days during a fishing season. For instance, in 2018 the Commission carried out 34 meetings from 9 April to 25 October devoted to management of Pacific salmon and char fisheries. Decisions are available for all interested parties and immediate (usually within few hours after the meeting) publication of its decisions at the SVTU website. The protocols contain information about participants of the meeting, questions discussed, results of voting and decisions have been made accompanying by relevant information. Moreover, significant amount of information about current situation is available from the SVTU website.

SG80 - At the same time, monitoring of decision making for the fishery is limited by the inconsistent availability of information outside the local governmental management system. Results of fishing season and effectiveness of management actions undertaken are discussed at the both management agencies such as AFC, SVTU and FAR, and also at Research Councils of fisheries institutes such as KamchatNIRO, TINRO-Center and VNIRO on a regular basis. However, information on run size, harvest by time and area, fishery management actions, and escapement is not typically reported outside the management system except in rare cases. Despite all protocols of the Anadromous Fish Commission are freely available, there is no navigation system (for instance, by keywords), which would make the necessary information easy to search. Occasional publications of related information (e.g. Shevliakov 2013b) provide a historical perspective but are not sufficient to allow tracking action associated with findings and relevant recommendations. Inconsistent availability of annual fish run and fishery information outside the local governmental management system limits the availability of information for actions or lack of action associated with findings and relevant recommendations; therefore, the fishery does not score 80.

Approach to disputes

Although the management The management system The management system authority or fishery may be or fishery is attempting to or fishery acts proactively to subject to continuing court comply in a timely fashion avoid legal disputes or challenges, it is not with judicial decisions rapidly implements judicial e Guide indicating a disrespect or arising from any legal decisions arising from legal defiance of the law by challenges. challenges. post repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery.

Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

SG60 – The Russian system for fisheries management is not subject to continuing court challenges or indicating a disrespect or defiance of the law by repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery. SG 60 is met.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 171 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

SG80 - When occasionally taken to court by fishing companies, the management authority complies with the judicial decision in a timely manner. SG 80 is met.

SG100 – all stakeholders interested in salvation of disputes are able to appeal to the court. The management system or fishery is attempting to comply in a timely fashion with binding judicial decisions arising from any legal challenges. Recent examples from the Russian management system shows effective functioning of the system of resolving of legal disputes. These disputes are directly relevant for this certification as well. After the court procedures, this conflict has been resolved. The examples demonstrate that the management system or fishery acts proactively to avoid legal disputes or rapidly implements binding judicial decisions arising from legal challenge. Based on open-access protocols, it is also unlikely that the company regularly repeats the violations of the same laws, which could have compromised the sustainability required in P1 and P2. Thus, the SG100 can be awarded.

References

“O rybolovstve… “ 2004. Database with court decisions http://sudact.ru/regular/participant/nX2uCqjkPrYc/

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score 75

Condition number (if relevant) 4

Condition 4. Demonstrate that information on fishery performance and management action is available on request, and explanations are provided for any actions or lack of action associated with findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity.

PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management PI 3.2.3 measures in the fishery and associated enhancement activities are enforced and complied with

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

MCS implementation

Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive surveillance mechanisms surveillance system has monitoring, control and a exist, and are implemented been implemented in the surveillance system has Guide in the fishery and fishery and associated been implemented in the

post associated enhancement enhancement activities fishery and associated activities and there is a and has demonstrated an enhancement activities reasonable expectation ability to enforce relevant and has demonstrated a that they are effective. consistent ability to enforce relevant management

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 172 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

management measures, measures, strategies strategies and/or rules. and/or rules.

Met? Yes No No

Rationale

SG60 - a monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery under assessment. Enforcement of fisheries regulations in Russia is the joint responsibility of the FFA though its regional offices – in the UoA fisheries: SVTU – and the Coast Guard, which is under the Border Service of the Federal Security Service (FSB). The FFA is responsible for control of quota uptake and also takes care of paper control related to licenses, catch logs and VMS data, while the Coast Guard carries out physical inspections at sea. The Coast Guard’s authority is limited to marine waters; the FFA, through its regional offices and those of the rybvods (see SI 3.1.1 a)), is responsible for the management of freshwater basins. Fish caught in waters under Russian jurisdiction must be landed in Russian ports. The Coast Guard conducts random inspections at sea, including from helicopters. Inspectors control the catch, gear and documents. The Federal Fisheries Monitoring Center, with its 7 territorial departments is the technical hub for all electronic reporting from the fishing companies and vessels, including electronic logbooks and other catch reports as well as VMS data. The FFA territorial departments and the Coast Guard cooperate tightly with the Fisheries Monitoring Centers, as well as with other countries and international fisheries organizations. Working on behalf of the FFA in Kamchatsky Krai, SVTU has an enforcement department with fisheries inspection squads located in every local administrative area (rayon). Squads are staffed with inspectors, and non-staff inspectors who can apply for limited enforcement authority (up till the point at which an infringement is reported) and guards hired from private security companies. The inspectors are occasionally assisted by the police, prosecutors, and other governmental enforcement bodies. During the harvest of salmon, “anti-poaching brigades” from SVTU carry out daily and nightly rounds on spawning rivers in order to prevent poaching. The Veterinary Service (in Russian: Rosselkhoznadzor) is the only sluzhba ([controlling] service; see above) under the Ministry of Agriculture. For several years in the mid- and late 2000s, it was responsible for monitoring and enforcement across all fields of work under the Ministry, including fisheries, but now its remit is limited to more traditional veterinary services, such as supervision of animal health. Hence, it is responsible for sanitary inspections of landed fish. The Ministry of Agriculture and its subordinate bodies of governance cooperate with other governmental agencies in the enforcement of fisheries regulations. The Federal Customs Service inspects cargoes with fish caught under Russian jurisdiction and intended for export and hence plays an important role in maintaining traceability of fish products. The Federal Tax Service is involved in investigations of economic crime within the fishing industry. The Ministry of Natural Resources through its Agency for Monitoring of Natural Resources (Rosprirodnadzor) assessess the environmental impact of fisheries and is responsible for the protection of habitats and protected, endangered or threatened species. All the enforcement agencies and stakeholders report reduction of level of illegal fishing in all the areas of Kamchatka during the last decade in comparison with extremely high level of illegal fishing during 1990s-early 2000s. Reforms in the management system have effectively addressed high historical levels of under-reported on misreported catches by commercial fishing companies. Well-run and profitable fishing companies, including those in the assessment, reportedly demonstrate a very high rate of compliance and also support enforcement efforts throughout the fishery. Valuable long-term leases provide a large incentive for sustainable management and for compliance. Both client companies intensively cooperate with state enforcement agencies (SVTU, State police) to enforce salmon spawning rivers within UoC (Supplement 1, 2). SG 60 is met. SG80 – An assessment of illegal harvest has been completed as a condition of assessments in other areas of west Kamchatka (Shevlyakov 2013; Shevlyakov et al. 2016). This assessment found that some poaching continues to occur among local residents but that the current monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented and demonstrated some ability to enforce relevant

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 173 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

management measures, strategies and/or rules in order to provide significant control of illegal harvest, particularly in areas of limited road access.

At the same time, there is information about poaching in in Vorovskaya River, which is easily accessible from villages Sobolevo and Ustievoe (total population 2005 inhabitants). It is important also that these rivers are connected to Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky by so-called technological road constructed to build up and maintain gaze pipeline. Quality of this road is not good, but nevertheless, is actively used for transportation of illegal roe from this area to Petropovlovsk-Kamchatsky (http://www.chaspik41.ru/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/1-67.pdf). Other sources also confirm high level of poaching in Vorovskaya River http://www.kamchatinfo.com/news/ecology/detail/3272/; http://www.regnum.ru/news/1725345.html.

Therefore, the SG80 nor the SG100 is met.

Sanctions

Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- b compliance exist and there compliance exist, are compliance exist, are Guide is some evidence that they consistently applied and consistently applied and post are applied. thought to provide effective demonstrably provide deterrence. effective deterrence.

Met? Yes No No

Rationale

SG60 - Sanctions to deal with non-compliance in Russian waters exist in within the system for fisheries management, as well as in the wider legal system. Both make wide use of administrative fines and refer serious cases to the judicial system. The Russian Federal Fisheries Act requires the withdrawal of quota rights if a fishing company has committed two serious violations of the fisheries regulations within one calendar year, among other things. The Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Infractions specifies the level of fines that can be issued administratively by enforcement bodies, e.g. up to RUR 5,000 for “citizens”, 50,000 for “executive officers” and 200,000 for companies. The Criminal Code requires that illegal fishing such as causing “large damage”, conducted in spawning areas or migration ways leading to such areas, or in marine protected areas be penalized by either fines up to RUR 300,000 or an amount corresponding to 1-2 years’ income for the violator, compulsory work of no less than 480 hours, corrective work for at least two years or arrest for at least 6 months. Hence, sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and there is evidence that they are applied. SG60 is met.

SG80 – Questions remain regarding the consistency of application and the effectiveness of deterrence for illegal harvest activities in freshwater by non-commercial fishers. Sanctions do not appear to provide effective deterrence to components of illegal fishing which remains significant in accessible systems including the Vorovskaya River. While apparently much reduced from historical levels, illegal harvest remains a chronic concern in other areas.

Compliance

Fishers and hatchery Some evidence exists to There is a high degree of operators are generally demonstrate fishers and confidence that fishers c thought to comply with the hatchery operators comply and hatchery operators management system for with the management comply with the Guide the fishery and associated system under assessment, management system post enhancement activities including, when required, under assessment, under assessment, providing information of including, providing including, when required, importance to the effective information of importance providing information of management of the fishery to the effective management of the fishery

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 174 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

importance to the effective and associated and associated management of the fishery. enhancement activities. enhancement activities.

Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

SG60 –. All stakeholders interviewed at the site visit, including those representing the enforcement section of SVTU, claim that compliance in the fishery is very high. They also report that there is little incentive to cheat; that it is difficult to cheat because of the remoteness of the fishing area. Hence, fishers are generally thought to comply with the requirements of the management system, including, when required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery. SG60 is met.

SG80 - These unequivocal statements by enforcement authorities – seen together with the lack of incentives and limited possibilities to cheat, makes it reasonable to conclude that there is some evidence that fishers comply; hence SG80 is also met.

SG100 - there is a high degree of confidence that commercial fishing companies included in this assessment comply with the management system under assessment, including providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery and its enhancement activities. There is no evidence of systematic noncompliance by commercial fishing companies in the judicial protocols, the authorities and stakeholders also confirm the compliance of the companies participating in this certification. “Zarya” and “Kolpakovsky” companies closely cooperate with SVTU to protect salmon populations from illegal activities and fund enforcement hiring people to help state fish inspection. Moreover, incentives for illegal fishing for companies considerably reduced after introduction of Olympic system of management in 2008.

Systematic non-compliance

d There is no evidence of Guide systematic non- post compliance.

Met? Yes

Rationale

There is no evidence of systematic noncompliance by commercial fishing companies in the judicial protocols, the authorities and stakeholders also confirm the compliance of the companies participating in this certification. Thus, the guidepost is met.

References

http://www.kamprok.ru/brakoneram-iz-karaginskogo-rajona-ne-udalos-ujti-ot-otvetstvennosti/. (http://ikornaya.ru/articles/284/ Bugaev et al., 2018

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 175 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Overall Performance Indicator score 70

Condition number (if relevant) 5

Condition 5. Demonstrate that a monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery and associated enhancement activities and has demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules, and that sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are consistently applied and thought to provide effective deterrence.

PI 3.2.4 – Monitoring and management performance evaluation There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery- specific and enhancement management system(s) against its objectives PI 3.2.4 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific and associated enhancement program(s) management system

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Evaluation coverage

The fishery and associated The fishery and associated The fishery and associated a enhancement program(s) enhancement program(s) enhancement program(s) Guide have in place mechanisms have in place mechanisms have in place mechanisms post to evaluate some parts of to evaluate key parts of the to evaluate all parts of the the management system. management system. management system.

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

SG60 – There are various mechanisms in place to evaluate key parts of the fishery-specific management system, but at varied levels of ambition and coverage. At the fishery council meetings, found at federal, basin and regional levels (see SI 3.1.2 b) above), management authorities receive feedback on management practices from the industry and other interested stakeholders. Information on run size, harvest by time and area, river openers and closures, and escapement is typically reported within the management system and may be reviewed by stakeholders upon request. The FFA and the Ministry of Agriculture report annually to the Government, the Presidential Administration and the Federal Assembly (to both the lower chamber, the State Duma, and the upper chamber, the Federation Council) about their work, with emphasis on achievements in the fishing industry. Other federal agencies also review parts of the fisheries management system. For instance, the Auditor General evaluates how allocated funds are spent, and the Anti-Monopoly Service how competition and investment rules are observed. Within FFA, there is regular review of the performance of the Agency’s regional offices. In the establishment of RCs, the scientific advice from VNIRO’s regional branches is peer reviewed by the head office in Moscow, and then forwarded to FFA and the federal natural resources monitoring agency Rosprirodnadzor for comments. It is also presented to the general public for discussion at public hearings, announced in the local press. At the regional level, the Kamchatka Fishery Ministry FFA is under scrutiny by the regional Government in Kamchatka Kray, as well as the legislative body at oblast level, the regional Duma. Therefore, SG60 is met.

SG80 - The fishery and its enhancement programs have in place mechanisms to evaluate key parts of the management system. Key elements include catch monitoring process and the stock assessment that determine the level of removals occur during the annual fishing season and at the end to ensure the possibility of allowed catch over-run are minimized. There are mechanisms in place to adjust allowed catch or the allocation of allowed catch between management units these are evaluated annually. At the

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 176 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

same time, available information does not prove that all parts of the management system are evaluated, which does not allow to score this element 100.

Internal and/or external review

The fishery-specific and The fishery-specific and The fishery-specific and associated enhancement associated enhancement associated enhancement b program(s) management program(s) management program(s) management Guide system is subject to system is subject to system is subject to post occasional internal regular internal and regular internal and review. occasional external external review. review.

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

SG60 – Regular internal review of the fishery-specific management system is performed through FFA’s continuous evaluation of the performance of regional management in the Far Eastern Fishery Basin, including the Kamchatka salmon fishery, and other forms of review listed under SI 3.2.4 a) above. Therefore, SG60 is met.

SG80 – Guidance for this indicator considers whether there are opportunities and/or forums for decision- makers to receive feedback on the management system. The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate key parts of the management system and are subject to regular internal review. Results of fishing season and effectiveness of management actions undertaken are discussed at the both management agencies such as AFC, SVTU and FAR, and also at Research Councils of fisheries institutes such as KamchatNIRO, TINRO-Center and VNIRO on a regular basis (Shevlyakov et al. 2016). Methodical approaches to stock evaluation and the recommended volumes are discussed by a specialized Salmon Council of the Far East industry institutes within the research and engineering association of the Pacific Institute of Fishery and Oceanography (NTO TINRO), then assessed by the Scientific Council of KamchatNIRO, then by the Scientific Council of TINRO-Center and VNIRO (Russian Federation Research Institute of Fishery and Oceanography). After that the recommended regional volumes of Pacific salmon are reviewed and approved by the Industry Council of Rosrybolovstvo (Russian Federal Fisheries Agency).

As regards external review, the MSC Fisheries Standard states that external here means “external to the fishery”, but not necessarily international. The Guidance (GSA4.10.1) specifies that “external” review might be conducted by another department within an agency, or another agency or organization within the country. It is a matter of definition where the division line goes between internal and external reviews, and to what extent external review of elements of the management system constitutes review of the management as such; e.g. review of scientific information is not a review of the management system itself. The fishery also has in place mechanisms for occasional external review. The FAR interacts with various agencies at the federal level while controlling its territorial departments and provides oversight of departments under its jurisdiction. The FAR evaluates the management system through its responsibility for defining the rules and the areas of fisheries and for preparation of federal-level and agency-level reports on the fishing industry. Federal review provides periodic external review of fishery programs implemented by the FAR. The operation of this system was demonstrated by changes in the system of fishery allocation from an assigned quota by fishing company to the Olympic system where the harvestable surplus is not allocated by fishing company prior to the fishing season. This change occurred in response to regional and Federal review processes working on concert. Therefore, SG80 is met.

SG100 – The fishery is not subject to regular external review as part of an established process.

References

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 177 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Bugaev et al., 2018; “O rybolovstve… “ 2004.

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score 80

Condition number (if relevant) --

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 178 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

6 References Antonov N.P. 2011. Biology, population dynamics and rational exploitation of fish of the Kamchatka and adjacent marine territories. Doctoral thesis. VNIRO, Moscow. Aydin K., Gaichas S., Ortiz I., Kinzey D., Friday N. 2008. A comparison of the Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska, and Aleutian Islands large marine ecosystems through food web modeling. NOAA NMFS Tech Memo. 233 p. Blikshteyn, M. 2011. Vityaz‐Avto Ozernaya River sockeye salmon fisheries improvement project. Wild Salmon Center. Portland OR.

Bugaev V. F. 1995. Asian sockeye salmon (freshwater period of life, the structure of local populations, population dynamics) // M: Kolos. 464 p. Bugaev, A.V., Yu.N. Amelchenko and S.V. Lipnyagov. 2014. Rainbow smelt Osmerus mordax dentex in the shelf zone and inland waters of Kamchatka: state of stocks, fishing and biological structure//News of the Pacific Research and Development Commercial Fishing Center. - 2014. - V. 178. - P. 3-24. (Russian). Bugaev A.V., O.V. Zikunova, N.B. Artyukhina, M.G. Feldman and S.V. Shubkin. 2018. Report on Contract No. 43/18-NIR dated 19.12.2018. Topic: Analysis of the stock status, management system and ecological risks of Pacific salmon fisheries (pink salmon, chum salmon, sockeye, coho) in some water bodies of the Sobolevsky District of West Kamchatka (Icha, Oblukovina, Krutogorova, Kolpakova, Vorovskaya Rivers) within the framework of scientific support for the certification of the Zarya LLC fisheries according to the standards of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), KamchatNiro, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. Bugaev V. F., Vronskiy B. B., Zavarina L. O., Zorbidi Z.K., Ostroumov A. G., Tiller I. V. 2007. Fishes of the Kamchatka River. Edited by Dr. Sc. Bugaev V.F. Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy: Izdatel'stvo KamchatNIRO, 459 p. Bugaev, V. F. 2011. Asian sockeye salmon (freshwater period of life, biological structure, population dynamics). Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy: Izdatelstvo “Kamchatpress.” Burkanov V. N. 1988. Modern state of the resources of marine mammals in Kamchatka // Rational use of biological resources Kamchatka shelf. Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy: Dal’nevostochnoe kn. izd-vo, Kamchatskoe otd-nie, Pp. 138-176. Essington T. E. 2009. Trophic cascades in open ocean ecosystems. In: Terborgh J.W., Estes J.A. (Eds.). The science of trophic cascades. Island Press. Feldman, M.G and E.A. Shevlyakov. 2015. Survival capacity of Kamchatka pink salmon as a result of the cumulative effect of density regulation and external environmental factors// News of the Pacific Research and Development Commercial Fishing Center. V.182. pp. 88-114 (Russian). Gaichas S. K, Francis R. C. 2008. Network models for ecosystem-based fishery analysis: a review of concepts and application to the Gulf of Alaska marine food web. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., V. 65: pp. 1965-1982. Gende S. M., Edwards R. T., Willson M. F., Wipfli M. S. 2002. Pacific Salmon in Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecosystems. BioScience V. 52: pp. 917-928. Groot C., Margolis L. Pacific Salmon Life Histories. 1991. Vancouver, British Columbia (Canada). UBC Press. 564 p. Irvine J. R., and 9 coauthors. 2009. Pacific salmon status and abundance trends. North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission Document 1199, rev. 1.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 179 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

KamchatNIRO. 2017. Review of stock status of pink salmon, chum, sockeye salmon in rivers Laguna Kavacha, Pakhacha, and in the costal line from river Emet to Impuka Severnaya (Imka) of Karaginsky Bay of Bering Sea. Prepared for pre-assessment against the standards on sustainable fisheries of Marine Stewardship Council. Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, March 2017. Kizevetter I. V. 1971. Technological and chemical characteristics of commercial fish of the Pacific rim. Vladivostok: Palizdar, 298 p. Kosygin G. M., Trukhin A. M., Burkanov V. N., Makhnyr A.I. 1986. Rookeries of seals on the shores of the Okhotsk sea // Scientific research works on marine mammals of the Northern Pacific Ocean in 1984-1985. M: VNIRO, Pp. 60-70. Krashennikov S.P. 1949. Description of the Kamchatka. With supplementary reports and other unpublished materials. M: Glavsevmorput’. Lajus, D. 2020. Marine Stewardship Council certifications of fisheries as a source of information on status of non-target species: cases of the Russian Barents Sea codfish and Far East salmon trapnet fisheries. Draft manuscript.

Mahnken C., Ruggerone G., Waknitz W., Flagg T. 1998. A historical perspective on salmonid production from Pacific Rim hatcheries. North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission Bulletin 1: Pp. 38-53. MRAG. 2019. Tymlat-Karaginsky Bay salmon fisheries. Public Comment Draft Report. January 2019. MSC.org. Myers K. W., Walker R. V., Davis N. D., Armstrong J. L., Kaeriyama M. 2009. High seas distribution, biology, and ecology of Arctic–Yukon–Kuskokwim salmon: direct information from high seas tagging experiments, 1954–2006. Pp. 201–239 in C.C. Krueger and C.E. Zimmerman, editors. Pacific Salmon: ecology and management of western Alaska’s populations. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 70, Bethesda, Maryland. Naydenko S. V. 2009. The role of Pacific salmon in the trophic structure of the upper epipelagic layer of the western Bering Sea during summer–autumn 2002–2006. N. Pac. Anadr. Fish Comm. Bull. 5: pp. 231–241. Ostroumov A.G. 1968. Aerovisual counting of brown bear in Kamchatka and some results of observations on the behaviour of animals. Biuleten moskovskogo obschestva ispytatelei prirody. Otdelenie biologia, vypusk 73: 35-50. Peterman R. M. 1991. Density-dependent marine processes in North Pacific salmonids: Lessons for experimental design of large-scale manipulations of fish stocks. ICES Marine Science Symposium 192: pp. 69-77. Rassadnikov O. A. 2006. Forecasted and actual catch of salmon in the Far eastern basin in 1993- 2006. Bulleten N 1 Realizatsii Kontseptsii Dal’nevostochnoy Basseynovoy programmy izuchenia tikhookeanskikh lososey”. Izdatelstvo TINRO-Tsentr. Vladivostok. Red data book of Kamchatka. 2006. Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy: Kamchatskiy pechatnyy dvor. Knizhnoe izdatelstvo. V. 1. 272 p. Ruggerone G. T., Goetz F. A. 2004. Survival of Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in response to climate-induced competition with pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, V. 61: pp. 1756-1770. Ruggerone G. T., Nielsen J. L. 2004. Evidence for competitive dominance of pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) over other salmonids in the North Pacific Ocean. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, V. 14: pp. 371-390.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 180 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Ruggerone G. T., Zimmermann M., Myers K. W., Nielsen J. L., Rogers D. E. 2003. Competition between Asian pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and Alaskan sockeye salmon (O. nerka) in the North Pacific Ocean. Fisheries Oceanography. V. 12 (3): pp. 209–219. Ruggerone G. T., Farley E., Nielsen J., Hagen P. 2005. Seasonal marine growth of Bristol Bay sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in relation to competition with Asian pink salmon (O. gorbuscha) and the 1977 ocean regime shift. Fish. Bull. V. 103: pp. 355¬370. Ruggerone G.T., Peterman R.M., Dorner B., Myers K.W. 2010. Magnitude and trends in abundance of hatchery and wild pink, chum, and sockeye salmon in the North Pacific Ocean. Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem Science, V. 2: pp. 306-328. Sandercock F.K. 1991. Life history of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kistuch). Pages 395 to 446 in C. Groot and L. Margolis, editors. Pacific salmon life histories. University of British Columbia Press. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Schindler D.E., Scheurell M.D., Moore J.W., Gende S.M., Francis T.B., Palen W.J. 2003. Pacific salmon and the ecology of coastal ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 1:31–37. Semenov D., Yanislavsky V., Markov P. 2015. Independent Observers Vitiaz-Avto and Delta Fishery Report. Kamchatka Fish Fund. Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky Sharp, D., S. Sharr, and C. Peckham. 1994. Homing and straying patterns of coded wire tagged Pink salmon in Prince William Sound. Proceedings of the 16th northeast Pacific Pink and chum salmon workshop. University of Alaska, Sea Grant Program, Report 94-02:77–82. (Fairbanks.) Shevlyakov E. A. 2011. Increasing the level of environmental responsibility of resource users: practical recommendations for implementing the principles of responsible fishing, taking into account the standards of voluntary environmental certification MSC. Grant Report WWF19/RU007020/GLM. 35 pp. Shevlyakov E. A. 2013. Structure and dynamics of illegal coastal fishing of Pacific salmon in Kamchatka region in modern period // Rybnoe khozyaystvo, №2. C. 58-65. Shevlyakov, E. A., Dubynin, V. A., and A. Bugaev. 2011. Improving environmental responsibility of the resource: practical recommendations for implementing principles of sustainable fishery based on voluntary environmental standards for MSC certification. Federal Agency for Fisheries, Kamchatka Research Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography. Report to the World Wildlife Federation (Project WWF19/RU007020/GLM). Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. Shevlyakov E. A., Dubynin V. A., Zaporozhets O. M., Golobokova V. N. 2014. Report on the Contract N28/13-BO on topic: scientific support of certification MSC of Bolsheretsk LTD”. KamchatNIRO. Shevlyakov, E. A., V. A. Dubynin, M. G. Feldman, L. O. Zavarina, I. V. Tiller, S.V. Shubkin, O. A. Zakharova, O. V. Zikunova N. B. Artyukhina, and V. N. Baeva. 2016. Report under Contract No. 04/15-НИР dated 23.06.2015 Subject: Pacific salmon (Humpback, chum, red, coho, Chinook) population characteristics, target indexes and harvest management system in certain rivers (Vorovskaya, Kol, Opala, Golygina, Koshegochek, Ozernaya) in West Kamchatka (scientific justification of Pacific salmon harvest certification to MSC standards for Vityaz-Avto LLC and Delta LLC). KamchatNiro, Petropavlovsk. Shevlyakov, E. A., V. A. Dubynin, M. G. Feldman, L. O. Zavarina, S.V. Shubkin, and O. A. Zakharova. 2017. REPORT ON CONTRACT No 24/17-НИР dated 05.10.2017 Object: "Population dynamics, biological structure and management system of Pacific salmon local stocks fishing (pink salmon, chum salmon) in some rivers (Tymlat, Kichiga, Ossora, Virovayam, Belaya, Paklavayam, Karaga, Dranka, Vytvirovayam) of Eastern Kamchatka

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 181 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

(scientific follow-up for Pacific salmon fishery certification according to the MSC standards for LLC Tymlatskiy Rybokombinat)." KamchatNiro, Petropavlovsk. Shuntov V. P., Temnykh O. S. 2008. Pacific salmon in marine and ocean ecosystems: monograph. V. 1 // Vladivostok: TINRO-Tsentr, 481 p. Shuntov V. P., Temnykh O. S. 2011. Pacific salmon in marine and ocean ecosystems: monograph. Pacific Scientific-Research Fisheries Center. Vladivostok: TINRO-Tsentr, V. 2. 473 p. Steller G.V. 1999. Opisanie zemli Kamchatki [Description of the Kamchatka land]. Petropavlovsk- Kamchatskiy. Kamchatskiy Knizhnyi Dvor. Temnykh O.S., Kurenkova E.V. 2006. Distinctive features of preanadromous and postctadromous migrations of pink salmon in the western Bering Sea in 2002-2006. TINRO. V.151. P. 96-114. Temnykh O. S., Zavolokin A. V., Koval M. V. 2010. Russian Research under the NPAFC Research Plan 2006-2010: A Review and Future Issues. Pacific Research Fisheries Center (TINRO- Center), Vladivostok, Russia. NPAFC Doc. 1238. 23 pp. (Available at www.npafc.org). Urawa S., Sato S., Crane P. A., Agler B., Josephson R., Azumaya T. 2009. Stock-specific ocean distribution and migration of chum in the Bering Sea and North Pacific Ocean. N. Pac. Anadr. Fish Comm. Bull. V. 5: pp. 131-146. Vronskiy B. B. 1972. Materials on the reproduction of the Oncorhynchus tschawytscha (Walbaum) of the River Kamchatka // Vopr. Ikhtiologii. V. 12. № 2. P. 293-308. Vronskiy B. B. 1994. Dependence of reproduction efficiency of Chinook salmon in the basin of the river Kamchatka from the hydrological regime // Systematics, biology and biotechnology of salmonids breeding. St. Petersburg. Materials of the Fifth All-Russian Conference. P. 34- 35. Zavarina L. O. 2003. Biological structure of the chum salmon Oncorhynchus keta of the northeastern coast of Kamchatka // Readings of the memory of V. Ya. Levanidov. Issue 2. Vladivostok, March 19-21, 2003. Vladivostok. Dal'nauka. Pp. 531-540. Zikunova O. V. 2014. Biological characteristics of the Oncorhynchus tschawytscha (Walbaum) breeding stock of the River Kamchatka basin // Issled. Vodn. Biol. Resursov Kamchatki i sev.- zap. chasti Tikhogo okeana. Sb. Nauch. Tr. Kamchat. NII ryb. khoz-va i okeanografii. Issue 32. Pp. 48-58. Zorbidi Z.K. 2010. Asian stocks of coho salmon. Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy: KamchatNIRO, 306 p.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 182 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

7 Appendices 7.1 Evaluation processes and techniques 7.1.1 Site visits A site visit was held in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Russian Federation on June 24 – July 5, 2019. Meetings were conducted in the Company Offices. A meeting with government scientific agency KamchatNIRO was conducted at the agency office. Participants in attendance are identified in Table 18. This site visit was part of a 2-week on-site visit to several Kamchatka salmon fisheries in either their first full assessment or surveillance cycles.

Table 18. Site visit meetings in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatka, 2019 (all between 24 June and 5 July) Имя / Name Организация / Organization Должность / Title Location / время и место встреч Aleksandr Zarya, LLC Company Group Representative & Zarya & Kolpakovsky group Kalyuzhny & President meetings in Geyzer Hotel in Association of Fishing PK and at the “Zapadny Enterprises "Fishermen of Bereg” processing plant at Western Kamchatka" Kolpakova River Maria Zarya, LLC Company Group Representative Zarya & Kolpakovsky group Simkhovich & Kamchatka Association of & meetings in Geyzer Hotel in Salmon Fishermen Secretary PK and “Zapadny Bereg” processing plant at Kolpakova River Aleksandr Kolpakovsky rybokombinat, General Director Zarya & Kolpakovsky group Titov LLC meetings in Geyzer Hotel in PK and at the “Zapadny Bereg” processing plant at Kolpakova River Pyotr Kolpakovsky rybokombinat Representative Zarya & Kolpakovsky group Petukhov Company Group meeting in Geyzer Hotel in PK Aleksandr Zapadnye Bereg, LLC General Director Zarya & Kolpakovsky group Gordienko meeting at the “Zapadny Bereg” processing plant at Kolpakova River Natalia ForSea Solutions Founder and Director All Novikova Randy ForSea Solutions & RP Fisheries Advisor All Ericksen Ericksen Consulting Amanda MRAG Americas MSC Assessment Stern-Pirlot Team Leader Dmitry Lajus MRAG Americas & St. Independent All Petersburg State University Consultant & MSC Assessment Team Ray MRAG Americas & Fish Sr. Fish Scientist All Beamesderfer Science Solutions &MSC Assessment Team Susan Alcorn MRAG Americas MSC Chain of Zarya & Kolpakovsky group Custody Auditor meeting at the “Zapadny Bereg” processing plant at Kolpakova River Nina KamchatNIRO (Kamchatka Statistician KamchatNIRO Artukhina Research Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography)

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 183 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Alexander KamchatNIRO (Kamchatka Deputy Director of KamchatNIRO Bugaev Research Institute of Research Fisheries and Oceanography) Olga KamchatNIRO (Kamchatka Head, Laboratory of KamchatNIRO Zikunova Research Institute of Population Dynamics Fisheries and Oceanography) Andrey Kamchatka Fisheries Minister VA office Zdetovetsky Vladimir Kamchatka Association of Head VA office Galitsyn Salmon Fishermen Aleksandr SKTU/FAR Head of SKTU/FAR FAR Khristenko Aleksandr SKTU/FAR Deputy Director, FAR Savin SKTU/FAR Veronika European University of St. Research Fellow, VA office Simonova Petersburg Department of Anthropology

7.1.2 Stakeholder participation A list of site visit participants and a description of stakeholder outreach is given in the section above. As noted, one eNGO stakeholder submitted written comments and requested a meeting with the assessment team in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. The stakeholder comments received and response from the assessment team is given in the section indicated below.

MRAG sent a direct email regarding this assessment to all stakeholders on our stakeholder list, indicating where the ACDR could be accessed and instructions for how to submit comments or request a meeting with the team. MSC posted the announcement on their track-a-fishery webpage, as well as sent it by email in their Fishery Announcements newsletter to all registered recipients. This was done according to the process requirements as laid out in MSC’s Fisheries Certification Process v2.1. Together, these media presented the announcement to a wide audience representing industry, agencies, and other stakeholders.

7.1.3 Evaluation techniques MRAG published an announcement of the reassessment on our website and sent a direct email to all stakeholders on our stakeholder list. MSC posted the announcement as well as sent it by email in their Fishery Announcements newsletter to all registered recipients. At this time, MRAG Americas also announced the assessment site visit dates and location, as well as the assessment team. This was done according to the process requirements as laid out in MSC’s Fisheries Certification Process v 2.1. Together, these media presented the announcement to a wide audience representing industry, agencies, and other stakeholders.

The assessment team and the clients set up meetings with Kamchatka salmon fishery management and science personnel, and industry, and harvest-sector representatives relevant to the fishery assessment.

The FCP v2.1 default assessment tree for salmon fisheries was used for this assessment, comprising 31 ‘performance indicators’, nine in Principle 1, 15 in Principle 2, and seven in Principle 3. The performance indicators are grouped in each principle by ‘component.’ Principle 1 has two components, Principle 2 has five, and Principle 3 has two. Each performance indicator consists of one or more ‘scoring issues;’ a scoring issue is a specific topic for evaluation. ‘Scoring Guideposts’ define the requirements for meeting each scoring issue at the 60 (conditional pass), 80 (full pass), and 100 (state of the art) levels. Note that some scoring issue may not have a

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 184 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

scoring guidepost at each of the 60, 80, and 100 levels. The scoring issues and scoring guideposts are cumulative; this means that a performance indicator is scored first at the SG60 levels. If not all of the SG scoring issues meet the 60 requirements, the fishery fails and no further scoring occurs. If all of the SG60 scoring issues are met, the fishery meets the 60 level, and the scoring moves to SG80 scoring issues. If no scoring issues meet the requirements at the SG80 level, the fishery receives a score of 60. As the fishery meets increasing numbers of SG80 scoring issues, the score increases above 60 in proportion to the number of scoring issues met; performance indicator scoring occurs at 5-point intervals. If the fishery meets half the scoring issues at the 80 level, the performance indicator would score 70; if it meets a quarter, then it would score 65; and it would score 75 by meeting three-quarters of the scoring issues. If the fishery meets all of the SG80 scoring issues, the scoring moves to the SG100 level. Scoring at the SG100 level follows the same pattern as for SG80.

Principle scores result from averaging the scores within each component, and then from averaging the component scores within each Principle. If a Principle averages less than 80, the fishery fails.

Scoring for this fishery followed a consensus process in which the assessment team discussed the information available for evaluating performance indicators to develop a broad opinion of performance of the fishery against each performance indicator. Review of background and scoring sections by all team members assured that the assessment team was aware of the issues for each performance indicator. Subsequently, the assessment team member responsible for each principle, filled in the scoring table and provided a provisional score. The assessment team members reviewed the rationales and scores, and recommended modifications as necessary, including possible changes in scores.

Performance Indicator scores were entered into MSC’s Fishery Assessment Scoring Worksheet to arrive at Principle-level scores.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 185 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

7.2 Peer Review reports The tables below provide the comments from the two peer reviewers together with the responses of the assessment team.

PR A general comments and team responses Question Yes/No Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at initial Peer Review CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments stage). Peer Reviewers should provide brief explanations for (as included in the Public Comment Draft their 'Yes' or 'No' answers in this table, summarising the Report - PCDR) detailed comments made in the PI and RBF tables. Is the scoring of the fishery Yes Scoring is generally consistent with the MSC standard and is Se PI comments consistent with the MSC supported by the information provided in the report. For a few standard, and clearly based indicators (PIs 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 3.2.1), the evidence didn't seem on the evidence presented fully adequate as justification for the scoring guidepost in the assessment report? decisions. For other PIs (e.g. 3.1.2), the assessors took a reasonably precautionary approach.

Are the condition(s) raised Yes The conditions looked appropriate and achievable, especially No response required appropriately written to considering that other certified Kamchatka salmon fisheries achieve the SG80 outcome have parallel goals. If efforts to improve coho and sockeye within the specified escapement surveys and estimates are not yet underway, timeframe? however, I could foresee Conditions 1 and 2 requiring [Reference: FCP v2.1, additional time to achieve, since they are dependent on 7.18.1 and sub-clauses] personnel and financial capacity at KamchatNIRO. The requirement to better understand coastal set gillnet gear loss impacts was good to see under Condition 3.

Enhanced fisheries only: Not applicable since enhancement does not occur in the UoA. No response required Does the report clearly evaluate any additional impacts that might arise from enhancement activities?

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 186 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Optional: General N/A This report includes a lot of good information that is consistent Scoring revised for ETP - see PI comments Comments on the Peer with existing MSC assessment reports for other salmon Additional explanations and edits were added to Review Draft Report fisheries in Kamchatka. These salmon populations, as well as the report to address PI comments. Figure (including comments on the their habitats and local ecosystems, are relatively healthy, and references were corrected throughout. adequacy of the background fishery impacts are appropriately managed on the whole. information if necessary) Some issues remain regarding monitoring of some species/stocks and availability of fishery information to the public, which are acknowledged by the conditions. Nonetheless, there were a few potential gaps. For example, although ETP species impacts are very likely not an issue, the lack of actual monitoring and records is an information deficiency that could be addressed more directly.

The assessment team is very knowledgeable about and experienced with these fisheries. However, the report could use some additonal editing and checking of details, to improve clarity and readability for readers. One of the more significant problems is that the numbering of figures starts to become mis- ordered around p. 32, making figure references within the report text difficult to follow. References to tables also appear to be off starting around p. 40. On the whole though, scoring and conclusions appeared reasonable.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 187 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

PR A specific Performance Indicator Comments and Team responses

PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's CAB Information Scoring Condition initial Peer Review stage) comments (as included in the Public Res- Comment Draft Report - PCDR) ponse Code 1.1.1 Yes No (no NA Odd and even year pink salmon are often Additional definitions and explanations of the Accepted score treated as separate populations or cohorts, basis for escapement goals were added to the (no score change even though genetic differences may not assessment. Biological reference points are change) expected) have been identified for these particular identified equivalent to LRPs (defined as Slim populations. Thus it makes sense to treat by KamchatNIRO) and TRPs (defined as Smsy) odd and even year escapements separately, by KamchatNIRO). Separate values are as the assessors do throughout the report. determined for even (dominant) and off However, I had difficulty understanding what (subdominant) cohorts of Western Kamchatka the LRPs and TRPs actually are, and pink salmon. whether they appear to have been appropriately set for the odd and even year Example analyses are included in the cohorts. assessment for the aggregate stock analysis. For example, Tables 7 and 8 do not mention Corresponding odd and even year values are separate LRPs and TRPs for odd and even reported in the text. year pinks, whereas odd and even year reference points are described in the PI 1.1.1 Figure numbering was corrected. rationale (pp. 57-58). Since the rationale lacks references, it's difficult to tell where these odd and even year-specific reference points came from and whether they're appropriate. My best guess is that the even year TRPs relate to the sums of the values in Table 8 (which would be helpful to see in the table itself). Additionally, some information was difficult to reconcile. For example, the P1 text (pp. 42- 46) states that the TRP is 2.1 million for odd year pinks, whereas the LRP (Slim) in the rationale (p. 45) is 2.2 million. I don't understand how the TRP can be less than the LRP unless these two reference points are from different analyses. In any case, some clarification would be helpful. All that said, the escapement figures suggest

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 188 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

that pink and chum stocks are likely healthy, so I don't expect a score change. But the provided details were confusing to me. It also didn't help that figure numbering wasn't consistent with figure references in the text (see my general comments), making it difficult to check numbers. 1.1.1 Yes Yes NA Minor issue, but I suspect the TRP in the Corrected Accepted rationale should read = 146-204 thousand (no score rather than 146-206 thousand, based on the change) information in Table 9. 1.1.2 Yes Yes NA If this PI is not scored, which is appropriate, Corrected Accepted shouldn't there be an NA score in the (no score Summary of Performance Indicator level change) scores (5.1), where the score currently shows as 85? 1.2.1 Yes No (non- NA The rationale for SI(d) states that SG100 is Corrected Accepted material not met, and yet the SG100 is marked as (no score score being met. change) reduction For the sake of being thorough, it would be expected) good to mention that sharks are not caught under the rationale for SI(e). 1.2.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required Accepted (no score change) 1.2.3 No (no Yes Yes Under SI(c), I suggest mentioning that Revised as per suggestion Accepted score recreational and SIPN catches are (no score change monitored, to support the conclusion that change) expected) there is good information on all fishery removals. Condition 1 appears appropriate for addressing the monitoring deficiencies identified by the assessment team. 1.2.4 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required Accepted (no score change) 1.3.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed on the basis of there being No response required Accepted no enhancement within the UoA. (no score change)

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 189 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

1.3.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required Accepted (no score change) 1.3.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required Accepted (no score change) 2.1.1 Yes Yes NA Considering the caveats associated with No response required Accepted escapement monitoring for sockeye and (no score coho, I agree with the assessors' judgment change) that these main species are likely above PRI, particularly for sockeye. The coho data are weaker, and though the extrapolated escapement estimates are helpful, they only go up to 2015, and we have little information about their uncertainty. It's appropriate that a condition relating to these species has been set for PI 2.1.3. In terms of minor primary species, seeing the UoC catches of saffron cod (Table 16) was helpful for confirming that they are a minor component of the catch. Quantitative catch data seemed to be lacking for capelin; they would be useful to see if available. 2.1.2 Yes Yes NA Capelin aren't mentioned as being actively Capelin, which are incidentally harvested in Accepted managed under SI(a), but I assume they small numbers by the salmon fishery, are (no score are? Maybe I missed something, but they actively managed in Kamchatka based on change) don't appear to be much more actively recommended catch levels. Recommended managed than char, based on the catch levels are based on stock assessments. information provided. Thus, Capelin are identified as a primary Under SI(e), there is mention of a condition species for the purposes of the assessment. re: coho in PI 2.1.1 which doesn't seem to Char were classified a P2 species because, exist. Also, my understanding is that SG60 while a recommended catch levels is and 80 are met for sockeye and coho established, this number is based on historical essentially because there is no unwanted averages rather than a stock assessment. catch. I think the rationale could be clearer Reference to coho-related condition was on this; gillnet issues with coho might be corrected to refer to PI 2.1.3. better brought up under a different scoring issue within this PI.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 190 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

2.1.3 Yes Yes Yes Conditions 2 and 3 appear appropriate for No response required Accepted addressing the monitoring deficiencies (no score identified by the assessment team. It's good change) that concerns about gillnets were highlighted. 2.2.1 Yes Yes NA Rainbow smelt was evaluated as a minor Corrected as per comment. (Char comprise less Accepted primary species, but was also described as than 2% of the catch in the UoA). (no score being bycatch in the Secondary Species change) section (p. 88). If not secondary, I'd suggest removing smelt from this section. Text on p.88 states that char comprised about 3.5% of the total UoA catch, but later the report states that char catch data were insufficient to determine whether they should be classified as main or minor (p.89). Then under 2.2.2 SI(a), the rationale says char comprise less than 2% of the total harvest by weight. This is rather confusing. 2.2.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required Accepted (no score change) 2.2.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required Accepted (no score change) 2.3.1 Yes Yes NA SG100 for SI(a) is marked as being met, but Revised to not applicable as there are no Accepted the rationale says it is not. Scoring reflects established national or international limits (no score the rationale and looks ok. change) 2.3.2 Yes No (non- NA I'm not convinced that SG100 is met for SI(a) Score was downgraded as per this comment Accepted material due to the lack of ongoing monitoring and (non- score recording of ETP species impacts. MSC material reduction guidance states that a comprehensive score expected) strategy requires linked monitoring, reduction) analyses, etc. 2.3.3 Yes No (scoring NA It seems inconsistent that no quantitative Information on the negligible incidence of Not implications information is collected on ETP species interaction of the fishery with ETP species is accepted unknown) impacts, and yet SG80 for SI(a) is sufficient to determine that any related mortality (no score considered met. I agree that impacts are or impact is sufficiently low as to not threaten change) likely minimal, and understand that protection or imped recovery. Although no scientists, managers, etc. periodically visit ongoing observer program exists for the fishing sites. Without additional evidence, fisheries, federal scientists, managers, and

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 191 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

however, it sounds like stakeholders are inspectors regularly visit the fishing sites and simply stating that impacts are low. processing plants throughout the season. Over The overall performance indicator score box the course of the many years of fishing is blank. operations, none of these species are observed to have adverse impacts from the fishery. The fishing authorities have determined that the fishery has such low impacts that it needs no specific data collections on interactions with ETP species. Score box was corrected. 2.4.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed regarding habitat impacts. No response required Accepted Irreversible impacts are unlikely, and (no score government bodies provide some oversight. change) The MRAG 2016 reference cited here and for some of the Pis below should be edited so it is easier to find in the references list. 2.4.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required Accepted (no score change) 2.4.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required Accepted (no score change) 2.5.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. The ecosystem is well No response required Accepted studied and is in a relatively natural and (no score unimpacted state. change) 2.5.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required Accepted (no score change) 2.5.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required Accepted (no score change) 3.1.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. However, under SI(b) here Faulty website link was removed Accepted and elsewhere in P3 rationales, the links to (no score the judicial decisions database doesn't work. change) 3.1.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required Accepted (no score change) 3.1.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response required Accepted (no score change)

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 192 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

3.2.1 Yes No (scoring NA Are there actually any management The development of hatcheries was discussed Accepted implications objectives relating to enhancement in this in Kamchaka among governmental agencies (no score unknown) area? The assessors acknowledge that and stakeholders. KamchatNIRO is by policy change) objectives are less clear with respect to opposed to the development of additional ecosystem impacts and don't meet SG100, hatchery programs in Kamchatka as per which I agree with. However, the absence of statutory guidance for wild fish protection. enhancement and hatchery plans may be more reflective of circumstance (e.g. the remote location and hatchery development costs) than specific objectives, unless there is information to suggest otherwise. 3.2.2 Yes Yes Yes The rationales look fine, but none of the Substituted one non-working link with a new Accepted website links seem to work. working link from the MSC website. Two other (no score Condition 4 appears appropriate for links were checked and were found to be change) addressing the management deficiency working. identified by the assessment team.

3.2.3 Yes Yes Yes It would be helpful to see the specific Reference added. Internet references were Accepted reference for the assessment of illegal checked and two of them, which were found not (no score harvest described under SI(a), SG80. working, were deleted. change) Condition 5 appears appropriate for addressing the MCS deficiencies identified by the assessment team.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 193 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Peer reviewer B general comments and team responses

Question Yes/No Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at initial Peer CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as Review stage). Peer Reviewers should provide brief included in the Public Comment Draft Report - explanations for their 'Yes' or 'No' answers in this table, PCDR) summarising the detailed comments made in the PI and RBF tables. Is the scoring of the fishery No The report is generally well-written but is lacking detail in key See PI comments consistent with the MSC parts, and I would like to see additional conditions raised standard, and clearly based where information is very limited, including on secondary and on the evidence presented ETP species. There are also concerns on how the evidence in the assessment report? used to justify passing scores in P1, where it is accepted that the escapement survey coverage is limited and in-season management is only described in general terms. More points are made against specific PIs. Are the condition(s) raised No The rationale for Condition 1 states: "This standard is not Duration of condition 1 was extended to 4 years. appropriately written to met because recent reductions in aerial surveys of Much of the related information exists in achieve the SG80 outcome escapement mean that a majority of wild component KamchatNIRO which is expected to expedite within the specified populations are no longer represented. Assessments based completion of the condition. timeframe? on index stocks and historical distribution patterns may not [Reference: FCP v2.1, be adequate for long-term management under conditions of 7.18.1 and sub-clauses] changing fishery dynamics, fish productivity or fish distribution patterns." Given this, it seems extremely unlikely that the fishery can "provide sufficient information on wild spawning escapement for a representative range of wild Pink and Chum populations in the unit of certification to support the harvest strategy and demonstrate that wild abundance is regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule." The first issue here, presumably, is to determine whether the current index stocks are indeed representative, and only then can the rest of the work be carried out. That seems unlikely, at best, to be achieved in three years? Are the condition(s) raised No Just a note that as Condition 1 should be split in to two It is not required to have separate conditions per appropriately written to separate Conditions, one for each species. At present it scoring issue of UoA so long as as the action plan achieve the SG80 outcome applies to both UoAs, which is contrary to the intent of the effectively addresses each scoring issue. Our within the specified requirements and means one UoA could be dragged down experience with communicating conditions in these timeframe? by the other if one is deemed to meet the Condition but the Russian salmon fisheries has found it easier to [Reference: FCP v2.1, other is not. address related issues for a PI with one condition 7.18.1 and sub-clauses] rather than having a long list of similar conditions for

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 194 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

different species, stocks or scoring elements under one PI. Enhanced fisheries only: Yes Fishery is not enhanced. No response required Does the report clearly evaluate any additional impacts that might arise from enhancement activities? Optional: General N/A A quick note on the UoAs (Table 2). For both pink salmon Revised as per suggestion Comments on the Peer and chum salmon it states that the client group is "A Review Draft Report collective of companies headed by Zarya, LLC including…..", (including comments on the and " A collective of companies headed by Kolpakovsky adequacy of the background rybokombinat, LLC, including…". In both cases, I presume information if necessary) the 'including' should in fact read 'comprising'? Optional: General N/A Just a note that the report would really benefit from a Descriptions of relevant bodies are found in Section Comments on the Peer glossary, and for initialisms and acronyms to be spelled out 5.4.1 - Management Structure. The abbreviation Review Draft Report in full the first time they are used (e.g., SKTU - P.9). It would "SKTU" has appeared in the text erroneously and has (including comments on the also be really helpful if the roles of relevant bodies were been corrected to "SVTU". adequacy of the background clarified in the glossary and the first time they were information if necessary) referenced (e.g., RosPrirodNadzor - P.9 - I think this is the Governmental environmental regulator, but it would be useful to have that made clear.) Traceability N/A A note on Section 4.3. The report states: "The current list of Revised for clarification companies and their fishing parcels eligible for the current fishery certification will be published at the MSC website and may be changed. Salmon species specified in the UoC of the assessment, harvested by the companies of the Client Group with gears allowed in the Fishing Rules, and landed from authorized parcels in the rivers listed in the UoAs are eligible to enter further chains of custody." Of course, it is only the fish from the gear types assessed as part of the UoA and deemed to be meeting the MSC requirements that would be eligible to enter, not necessarily all those that are allowed by the fishing rules (e.g., sport fishing gears). A little edit to this sentence is required. Optional: General N/A P.4. It is stated: "The use of terminal fisheries and scheduled The fishery is considered terminal because it operates Comments on the Peer weekly “passing days” when the fishery is closed is central to on adult salmon concentrated nearshore and in rivers Review Draft Report the effectiveness of the harvest control rules." However, this in close proximity to spawning grounds. The entire (including comments on the is mainly a coastal fishery that "likely intercept other stocks catch is comprised of fish originating in the UoA. This transiting to other rivers in Western Kamchatka", so I is distinguished from a traditional mixed stock salmon

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 195 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

adequacy of the background question whther this can be considered a a terminal fishery - fishery which operates distant from spawning grounds information if necessary) it doesn't meet my understanding. also, we have no and may harvest fish from different SMUs. information on how the passing days are managed - when, where, how often and on what basis are they employed? Optional: General N/A There is a description of the commercial fishing methods on Revised for clarification. Comments on the Peer P.14, but the gillnet description isn't clear to me. Where it is Review Draft Report stated: "- length of nets more than 120 m and depth more (including comments on the than 9 m; - with intervals between the nets less than 120 m if adequacy of the background they are lined up;- distance between the nets less than 120 information if necessary) m;" I am not sure if this means the nets must be longer than 120 m, or cannot be longer than 120 m, and if the spacing must be more than 120 m or less than 120 m? Please review the text here. Also, given that the UoA parcels also occur in- river, is it confirmed that these regulations all apply there as well as in coastal locations - from what I understand of them they seem to be marine focused? Optional: General N/A I note the report states at Section 4.4 (P.11) that "No IPI Due to the terminal nature of this fishery, all pink and Comments on the Peer stocks are identified in this assessment.", while Section 5.2.1 chum salmon harvested in this fishery belong to the Review Draft Report (P.21) states "Although the salmon catch in a coastal trap UoA. (including comments on the net is typically assigned to the closest river, they likely adequacy of the background intercept other stocks transiting to other rivers in Western information if necessary) Kamchatka. This circumstance does not allow unambiguous attributing of catches to certain salmon populations." Of course, any pink salmon or chum salmon from rivers outside the UoA should be considered IPI, even if an exemption to the IPI requirements can in the end be sought. A review of FCP 7.5.8 - 7.5.13 and Annex PA is appropriate. Optional: General N/A The report states (P.37) that "Spawning escapement is Error associated with the surveys is discussed in the Comments on the Peer assessed based on aerial surveys of index rivers. Counts assessment. Review Draft Report from index areas are expanded to non-index areas based on (including comments on the formulae established from historical sampling data. adequacy of the background KamchatNIRO estimates that it takes about 600 hours of information if necessary) aerial surveys to adequately cover all the salmon spawning rivers in Kamchatka (Bugaev et al. 2018). However, aerial survey monitoring has been reduced from 545 hours in 2001 to an average of 131 hours over the past ten years due to budget constraints (Figure 33). This has increased the uncertainty related to escapement estimates for all salmon species.". But then it also states (P.48) that "Chum salmon escapements to the target rivers averaged 186 thousand

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 196 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

spawners over the past fifteen years ranging from 20 to 733 thousand spawners." What is the error associated with these figures, noting also that the Oblukovina and the Krutogorova are not index rivers so may have greater uncertainty? Optional: General N/A P.37. It is stated "Accuracy of odd year pink salmon Revised for clarification. See PI comments for Comments on the Peer escapement estimates is not as good due to the smaller interpretations of stock assessments. Review Draft Report escapement numbers and greater variability but sufficient for (including comments on the management purposes." I presume there is an 'is' (not an 'is adequacy of the background still not') missing between the 'but sufficient'. However, in this information if necessary) case, who considers that managament is 'sufficient' here? Optional: General N/A Stock Structure (P. 41). The report states: "KamchatNIRO UoC rivers are small and do not include significant Comments on the Peer (2013) reports that up to five overlapping runs can be stock structure. Review Draft Report distinguished in large systems like the Bolshaya River based (including comments on the on run timing, size and sex ratio" It would be useful to adequacy of the background understand how this relates to the five rivers within the UOA information if necessary) - are these similarly 'large' systems, or larger/smaller? I presume smaller but, if so, how many overlapping runs might be expected in the each one? Optional: General N/A The report states (P.45) "Target escapement goals defined See PI comments. Section has been revised for Comments on the Peer for even year pink salmon for the target rivers correspond to clarification. Even and odd year reference points for Review Draft Report 7.6 million spawners and for odd year pink salmon at 2.1 rivers addressed by this fishery are not identified in (including comments on the million spawners. Details on how these goals were estimated the accompanying tables which are included for adequacy of the background can be found in Feldman and Shevlyakov (2015) and example purposes. information if necessary) Bugaev et al. (2018)." I see Table 8, but adding up the values provided for S*msy (does high productivity = even years???) for all five rivers in the UoA comes to 7.94 million, and for Slim (does low productivity = odd years???) for all five rivers comes to 2.2 million. Essentially, I can't reproduce the figures stated in the text, so I have no idea how these values have been calculated from the information presented in the report, and it is unreasonable to expect readers to go to the original sources. Optional: General N/A Chum (P. 48). The report states: "The assessment team Run size includes harvest and escapement. Harvest Comments on the Peer suspects that increases in run size and harvest since 2008 was substantially undercounted under the previous Review Draft Report result from more accurate commercial catch reporting management system because catch quotas provided (including comments on the following the implementation of the “Olympic” management a strong disincentive for accurate reporting in large adequacy of the background system." I can't see why an increase in run size (of over 10 run years. information if necessary) fold) would result from more accurate commercial catch reporting, though - please explain?

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 197 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Optional: General N/A P.148. The report states: "The main advantage of this The fishery has always caught salmon as fast as they Comments on the Peer [Olympic] system of management is opportunity for users to could. However, in the past, fishing companies were Review Draft Report plan their fishing operations and free competition between licensed for a set quota based on forecasts which (including comments on the them. Moreover, it provides more operative reporting of were often wrong. Inseason updates in quota were not adequacy of the background catches." This is not what I would expect - in general, practical due to the bureaucratic requirements for information if necessary) Olympic fisheries encourage 'catch it while you can' type approval through several layers of government fisheries (over-capacity, short openings, low prices, etc.) agency from Moscow. This incentivized inaccurate rather than encouraging slow and steady, market-led reporting. This incentive no longer exists where approaches... The advantage for the managers is that it gets additional quota can be readily purchased by the the legal fishery done as quickly as possible, and potentially fishing companies, contingent on approvals of higher leads to better data because there is less opportunity to catches by KamchatNIRO. cheat and illegal fishing is easier to spot. Optional: General N/A A comment on scoring - the P1 scoring text still includes Revised as per suggestion Comments on the Peer information on sockeye and coho, which is confusing. If you Review Draft Report can't delete the information out, at least a note should be (including comments on the made in each PI to highlight that these species are adequacy of the background withdrawn from the assessment process and a check made information if necessary) to ensure that the rationales and scoring are all still relevant to pink salmon and chum salmon. Optional: General N/A The cross-referencing of Tables and Figures in the Cross references are corrected Comments on the Peer introduction and, in particular, the scoring text is frequently Review Draft Report incorrect - this appears to be an issue with the numbering (including comments on the being done manually rather than being created using the adequacy of the background 'Insert Caption' and 'Cross-Reference' tools in Word. This information if necessary) makes it very difficutl to follow the ratioanles where readers are pointed to the wrong table or figure. Readers would really benefit from these being updated. Optional: General N/A I note there is nowhere in the main body of the introduction, description of UoA/SMUs was added Comments on the Peer or in the scorinng rationales, where the SMUs are described Review Draft Report - what are they? I.e, what is it that actually being assessed (including comments on the here? adequacy of the background information if necessary) Optional: General N/A P.88. It is stated: "Char is not considered highly vulnerable". Noted Comments on the Peer Of course, the test for 'main' under v.2.0 is that a species is Review Draft Report 'less resilient'. This doesn’t change anything else, just to (including comments on the note. adequacy of the background information if necessary)

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 198 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Optional: General N/A P.143-148. A lot of the information in the Fishery Objectives Bolshaya references are included for context. Term Comments on the Peer and Measures section is based around what happens in and "subdistrict'' is not used here, because district Review Draft Report around the Bolshaya River, but it is not entirely clear how (Sobolevsky or Ust-Bolsheretsky) is related to (including comments on the this work relates to the UoA as i don't thnk it is in the same administrative units, and term "subzone" relates to adequacy of the background district Dept. or the same management subzone. In this, I fishery management units. The Bolshaya river system information if necessary) note this section states: "Fishing area assessed in this report is not included in this UoA, but the Bolshaya river is is in the territory of Ust-Bolsheretsk and Sobolevsky district mentioned several times in this report as it is the departments". With respect to the district dept., this appears largest, the most studied, and the most accessible to contrast with what is said earlier in the report at P. 13, river (thus with the highest poaching loading) in the where it is stated: "The fishery is covered by the Sobolevsky Western Kamchatka coast (W Kamchatka is an Administrative District [i.e., only] and belongs to the informal term here, the Bolshaya River system is on Kamchatka-Kuril and Western Kamchatka Fishery the south of the West Kamchatka fishery subzone). Subzones." In this, it seems that the Bolshaya River is not within the same district dept. as the UoA because the Bolshaya runs next to Ust-Bolsheretsk and the UoA is much further north. However, P. 36 then states: "The fishery is located in the Western Kamchatka subzone.", which makes sense to me based on Figure 5, but is inconsistent with what is said on P. 13, and appears to confirm that the Bolshaya is also not in the same management subzone...... Essentially, is the text on Fishery objectives and Measures all relevant to the UoA, and could the contradictions / apparent contradictions in the report please be sorted?

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 199 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Peer reviewer B specific Performance Indicator comments and team responses PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's CAB Information Scoring Condition initial Peer Review stage) comments (as included in the Public Res- Comment Draft Report - PCDR) ponse Code 1.1.1 No (scoring No NA SIa. The text states: "Average escapements Annual harvest data for Pink Salmon Accepted implications (material exceeded minimum goals in all subject rivers in clearly demonstrate that Pink Salmon are (no score unknown) score both even and odd year brood lines." However, I above the point of recruitment-related change) reduction can't see where the data showing pink salmon limitation represented by a LRP. Current expected to status with respect to Slim are presented in the harvest levels throughout West Kamchatka, <80) report, which is particularly relevant for the odd Karaginsky Bay and Eastern Kamchatka are year broods because they don't typically meet at historical record levels. Harvest levels Smsy (the TRP) on average (the report states provide a relatively robust indicator of run (P.44) "Average odd year escapements were strength in Kamchatka due to the nature of below target levels except for the Icha River the fishery where fishing effort from year to (Figure 31)."?) In this case, it is not clear how year is relatively stable due to a fixed the stock status requirements of SC2.2.3.1 are number of fishing sites and the use of met demonstrably at SG80 (i.e., highly likely = passive gear. Thus, harvest value may be ≥80% of the 15 most recent years exceed the used as CPUE, and therefore a proxy of LRP). As noted in the scoring, even year counts stock status (SGA2.2.3.1). Harvests vary exceeded Smsy in 8 of 15 years (53%), odd from year to year due to the typical even- years exceeded Smsy in 3 of 15 years (20%). odd year cycle pattern for Pink salmon and Even allowing for the reported improvement in environmental variability, but freshwater and productivity that has occurred in recent years, ocean conductions are obviously conducive and combining the odd and even years to allow to high levels of productivity. If escapements for the 15 most recent years (i.e, 2004-2018), it consistently fell below a point of recruitment is only 7 of 15 years (47%) in total that limitation, we would expect to see a pattern demonstrably exceed Smsy. And, while the of reduced levels of harvest rather than 'counts were incomplete' in some recent years, it consistently high levels. is not made clear here how incomplete they Salmon fishery management and stock were - were almost no surveys carried out, or assessment continues to evolve in were some of the surveys carried out on the Kamchatka with an increasing attention on larger, more productive systems? This would the potential of subarea-specific help understanding. management and stock assessment. The historical practice has been to manage for loosely defined escapement objectives for indicator areas shown in historical assessment to be generally representative of regional stocks. This approach was demonstrated to be effective in part due to

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 200 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

the precautionary management approach of gear limitations and in some cases, established passing days. Fishing effort was scaled by practice over a period of time to sustain high levels of production on average. Over the last 5-10 years KamchatNIRO has begun to develop stock and river- specific assessment information for stock- recruitment based biological reference points (BRPs) including those referenced in the assessment. This is a substantive step toward a more optimum and intensive salmon management system and this work has also been bolstered by fishery participation in the MSC program. However, this remains a work in progress and the fishery has not fully incorporated this information into management. Theoretical reference points have been identified for recruitment impairment and maximum yield and the fishery is considering their application and effectiveness in management. At the same time, the fishery is moving to support funding of additional spawning ground surveys necessary to implement a more subarea-specific management assessment. Over time, government funding levels for stock assessment have declined and fishing companies are recognizing their interest in funding additional assessment, in part due to the long-term leasing structure of fishing sites in Kamchatka. At this time, the river- specific a+L2ssessment information on BRPs and escapements does not fully align with other information stock status and harvest. For a number of rivers, apparent escapement might appear to fall below preliminary estimates for BRPs but

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 201 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

consistently high harvest levels across relatively stable fishing efforts indicate that escapements must have been sufficient to sustain high levels of harvest. The issue is the preliminary nature of the BRP estimates and uncertainty in subarea-specific stock assessments. It is clearly not a case of overfishing relative to spawning habitat capacity or a point of reproductive impairment at existing levels of fishing effort. Rather, it is an issue of the quality of the available stock assessment information relative to target reference points for maximum sustained yield. This concern has been recognized with intermediate levels scores and conditions for PI 1.2.3. 1.1.1 No (scoring No NA SIa. I highlight that the report states: "Sustained See explanations above. Pink and chum Not implications (material high catches of Pink and Chum throughout salmon are clearly above a point of accepted unknown) score Western Kamchatka (Figure 42) demonstrate reproductive impairment based long term (no score reduction that escapements have been sufficient to catch trends and escapement data. change) expected to maintain high production and exceed a point of <80) significant reproductive impairment. This information supports achievement of the 80 scoring standard for this issue." However, Figure 42 is all salmon species, so in fact it is Figure 43 that should be referred to, where pink salmon is enumerated separately, and this shows that odd year pink salmon catches were lower in 2009-15 (i.e., when 'counts were incomplete') than in adjacent odd years, the 2014 catch was extrmely poor, while the 2016 escapement (Figure 31) was also very low, when surveys were apparently undertaken. As such, while the freshwater habitat conditions in Kamchatka may well be excellent for salmon production, it is not the case that SG80 is demonstrably met. A score of 60 seems appropriate, however, in light of 2018 being a strong year again.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 202 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

1.1.1 No (scoring No (scoring NA SIa: The report states, generally: "This See explanations above. Pink and chum Not implications implications assessment reports results of recent estimates salmon are clearly above a point of accepted unknown) unknown) of spawning escapement relative to preliminary reproductive impairment based long term (no score reference points identified by KamchatNIRO but catch trends and escapement data. Scoring change) these results are not the primary basis for rationale was revised for clarification. scoring of the PI which places more emphasis on long turn [sic] abundance and harvest trends under current fishing intensity. However, KamchatNIRO reports that spawning escapements consistent with optimum production levels are regularly achieved and the range of escapement values for the most species generally tends to or exceeds the target reference points". However, this last statement is not reflected in the pink salmon data, where in the last 15 years the target escapement has only been met demonstrably 47% of the time. Essentially, the statement doesn't reflect the available data. 1.1.1 No (scoring No (scoring NA SIb states: "The SG80 standard is achieved. Pink salmon cohorts typically vary in an odd- Not implications implications Escapement estimates varied around target even year cycle as cohorts are largely accepted unknown) unknown) levels (Smsy) for even year runs of pink salmon independent due to the 2-year life cycle of (no score from 1990-2018 (Figure 29) and average this species. In Kamchatka, the odd-year change) escapements exceeded the target in all five return is characteristically much less index rivers for the region (Icha, Oblukovina, abundant than the even-year return. Krutogorova, Kolpakova and Vorovskaya) Uncertainty in aerial survey estimates is also (Figure 32). Escapement estimates varied substantially greater in the odd-year return around target levels (Smsy) for odd year runs of due to low numbers. pink salmon in years where surveys were completed from since 2003 (Figure 29)." I don't necessarily disagree with the score given the SG80 requirement is that 'fluctuating around' means an SMU meeting its TRP ≥50% of the 15 most recent years. Subject to estimates of error, which are not provided but which may be considerable with low survey coverage, pink salmon here is 47%. However, the odd year catch data for 2009 - 2015, when stream survey coverage was apparently poor, show very low comparative catch levels, inthe absence of other

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 203 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

data indicating that returns were also very poor - the absence of survey data does not mean that returns were strong. 1.1.1 No (scoring No (scoring NA Final point on both salmon species - the ACDR Scores are supported by a better Accepted implications implications draft scoring range was 60-79, with the understanding of the information and stock (no score unknown) unknown) comment "More information sought: Better status obtained in discussions with scientists change) escapement information by year and species of KamchatNIRO at the site visit. compared to applicable reference points especially for sockeye and coho." I have looked a tthe ACDR and I don’t see where the report has changed to include 'better' escapement information for pink salmon or chum salmon - it is the same as before as far as I can tell? 1.1.1 No (material No NA SIa: Looking at Fig. 39 (combined chum The situation with chum salmon is similar to Not score (material escapement to the UoA rivers), and assuming that detailed above for Pink Salmon. accepted reduction score that 2004 does meet 111,000 fish (it seems very Consistently high levels of harvest over the (no score expected to reduction close), subject to estimates of error that are not last decade clearly indicate that the change) <80) expected to provided but which are presumably escapements are consistently above a point <80) considerable, Slim appears to have been met of recruitment impairment. The fishery is demonstrably in 8 of 15 years (53%). If Slim was exploring application of subareas-specific also met in 2015 and 2016 (when survey effort BRPs but inconsistent patterns of was especially low) then that would be 10 of 15 achievement reflect limitations of the years (66%). This would meet SG60, but does existing stock assessment information rather not meet the ≥80% requirement set for SG80. than an indication of recruitment overfishing. This concern has been recognized with intermediate levels scores and conditions for PI 1.2.3. 1.1.1 No (material No NA SIb: Looking again at Fig. 39, and again subject See explanations above Not score (material to error withtin the estimates, Smsy (the TRP) accepted reduction score has been met demonstrably six times in the last (no score expected to reduction 15 years (=40%). It is not clear how this equates change) <80) expected to with the scoring statement that "Average <80) escapements of chum salmon exceeded minimum goals in all five index rivers for the region for the same period (Figure 39)." The data do not show this (and note it is not minimum escapment (i.e., the LRP) that is required here, it is the TRP (Smsy).

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 204 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

1.1.2 Yes Yes NA Not scored No response required Accepted (no score change) 1.1.2 Yes Yes NA Not scored No response required Accepted (no score change) 1.2.1 No (scoring No (scoring NA SIa: I note the report mentions 'established This fishery is managed with a series of time Not implications implications fishing seasons' and 'scheduled passing days', and effort regulations designed to scale accepted unknown) unknown) as well as in-season management based on annual fishing effort to levels which have (no score information collected, and then relies on these consistently been demonstrated to produce change) characteristics for scoring at SG80. However, high levels of harvest from year to year. The the details of the seasons and the passing days fishing strategy may be generally described have not been provided, and I don't know how a fixed harvest rate strategy where average management is adjusted in season - currently, I fishing levels are scaled to ensure have no idea if the management is substantial levels of spawning escapement precautionary and appropriate or not. Please in most years. Fishing levels are thus scaled add detail, both of the theory and practice as to the state of the SMU where the state is appropriate. defined in terms of the inherent productivity and sustainable fishing levels of the stock. This approach is effective because: 1) fixed passive gear harvests fish in proportion to their abundance and 2) passing days provide inherent protection by limiting harvest rates and ensuring that significant levels of spawning escapement are produced over a wide range of run sizes and across the breadth of the run. Inseason management is employed to regulate fisheries based on gross levels of abundance. In Kamchatka management actions are taken inseason by the Anadromous Fish Commission to address very large and very small run sizes. In particular, inseason actions may be adopted in response to low run sizes in order to protect escapements. Liberalizations may also occur although these actions are generally less impactful because harvest during large runs is often limited by processor capacity. Similarly, fishing rates

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 205 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

during subdominant-pink years are often lower than dominant pink years because relative low harvest volumes do not provide incentives for fishing companies to operate at full capacity. This fishing strategy is different than what we would typically see in a high value Alaska style fishery where intensive daily or even hourly management is used to maximize harvest in every year relative to established spawning escapement goals. The Kamchatka style fishing strategy is more extensive - it limits fishing power to optimize harvest under most conditions effectively foregoing higher harvest rates in big run years and accepting lower escapement levels in low run years. The fishing strategy is effectively scaled to the vast area involved and the existing limitations on fishery management resources. it works because these stocks are extremely productive and resilient, and the passing days at terminal fishing sites provide precautionary limits on exploitation. Note that this conservative management succeeds to sustain salmon stocks without enhancement. 1.2.1 No (scoring No (scoring NA SIb: The report states: "Direct evidence, See previous explanations. Annual run sizes Not implications implications including documentation of in-season of Pink Salmon, Chum Salmon and Sockeye accepted unknown) unknown) restrictions based on abundance and salmon are historically high levels of (no score assessments of spawning escapement, production. This provides clear evidence change) demonstrates that the harvest strategy is that the harvest strategy is effective. generally achieving its objectives, therefore the Consistently large run sizes and levels of SG80 is met. Fishery restrictions based on time harvest are occurring despite escapement and area closures are regularly adopted in- data suggesting that low levels of season based on real-time information on run escapement are occurring in some systems. size and catch composition. Established However, aerial survey effort to monitor regulations and in-season measures have escapement has been substantially reduced consistently distributed spawning escapements over the years and the consistent large around established goals." However, the returns indicate that low estimates of escapement of neither pink salmon nor chum escapement are an artifact of low

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 206 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

salmon actually show that the escapement assessment rates. Conditions identified by targets are being met consistenty (as noted in this MSC assessment identify the need for the scoring of PI 1.1.1), and the text in 1.1.1 SIa substantial increases escapement states: "Fishing effort may also be adjusted monitoring and assessment relative to somewhat in-season based on annual stock established goals. The need for this assessments but the fishery is not intensively information to achieve certification as well managed at a fine scale in order to maximize as the inherent value of sustainable harvest in any given year.". This is an apparent management for long term fishing site lease discrepancy, and needs to be reviewed. In any holders is providing very large incentives for case, if there are any adjustments, what are the fishing companies to fund these efforts they, what are they based on, and when are and collaborate with the regional they used? management and scientific agencies to provide the necessary information. 1.2.2 No (material No NA SIa: The report states: "Well-defined control According to FS 2.01 GSA2.5, HCRs are the Not score (material rules are in place for pink and chum salmon that arrangements by which a fishery expects to accepted reduction score ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced to achieve the stock status outcomes (no score expected to reduction keep the stock fluctuating around a target level expressed in PI 1.1.1. They are defined as change) <80) expected to consistent with MSY, therefore the SG80 is met. the pre-agreed rules and management <80) HCRs include season dates, establishing actions that will be taken in response to passing days, and time/area closures based on changes in indicators of stock status with real time escapement monitoring data in respect to explicit or implicit reference conjunction with other indicators of run strength points, and MSC expects these elements to and timing based on harvest and biological be part of HCRs. Hence, a majority of composition of the harvest. Operation of the means addressed in this report can be fishing gear is modified in response to whether considered harvest control rules. In this escapement goals are being met." However, we fishery, HCRs primarily take the form of aren't given any details on how the fishery is fishing site leases, gear specifications, actually managed to achieve the desired fishing seasons, and passing days escapement (e.g., yes - passing days, but how specifically established to produce many, how often, and how are these days exploitation rates consistent with high levels adjusted in season, etc??) and in any case of sustained harvest and escapement levels these adjustments are 'tools', not 'rules'. So, sufficient to produce those harvests across what are the actual HCRs, and how are they a broad range of run sizes distributed 'well-defined'?? Without this information being around normal levels. In years of presented, it is not possible to say 'Well-defined substantially lower or higher run sizes, HCRs are in place", as required for the SG80 inseason actions may be taken to liberalize score. or reduce exploitation rates. The primary management tool for inseason management is changes in the number of passing days. Inseason decisions are generally based on

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 207 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

fishery data which is generally sufficent to distinguish run sizes substantially lower or greater than average. This includes both catches and also stage in the run which is identified from changes in sex and size ratios derived from extensive catch sampling in this fishery. Spawning escapement estimates were also historical used as inseason indicators but this has become less prevalent as aerial survey effort was reduced over the last decade. As previously, discussed, this fishery is managed extensively over broad areas based on HCRs calibrated over the years to sustain high levels of harvest. Inseason management is employed primarily in years when run sizes depart substantially from normal ranges. The effectiveness of this strategy under current conditions has been proven by sustained high levels of harvest of wild stocks. 1.2.2 No (material No NA SI: The report states: "Available evidence based See previous explanations. Sustained high Not score (material on indicates that the tools in use are appropriate levels of harvest clearly indicate the tools in accepted reduction score and effective in achieving the exploitation levels use are appropriate. (no score expected to reduction for pink, and chum required under the HCRs. change) <80) expected to Significant escapements of target stocks are <80) consistently achieved and continuing high levels of salmon production provide evidence that harvest control rules are effective in producing appropriate exploitation rates." I'll note that the escapements for both species might have been significant in 2018 but have been much more commonly below the TRP in recent years as far as the data show, so not demonstrably "the exploitation levels required under the HCRs". 1.2.2 No (material No NA SId: The report states: "The management See previous explanations regarding Not score (material practice of establishing weekly passing days interpretation of stock assessment data. accepted reduction score maintains diversity by protecting escapements Explanations were added to the assessment (no score expected to reduction in all rivers and across the duration of the run. describing fishing seasons and passing change) <80) Stock assessment data indicates this system is days.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 208 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

expected to generally effective." Again, catch data may help, <80) but the escapement data for both pink salmon and chum salmon don't indicate the system is generally effective (Smsy achieved in ≤50% of the years), and we don't know about the error in run size estimation. But what are the weekly passing days and when does the season start and finish relative to the runs - essentially, the reader has nothing on which to determine if the Team has scored the fishery in an apporpriately precautionary manner. 1.2.3 Yes Yes No PI. The scoring text here seems fine. Please Timeline for compliance was extended to Accepted see general comments for a note on the four years recognizing that while this period (no score Condition, though - it seems unlikely at best that may not be sufficient for a definitive change) 'regular' monitoring could be demonstrated in assessment, it is adequate to demonstrate three years? that a robust stock assessment program has been implemented. 1.2.4 No (scoring No (scoring No SIa: Just a note that I don't know what the HCRs See previous explanation of harvest control Accepted implications implications are, hence, it is difficult to understand if the rules. Text in assessment was revised as (no score unknown) unknown) assessment is adequate to meet SG80 here. I suggested. change) also see that the report states "This information is used to design and make in-season adjustments of harvest control rules intended to ensure escapement sufficient..." I presume it isn't actually the HCRs that are being adjusted, here, and that instead the report is intended to read something like 'This information is used to implement the HCRs to ensure escapement sufficient...'?. If not, and it is in fact the HCRs that are adjusted, scoring of 1.2.2 needs to be reviewed as a priority. 1.2.4 No (scoring No (scoring No SIa: Note I am not clear what this means: The fishing strategy is designed to produce Accepted implications implications "Recent stock assessment efforts have been escapements consistent with maximizing (no score unknown) unknown) expanded due to support and funding provided sustained yields. Historically, stock change) by the fishing companies." Can this be assessments were based on aerial surveys explained - a key factor in understanding of index stocks determined from past management effectiveness seems to be the low research to be broadly representative of an or very low escapement survey effort. Has this aggregate stock of each species across been boosted somehow? On this, I note the relatively broad areas where habitats were scoring text also states: "Management for similar and stock dynamics were highly

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 209 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

escapement-based reference points is a correlated. More recently, the management standard and effective practice in salmon system has been developing more explicit fisheries throughout the Pacific", which contrasts and river-specific escapement goal with comments earlier in the report that stated: reference points in order to better optimize "The use of terminal fisheries and scheduled management. Following a period of weekly “passing days” when the fishery is declining stock assessment efforts by the closed is central to the effectiveness of the government agency, the fishing companies harvest control rules. This system ensures have begun to fund more rigorous survey significant escapement even in the absence of and stock assessment effort, incentivized by intensive in-season stock assessment and long term lease agreements of their fishing management such as is typically practiced in sites. North American commercial salmon fisheries." These inconsistencies need to be addressed. 1.3.1 Yes Yes NA Nothing further. No response required Accepted (no score change) 1.3.2 Yes Yes NA Nothing further. No response required Accepted (no score change) 1.3.3 Yes Yes NA Nothing further. No response required Accepted (no score change) 2.1.1 No (scoring No (scoring NA Introductory text states: "More recent surveys Additional sockeye harvest trend data was Accepted implications implications were conducted primarily to monitor pink and added to the assessment. (no score unknown) unknown) chum salmon and did not include the peak of change) the sockeye spawning, accordingly sockeye escapement data after 2010 should be considered under-estimates. Nevertheless, average sockeye escapement estimates between 2004 and 2018 exceeded management targets (Figure 39)." Note I think it is Fig 45 that is being pointed to, here, but this shows escapement has exceeded Smsy on average for the entire 2004-18 period, and when looking at Fig 44. it becomes apparent that that the high average is very dependent on the exceptionally large runs that were enumerated in 2005 - 2006, and that in fact the available escapement information indicates that sockeye has not met the Smsy level (TRP) in the UoA in any year

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 210 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

2011-2018. Nevertheless, the scoring states: "Numbers have varied but historical escapements have continued to produce substantial returns and harvests over the last decade. Sockeye in particular are at generally at record high levels of production throughout western Kamchatka." If high catch levels are in some way to be relied upon then I highlight that there are no data on sockeye salmon catch presented in the P2 introduction or in the rationale - the team needs to present the data to justify the score. 2.1.2 No (scoring No (scoring NA SIa: I highlight that the management partial Fishing strategies are as described under Accepted implications implications strategy depends again on "establishing fishing P1. Additional descriptions of seasons and (no score unknown) unknown) seasons, scheduled passing days of no fishing passing days were added to the change) to limit exploitation rates and distribute assessment. escapement throughout the season, in-season monitoring of harvest, species composition, biological indicators, and spawning escapements, and in-season fishery management based on this information." and that we know very little about how this actually works in practice, particularly for sockeye salmon and coho salmon which appear to be of lesser interest commercially (based on not surveying the runs specifically) and have non- sychronous run-timing with the pink and chum. 2.1.2 No (scoring No (scoring NA SIb: The rationale states: "Documentation of in- See previous discussions regarding Not implications implications season restrictions based on abundance and interpretation of stock assessment accepted unknown) unknown) assessments of spawning escapement provides information. Note that the assessment found (no score an objective basis for confidence that that stock assessment information was change) management measures are effective for insufficient to meet the P1 standard and so sustaining Sockeye and Coho. Fishery sockeye are addressed as a P2 species in restrictions based on time and area closures are the certification. In the case, of Pink and regularly adopted in-season based on real-time Chum Salmon, the stock assessment is information on run size and catch composition. generally conducted on index populations in Examples of recent fishery actions are detailed the UoA, However, stock assessment of in Section 3. Measures have consistently Sockeye in the UoA are much less complete produced significant spawning escapements in and may not provide a firm foundation for most years." Several points: 1) I don't think

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 211 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

readers are provided with anything that would management going forward at current give us an objective basis for confidence - there levels. are no examples of actions taken and resulting outcomes, here, or anywhere in P2 that I can see; 2) With respect to in-season restrictions being documented, I think 'detailed in Section 3' means detailed in the Principle 3 introduction, in Section 5.4.1. However, in the un-numbered section 'In-Season process', there it seems to focus on sockeye salmon (as a proxy for salmon in general?) and states "Based on experience of last years, there are two free-of-fishing days per week in Bolshaya River (usually coincide with weekends).", even though the Bolshaya River is the largest river in Kamchatka and close to major centres of population (therefore potenitally subject to more intensive management than the UoA rivers), and south of (i.e., not in) the UoA; 3) 'Evidence of have consistently produced significant spawning escapement' - I take the point on lower survey coverage and likely larger run sizes, but there is no actual evidence of that provided - Fig 44 shows sockeye in the UoA, with 0 of the last 8 years at or above Smsy, and Fig 47 shows coho in the UoA, with 2 of the last 8 years above Smsy. Overall, more information or a rescoring is needed! 2.1.2 No (material No NA SIe. The scoring states: "There is no unwanted Scoring rationale was revised to clarify that Not score (material catch of main primary species (Coho and recent management system reviews have accepted reduction score Sockeye). ... Because there is presently a resulted in prohibition of gillnet use in (no score expected to reduction condition regarding coho salmon in PI 2.1.1 due salmon fisheries throughout most of change) <80) expected to to unknown status, it would be beneficial to Kamchatka with the exception of selected <80) monitor the extent to which gillnets are being areas including portions of this UoA. Gillnet used and the incidence of loss and therefore use is not extensive. A condition related to potentially “ghost fishing” on coho and other gillnet use is identified in PI 2.1.1. species. Since this is not yet a conservation concern, the assessment team will raise this as a condition on the information PI." I have two comments: 1) I understand the idea of setting a condition on information, but the UoA should

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 212 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

also have an associated Condition here. I note the introductory text states (P.82): "In particular, quite often the cheap set gillnets can be lost with caught fish and thus result in unaccounted catch. Also, as these gear are very numerous, it is difficult to control them which also may result in unaccounted fishing mortality." This text contrasts with the idea that there is not a conservation concern, and in either case is not consistent with the MSC's stated CRv.2.0 objective of continuous improvement (in the case of this SI, to review and implement appropriate measures to avoid waste of main primary species, even if there is not necessarily a concern about the stocks). 2) The text seems to suggest (as does text in PI 2.1.3) that it is OK not to have a condition here because there is already one in PI 2.1.1. However, there is no condition in PI 2.1.1 (scored >80), so the issue is not being addressed there. Overall, a condition is needed here. 2.1.3 Yes Yes No Nothing to add on the scoring. On Condition 2, I Timeline for compliance was extended to Accepted am struggling to see how this could be four years recognizing that while this period (no score completed within three years - the work needs may not be sufficient for a definitive change) to be planned properly and resourced, and even assessment, it is adequate to demonstrate if things do get going quickly it may take some that a robust stock assessment program has years to understand what the data are showing. been implemented. Schedule and On condition 3, I note the condition is specific to milestones for the condition recognize that 'Coastal set gillnets'. I think this should just read related work is currently underway by 'set gillnets' to highight that gillnet activity cooperative efforts of KamchatNIRO and the wherever it occurs is also of relevance. fishing companies. Gillnet use is limited by regulation to marine waters and widespread by West Kamchatka north from the 54 latitude, thus most of fishing parcels belonging to the fisheries under the certification, are allowed to use coastal gillnets. They are much more widespread than gillnets in the freshwaters where catch is negligible.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 213 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

2.2.1 Yes Yes NA SIa: It doesn't make a difference in scoring in Score revised to account for potential diving Accepted this case becaue SIb is scored 100, but just to bird bycatch as per 2.2.3 response below. (no score note that if there are minors but no mains, SIa is change) scored 'n/a'. See https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/P2- species-outcome-PIs-scoring-when-no-main-or- no-minor-or-both-PI-2-1-1-1527262009344. 2.2.2 Yes Yes NA Nothing to add regarding scoring, but note at Text revised as per comment. Accepted SG100 for PI 2.2.2 it is only a 'strategy' that is (no score required, not a 'comprehensive strategy'. change) 2.2.3 No (material No NA SIa and SIc. Secondary species include out of Scoring was revised to acknowledge the Accepted score (material scope bird species, some of which may potential for a small amount of incidental (non- reduction score regionally red-listed but not nationally red-listed bird mortality for diving bird species which material expected to reduction (e.g., contrast occur in the vicinity of the fishery by score <80) expected to http://www.travelkamchatka.com/birdsmore.htm entanglement. Diving birds were added to reduction) <80) with http://aroundnature.info/en/red-list-of-birds- the list of main secondary species for the threatened-species-of-the-russia/ - there are purposes of this assessment. Given the several species straight off which appear on the limited usage of gillnet in the fishery (after first list but not the second - e.g., pelagic the ban of the marine driftnetting in 2016), cormorant, red-faced cormorant, red-throated the assessment team has concluded that diver/loon, grebes and some ducks), which the information is adequate to meet the means they are not classified as ETP, unless SG80 guidepost. Further, given the very low they are covered by other accepted likelihood of significant encounters of birds designations - e.g. through the CMS), and these with fishing gear, it is difficult to conceive of clearly have the potential to occur in the vicinty a monitoring program with sufficient of the fishery, which does employ (and lose) statistical power to quantify the gillnets, including in the rivers. Experience from corresponding low rates. The concern does other fisheries suggests it would be extremely not rise to the level of a condition. unusual for there to be no bycatch of bird species, and given the MSC requires teams to look at mortality wherever it occurs (i.e., observed and unobserved - SA3.1.8), the team needs to address the fact that while there might be qualitative information suggesting low bycatch rates, there is nothing that that could qualify reasonably as quantitative information adequate to assess the impact of the UoA on such main secondary species with respect to status in active gillnets and nets that are ghost fishing, including in rivers (e.g., see GSA3.6.3,

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 214 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

including Table GSA5). A condition is required here. 2.3.1 Yes No (no NA SIa - The report says there are no numerical Revised as per comment. Accepted score limits set. Therefore this SI should not be (non- change scored. material expected) score reduction) 2.3.1 No (scoring No (scoring NA I note that there is no mention in the report of Assessed as secondary species in PI 2.2.1 Not implications implications ETP bird species (including black-thraoted and 2.2.3. accepted unknown) unknown) diver/loon and any other species which are (no score considered ETP - it would be extremley change) surprising if these species did not occur as bycatch in active gillnets and/or in lost, ghost fishing gear, including in rivers, which the report accepts is an issue in the introduction and in scoring 2.1.3. If these species are not assessed here, though, they would need to be considered as secondary species - see comments against PI 2.2.3. 2.3.1 No (scoring No (scoring NA In SIb, the report states (my emphasis): "Seals Mesh strength of gillnets used for salmon is Not implications implications are the only species regularly observed to such that seals can readily tear and escape accepted unknown) unknown) encounter gear. These seals constantly enter in the event of encounters. Seals can be (no score net traps, eat or damage fish, and then freely entangled by drifting gillnets which are much change) leave the nets." It also states (my emphasis): more strong than coastal or in river gillnets. "SG80 - Direct effects of the fishery on ETP are Drifting gillnets were prohibited in 2016. See highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to also explanation of seal status in the area these ETP species. Effects are negligible due to contained in the assessment. a lack of significant interactions of most species with the fishing gear. Incidental take of these species by tangling in gear has not been observed due to the nature of the gear." These two sections makes it clear that scoring has considered the coastal traps, only, and not gillnets, inclduing in rivers. It is certainly not the case that seals are able to move freely around gillnets, including lost gear, without risk - in fact there are numerous examples catalogued of seals and birds being caught and killed in salmon gillnets, including in ghost fishing gear in rivers and the sea. However, such cases will

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 215 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

invariably not be reported routinely and can go largely unnoticed. This PI needs to be reconsidered. 2.3.2 No (material No NA SIa is scored at SG100 ('comprehensive Score was downgraded from SG100 to Accepted score (material strategy'), which is not appropriate given the SG80 to address this comment. The (non- reduction score lack of reliable and/or independent information assessment found that legislative material expected to reduction on bycatch of ETP species. Even SG80 protections and fishing strategies which score <80) expected to ('strategy') is not likely wihtout considerably avoid significant ETP impacts comprise an reduction) <80) more evidence being provided. The definitions effective strategy. Given a clear lack of in Table SA8 are clear (with my emphasis on significant ETP impacts, a condition would relevant elements "A “strategy” represents a be inappropriate. cohesive and strategic arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome and which should be designed to manage impact on that component specifically. A strategy needs to be appropriate to the scale, intensity and cultural context of the fishery and should contain mechanisms for the modification fishing practices in the light of the identification of unacceptable impacts." In this case there is not a strategic and cohesive arrnagement, I see no evidence that management has been designed ot manage impacts on ETP species specifically, and in the absence of a somewhat systematic and/or verifiable monitoring programme there is no way that unacceptable impacts can be identified. A comprehensive strategy in comparison requires "A complete and tested strategy made up of linked monitoring, analyses, and management measures and responses". It is clear this is not the case here - the absence of any actual monitoring data is telling. I believe a Condition is required. 2.3.2 No (material No NA SIc. I suggest that the text here demonstrates Extensive research and monitoring of the Not score (material that SG80 is not met in SIa, where it is stated: natural system occur in Kamchatka in the accepted reduction score "Information is not specifically collected on ETP normal course of responsibilities of the (no score expected to reduction species in this fishery". It is argued that government authorities as well as academic change) <80) information collection is innecessary becasue of institutions, and this information is regularly

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 216 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

expected to the "low incidence of these species in the fishery requested and provided in the framework of <80) and the corresponding low level of concern". MSC certifications. However, if there are no data, including from ghost fishing, then it is very hard to see how there can be either a strategy in place (SIa SG80), or an objective basis for confidence that the measures/strategy will work (SIb SG80). 2.3.2 No (material No NA SIe. The scoring states: "SG80 – Effective Extensive research and monitoring of the Not score (material protection of ETP species is regularly reviewed natural system occur in Kamchatka in the accepted reduction score in the normal course of activity by regional normal course of responsibilities of the (no score expected to reduction fishery management and environmental government authorities as well as academic change) <80) expected to protection agencies of the Government, hence institutions. <80) the SG80 is met." This may show SG60 is met, but it is not clear what the basis of the reviews is (i.e., what data), and more fundamentally there is no justification here of measures being implemented as apporpriate. This latter element needs to be considered if the fishery is to meet SG80. 2.3.3 No (material No NA SIa and SIb. I suppose it will come as no Extensive reporting by the regional scientific Not score (material surprise to know that I am not convinced SG80 agency has determined that no significant accepted reduction score is met here. There are no quantitative data interaction of the fishery with ETP species (no score expected to reduction presented (the scoring accepts there are none), exists and there is little basis to expect one. change) <80) expected to and while the assessment says such data are It is difficult to envision any kind of <80) not needed (P.92: "The fishing authorities have reasonably implementable condition or determined that the fishery has such low monitoring design with sufficient power to impacts that it needs no specific data collections demonstrate a low incidence of interaction on interactions with ETP species."), the MSC of a rare species which is seldom SG80 requirement is clear on that point. I encountered. highlight again that there are risks to marine mammals and birds associated with gillnets as part of the UoA, including through ghost fishing and in river, that may go largely unnoticed, will not be reported routinely, and can be difficult to estimate. 2.4.1 Yes Yes NA Nothing further. No response required. Accepted (no score change) 2.4.2 No (non- No (non- NA SIa at SG100 requires a strategy to be in place, Scoring was revised consistent with this Accepted material material which is defined as "A cohesive and strategic comment. (non-

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 217 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

score score arrangement which may comprise one or more material reduction reduction measures, an understanding of how it/they work score expected) expected) to achieve an outcome and which should be reduction) designed to manage impact on that component specifically." I don't see that the use of trapnets and beach seines in and of itself is 'designed' to manage impacts on habitats specifically (they're designed to catch salmon in an efficient manner!), while more informaiton on other fisheries and their management would be needed to justify the comment that "Cumulative impacts from non-MSC fisheries are similarly negligible.". SG80 should be OK here. 2.4.3 Yes Yes NA Just a question as to whether there has been Trap net gear is costly and concerted efforts Accepted any consideration of habitat imapcts through lost are made to avoid loss or damage. Storm (no score gear? And whether that should be in some way damage can be a significant issue change) quantified? particularly later in the year, but lost or damaged gear typically appears to end washed up on the beach. The gear is very large and heavily anchored; thus its loss is improbable. Gillnet use is quite limited in this fishery and while some potential for loss may exist, this gear is actively tended which reduces the potential for loss. Gear impacts on habitat do not appear to be a significant issue in relation to the large scale and pristine condition of the area in which the fishery is located. 2.5.1 No (scoring Yes NA SIa - the text is generally OK, but I note that Rationale was revised as per comment. This Accepted implications there are various statements here that are not fishery is managed to sustain high levels of (no score unknown) referenced and have questionable scientific salmon production. Large escapements in change) basis; specifically "Salmon fishery management excess of habitat capacity can substantially to provide escapements consistent with reduce future returns. There is some maximum sustained yield generally increases evidence for this dynamic in Kamchatka pink average abundance in the ocean and return salmon for instance where a very large relative to what can be expected in an escapement during the 1980s was unmanaged system.", and "However, while associated with a reversal of the even-odd fishery management may affect abundance, it year dominance cycle. So, the point we also reduces the variability in abundance were making is that a fishing strategy relative to what can be expected in an designed to maximize salmon production

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 218 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

unmanaged system, thus providing a more can be expected to benefit a salmon- stable resource and avoiding catastrophic dependent ecosystem. It would not an extremes." In essence, this appears to be understatement to say that these saying that fishing is positively good for the Kamchatka ecosystems are currently some environment - it is an understatement to say that of the most functional and productive this will come as a surprise to many readers! In salmon-driven systems on the planet. any case, I suspect SG80 will be met, but the rationale for the riverine system needs to be reviewed and a well-referenced, fact-based rationale presented. In particular, detailed explanation should be provided on how the escapement goals are defined (hopefully they are based on both stock needs and ecosystem needs) - this information is necessary to justify an 80 score, but is missing from the report. 2.5.2 Yes Yes NA SIa: I note there is some reference here to Escapement goals do not explicitly identify Accepted escapement goals accounting for ecosystem "shares" of salmon escapement to stream (no score needs, and this is adequate for scoring 80 here, but are intended to seed available spawning change) so long as the detail on how the escpement grounds to optimum production capacity needs are determined is provided in the text of with concomitant benefits to salmon- PI 2.5.1. However, I note, also that the dependent ecosystem components. For introductory text for P3 states: "Each October instance, as the optimal spawning KamchatNIRO issues forecast for recommended escapement is estimated from relationship catch of salmon for the next season. The between parents and progeny, and parents forecast is developed based on the amount of are used by predators (bears, eagles etc.) salmon required for optimal filling the spawning during their way to the spawning grounds, grounds (i.e., optimal spawning escapement), and the status of the predators population is the number of juveniles from natural spawning good, this approach implicitly includes grounds (based on sampling of juveniles in the ecosystem requirements. By all sea and their survivorship there), and the appearances, Kamchatka salmon release of juveniles from hatcheries (taking into ecosystems are among the most robust on account their survivorship in the sea)." This text the planet. does not indicate that ecosystem needs are considered? 2.5.3 Yes Yes NA Nothing further. No response required. Accepted (no score change) 3.1.1 Yes Yes NA Nothing further. No response required. Accepted (no score change)

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 219 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

3.1.2 Yes Yes NA Nothing further. No response required. Accepted (no score change) 3.1.3 Yes Yes NA Nothing further. No response required. Accepted (no score change) 3.2.1 No (scoring No (scoring NA It is not clear from the text that there are any The regulatory framework provides clear Not implications implications objectives consistent with achieving P2 direction for fishery management and accepted unknown) unknown) outcomes. For example, where it is stated environmental protection consistent with P2 (no score "These include short term objectives for outcomes. See section 5.4.1 - Legal and change) spawning escapements intended to provide for Customary Framework. maximum sustained yield and long-term With respect to salmon enhancement, the objectives for fishery sustainability reflected in regional fishery scientific and management management regulation." - that is all P1. I don't agencies have made a determination, as a agree that SG80 scoring is bolstered because result of open discussion among "Objectives consistent with Principles 1 and 2 stakeholders, that large scale hatchery are also reflected in the absence of enhancement is inconsistent with wild fish enhancement of species in areas which are management goals in Kamchatka. under scope of this certification". The requirement at SG80 is for objectives to be 'explicit'. Please add to the rationale as appropriate. 3.2.2 Yes Yes Yes Nothing further. No response required. Accepted (no score change) 3.2.3 Yes Yes No As for the condition, and in common with the Illegal fishing is a chronic, social issue in Not conditions 1 and 2, I feel that the three year Kamchatka and as such defines simple or accepted timeline is unreasonable - almost any fishery immediate solutions. Regulatory changes in (no score would need more time to demonstrate the the fishery allocation and management change) necessary improvement. structures over the last two decades have largely resolved industrial scale abuses by fishery parcel leaseholders. All available information indicates that the level of illegal harvest has been substantially reduced but poaching is still an issue, especially in readily accessible areas of Kamchatka. It is much less significant in remote areas from which it is difficult to export significant volumes of unlicensed catch. The large and lucrative fishing companies enrolling these

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 220 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

certifications are highly incentivized and contribute significant resources to control illegal fishing in their fishery areas. The condition is intended to continue to develop in a systematic fashion, monitoring, control and surveillance information to better understand the drivers and dynamics of the chronic poaching problem in some areas and contribute to the development of long- term solutions. The duration of the condition is obviously not sufficient to solve the problem but is consistent with the MSC instrument empowering long term remedies. 3.2.4 Yes Yes NA Nothing further. No response required Accepted (no score change)

Peer Reviewer B Follow-up comments and assessment team responses

PI PR Comm- Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at Public Comment CAB response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as CAB Res- ent Code Draft Report (PCDR) stage) included in the Final Draft Report) ponse Code 1.1.1 Yes SIa: I commented that the stock status requirement of SC2.2.3.1 Cab response in peer review was corrected to reflect Accepted were not demonstrated, and in fact on their own they demonstrate that the comment was accepted (no score a <60 level of performance. I note the response is that the change) comment was 'not accepted', and yet the text has been adjusted to remove the statement that "Average escapements exceeded minimum goals in all subject rivers in both even and odd year brood lines". The scoring text here is now better, and reflects that the passing score for status is based mainly on harvest data. I have reviewed several reports recently - this is the first one where the situation is more appropriately reflected.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 221 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

1.1.1 No (no score SIa: I commented that the statement "However, KamchatNIRO Scoring rationale for P.1.1.1a was revised to clarify that Accepted change reports that spawning escapements consistent with optimum the assessment was based on a combination of harvest (no score expected) production levels are regularly achieved and the range of and escapement information. change) escapement values for the most species generally tends to or Sustained high harvests of Pink and Chum clearly exceeds the target reference points" was not reflected in the pink demonstrate that escapements must be sufficient to salmon data, where in the last 15 years the target escapement support production well above levels where recruitment has only been met demonstrably 47% of the time. The response would be imparied by fishing. PI 1.1.1 is an outcome was 'not accepted' although it was commented that the scoring indicator. Given current production, there is simply no rationale was revised for clarification. However, I note this credible basis for a conclusion that these stocks are statement still appears in the rational, so it has not been revised. below the point of reproductive impairment. This interpretation is consistent with guidance in GSA 2.2.3 regarding determination of status with respect to PRI. This guidance requires scoring against conceptual levels of PRI and recognizes that this level may not be used as an explicit reference point in a fishery. In these cases, the stock will still need to be assessed in terms of the overall outcome objectives. For this fishery, the outcome is clearly high levels of sustained production. The available escapement data also provides strong corroboration for this conclusion for pink salmon. Productivity functions have been estimated and optimum spawning levels have been identified relative to the point where recruitment would be impaired. Figures 32 and 33 in the assessment show that spawning escapements of pink salmon consistently exceeds the target (Smsy) reference points in index rivers of the UoA in years when full surveys were completed. Pink salmon abundance is highly correlated across broad regions and Figure 34 indicates that escapements for index rivers are achieve target reference points on average for the dominant even year lineage. Numbers in the subdominant odd-year run were considerably less than those of the odd-year return but off-year production of pink salmon generally does not appear to be strongly related to spawning escapement. This pattern is typical of pink salmon and is not considered indicative of recruitment limitation. Escapement information on chum salmon is more equivocal (Figure 41, Figure 42). While recent average escapements in index river are generally at or above

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 222 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

target reference points based on msy, annual estimates have frequently fallen below the theoretical point of recruitment impairment. However, these apparent low escapements have continued to produce large returns, including an extended period of record returns from 2012 through 2018. This pattern can only be explained by a pattern of consistent underestimation of chum salmon escapement since 2008 when aerial survey effort for stock assessment was substantially reduced due to budget cuts in the management agency. And fishery researchers repeatedly point on that. Therefore, the assessment has concluded that low chum salmon escapement estimates are an artifact of reduced sampling effort and that sustained high catches of chum salmon clearly indicate that this SMU is highly likely above a point of reproductive impairment.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 223 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

1.1.1 No (no score SIb: I commented: "SIb states: "The SG80 standard is achieved. The scoring rationale was revised to clarify that the Accepted change Escapement estimates varied around target levels (Smsy) for assessment is based on the combination of sustained (no score expected) even year runs of pink salmon from 1990-2018 (Figure 29) and high harvests which clearly indicate that escapements change) average escapements exceeded the target in all five index rivers have been sufficient to sustain high yields and for the region (Icha, Oblukovina, Krutogorova, Kolpakova and escapement information which indicates that the Vorovskaya) (Figure 32). Escapement estimates varied around escapements are fluctuating around levels consistent target levels (Smsy) for odd year runs of pink salmon in years with high yelds. This is an outcome indicator. The where surveys were completed from since 2003 (Figure 29)." I harvests clearly demonstate outcomes consistent with don't necessarily disagree with the score given the SG80 high sustained yields even where the escapement data requirement is that 'fluctuating around' means an SMU meeting is less clear due primarily to reduced survey efforts due its TRP ≥50% of the 15 most recent years. Subject to estimates to funding cuts in some years, The assessment placed of error, which are not provided but which may be considerable more weight on the demonstrated high sustained with low survey coverage, pink salmon here is 47%. However, the harvests than the sometimes incomplete escapement odd year catch data for 2009 - 2015, when stream survey information. Given the weight of the harvest trend data coverage was apparently poor, show very low comparative catch and the qualifications of the escapement estimates, the levels, inthe absence of other data indicating that returns were assessment team does not agree that a 3% difference also very poor - the absence of survey data does not mean that between 50% and 37% warrants a score of less than returns were strong." The response was 'not acepted' and a 80%. commentary on pink salmon life cylcle and cohort run strength was presented. This does not answer the concern about estimates of error, though, and the fact that 47% is <50% when the requrement is that the SMU meets its TRP ≥50% of the time. It's close, but it doesn't actually meet it.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 224 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

1.1.1 No (material SIb: I commented "SIb: Looking again at Fig. 39, and again The scoring rationale was revised to clarify the the Accepted score subject to error withtin the estimates, Smsy (the TRP) has been interpretations of escapement information by the (no score reduction met demonstrably six times in the last 15 years (=40%). It is not assessment team. The effect of skewed averages due change) expected to clear how this equates with the scoring statement that "Average to high escapements in a few years was noted. <80) escapements of chum salmon exceeded minimum goals in all five index rivers for the region for the same period (Figure 39)." The data do not show this (and note it is not minimum escapment (i.e., the LRP) that is required here, it is the TRP (Smsy)." The response was not accepted, and 'See explanations above'. However, the explanations above provide no information w.r.t. the chum salmon meeting escapement goals, and the statement "Average escapements of chum salmon exceeded minimum goals in all five index rivers for the region for the same period." still appears. Noting it is Figure 41 not Figure 42 that needs to be looked at (because it is performance each year over time, not the complete aggregate which is skewed by data from 2006), it's clearly not correct!

1.1.2 Yes Nothing further No response required

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 225 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

1.2.1 No (no score SIb: I comemnted "SIb: The report states: "Direct evidence, The rationale was revised to clarify that the scoring was Accepted change including documentation of in-season restrictions based on based on sustained high levels of annual yield and (no score expected) abundance and assessments of spawning escapement, harvest strategies that must be consistent with change) demonstrates that the harvest strategy is generally achieving its escapements necessary to produce high levels of objectives, therefore the SG80 is met. Fishery restrictions based sustained production. While comprehensive on time and area closures are regularly adopted inseason based escapement information may not be available in every on real-time information on run size and catch composition. year, the assessment team has determined that the Established regulations and in-season measures have available escapement information in conjunction with the consistently distributed spawning escapements around harvest patterns clearly demonstrate that the harvest established goals." However, the escapement of neither pink strategy is effective. salmon nor chum salmon actually show that the escapement targets are being met consistenty (as noted in the scoring of PI 1.1.1), and the text in 1.1.1 SIa states: "Fishing effort may also be adjusted somewhat in-season based on annual stock assessments but the fishery is not intensively managed at a fine scale in order to maximize harvest in any given year.". This is an apparent discrepancy, and needs to be reviewed. In any case, if there are any adjustments, what are they, what are they based on, and when are they used?" The response states 'not accepted' and focuses on consistent harvest strength - "Annual run sizes of Pink Salmon, Chum Salmon and Sockeye salmon are are historically high levels of production. This provides clear evidence that the harvest strategy is effective". etc, and points to conditions set on information. Well, OK, but the rationale still talks about escapement - there has been no change? Based on your own response the scoring text isn't accurate. However, readers cannot be expected to check in the peer review comments for the scoring rationale - the report needs to be revised.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 226 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

1.2.2 No (material SIa: We have a dissagremeent over what an HCR is, and in this Harvest control rules for this fishery are similar to those Not score I'd suggest the team is mistaken. As with GSA2.5, the MSC applied to salmon fisheries throughout the Pacific accepted reduction Vocabularly v.1.2 defines 'HCRs' as: "A set of well-defined pre- including Alaska. There is timely in-inseason monitoring (no score expected to agreed rules or actions used for determining a management of stock abundances, primarily based on catch levels, change) <80) action in response to changes in indicators of stock status with catch composition and biological indicators (e.g., size respect to reference points." but then 'Tools' as "Mechanisms for and sex ratios) but also including formal and informal implementing strategies under Principles 1 or 2. For example, escapement assessments. Managers have the ability to total allowable catches, mesh regulations, closed areas, etc. open and close specific areas of the fishery depending could be used to implement Harvest Control Rules." In essence, on the information at hand. Harvest control rules are not therefore, where the report states: "HCRs include season dates, explicit statements of specific actions based on specific establishing passing days, and time/area closures" - those are conditions, but rather clearly understood measures 'tools'. However, the report then goes on to state: "Operation of whereby conventional tools are applied as appropriate the fishing gear is modified in response to whether escapement based on conditions. Salmon harvest control rules are goals are being met" - that suggests there might be some form of based on the expected escapements through fisheries HCR in place - the (pre-agreed) rules by which the 'operations of corresponding to past applications of a variety of the fishing gear is modified'. If such rules exist, though, what are management tools. Harvests are thus regulated in they? Currently, the rationale still doesn't justify an SG80 score proportion to abundance in order to provide and the report needs to be edited to reflect the reality of the escapements sufficient to sustain high levels of future situation. production. The assessment team has reviewed numerous examples of application of harvest control rules in management actions taken by the management system through its Anadromous Fish Commission. The management strategy also recognizes the limits of its inseason assessment capabilities by implementing inherently conservative tools in the form of passing days which ensure that significant escapement occurs throughout the duration of the run. The passing days, for example, can be set up differently for insea and inriver fishing parcels taking into account the velocity of migrating fish to create a window for more fish to approach spawinig ground. Therefore, the SG80 standard for PI 1.2.2 is clearly met.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 227 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

1.2.2 No (no score SIc: I previously commented that "The report states: "Available Text was revised to clarify that evidence is based on Accepted change evidence based on indicates that the tools in use are appropriate high levels of sustained production consistent with (no score expected) and effective in achieving the exploitation levels for pink, and escapements necessary to produce them. change) chum required under the HCRs. Significant escapements of target stocks are consistently achieved and continuing high levels of salmon production provide evidence that harvest control rules are effective in producing appropriate exploitation rates." I'll note that the escapements for both species might have been significant in 2018 but have been much more commonly below the TRP in recent years as far as the data show, so not demonstrably "the exploitation levels required under the HCRs". The response was 'not accepted' but pointed ony to sustained high levels of harvest. Fine - but this is not what is stated in the scoring rationale. The report needs to reflect the siutation faithfully.

1.2.3 Yes Nothing further No response required

1.2.3 Yes Nothing further No response required

1.2.4 Yes Nothing further No response required

1.3.1 Yes Nothing further No response required

1.3.2 Yes Nothing further No response required

1.3.3 Yes Nothing further No response required

2.1.1 Yes Nothing further No response required

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 228 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

2.1.2 No (scoring SIa: I pointed to concerns that we know very little about how the Text was revised to clarify that the harvest strategy in Accepted implications management for primary species works in practice. The response place is designed to regulate harvest levels and achieve (no score unknown) was 'Accepted' and points to fishing strategies as described escapements consistent with production of high change) under P1. Having already noted that escapement data are sustained yields. While escapement survey efforts have inadequate and must be subject to considerable uncertainty (to been uneven in recent years with funding cuts, the which the response was, paraphrasing - 'yes the escapement strategy is still designed to ensure that escapements data are limited but it's not a concern because the harvest data through the fishery are sufficient to sustain high levels of show how well the stocks are doing', I'll note the report still states production and the harvest trends clearly demonstrate in SIa that "The harvest strategy in place is designed to achieve their effectiveness. escapement-based management objectives consistent with production of sustained yields of sockeye and Coho in commercial fisheries." Both things can't be right - i) that escapement data are poor, ii) it scores well using escapement- based management. Please revise the report to reflect reality. 2.1.3 Yes Nothing further No response required

2.2.1 Yes Nothing further No response required

2.2.2 No (scoring I note that diving birds were added to the assessment at 2.2.1. As Diving seabirds have now been explicitly evaluated Accepted implications main species, these need to be considered in 2.2.2, which under all the scoring issues of the secondary species (no score unknown) currently they are not. This includes in 2.2.2 SIe - alternative performance indicators, after more research into their change) measures. What evidence is there that the incidental level of population statuses, foraging and nesting behavior, and mortality is highly likely to be so low as to be effectively observed and potential for interaction with teh fisheries insiginficant? There is no evidence presented, noting the (based on some past interaction data as well as degree expectation that assessment teams should score in a of spatial and temporal overlap with the fishery). No precautionary manner? score changes resulted, but the justifications are more complete. 2.2.3 No (material I commented previously about the lack of quantitative data to The concern for a small amount of incidental mortality Accepted score justify the previous score of 100, suggesting that 60 was more for diving bird species is acknowledged by a score (no score reduction appropriate given the lack of data. I acknowledge the drop in reduction from 100 to 80, and the performance indicator change) expected to score to 80, here, but it still seems difficult to get past SG60. See justifications have subsequently been revised to be <80) Table GSA5 and the text around that - some actual data are more explicit. However, the risks of significant bird needed for SG80. bycatch are still determined to be low and consistent with a score of 80.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 229 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

2.3.1 No (scoring SIb - I pointed to the fact that the scoring focuses on traps and The rationale has been updated to include Accepted implications ignores gillnets and their potential for catching seals. The references/evidence regarding interactions between (no score unknown) response states that seals can readily tear nets and escape in the seals and coastal gillnets. The assessment team made change) event of encounters. However, if there is evidence of this at all, that assertiion based on KamchatNIRO studies then it is still appropriate to score the interaction. reviewed by the assessment team as part of the first Ozernaya sockeye MSC assessment. 2.3.2 No (material SIa: Against 2.3.1. and 2.3.2 I commented on the need for The assessment found that legislative protections and Not score monitoring within the context of a 'strategy' being a 'cohesive and fishing strategies which avoid significant ETP impacts accepted reduction strategic arrangement', but the Teams' response was effectively comrpise an effective strategy. Given a clear lack of (no score expected to to suggest that monitoring isn't going to show anything so it isn't significant ETP impacts, a condition would be change) <80) necessary. This doesn’t, however, meet the requirement at SG80 inappropriate. , and I would suggest again that a revision is required. This response mischaracterizes the team response relative to monitoring. The point is that the statistical power to quantify the incidence of impact of rare events in limited use of gillnets by this fishery is so low as to marginalize the value of any such monitoring program for the stated purpose. Events are rare because the potential for interaction is negligible. The assessment team has determined that the risk of significant impact does not justify the cost of monitoring relative to other high-priority needs in this fishery. 2.3.2 No (material SIc. I suggest that the text here demonstrates that SG80 is not The regional scientific agency is responsible for Accepted score met in SIa, where it is stated: "Information is not specifically assessing the status of ETP species in the region and (no score reduction collected on ETP species in this fishery". It is argued that the implementation of the fishery with respect to change) expected to information collection is unnecessary becasue of the "low environmental regulations for protection of ETP species. <80) incidence of these species in the fishery and the corresponding Alternative measures for minimizing mortality of ETP low level of concern". However, if there are no data, including species have not been identified by the management from ghost fishing, then it is very hard to see how there can be authorities because there is no significant mortality of either a strategy in place (SIa SG80), or an objective basis for ETP species associated with this fishery as it is currently confidence that the measures/strategy will work (SIb SG80). implemented. An explicit strategy is not required because the fishery by its nature does not contribute significantly to ETP species mortality. The rationale has been updated.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 230 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

2.3.2 No (material SIe: I stated previosuly that "It is not clear what the basis of the The rationale has been updated. Accepted score reviews is (i.e., what data), and more fundamentally there is no (no score reduction justification here of measures being implemented as apporpriate. change) expected to This latter element needs to be considered if the fishery is to <80) meet SG80." The Team has not responded to the comment provided, but it still needs to be answered.

2.3.3 No (material SIa and SIb: I noted that quantitative data are needed for SG80, The rationale has been updated to specfiy the available Accepted score but there are no quantitative data presented. In response, the quantative data. (no score reduction team has simply stated that "Extensive reporting by the regional change) expected to scientific agency has determined that no significant interaction of <80) the fishery with ETP species exists and there is little basis to expect one" But, there are no data presented, which woudl be useful given PI 2.3.2 SIc states "Information is not specifically collected on ETP species in this fishery". If the 80 score is to be supported, some evidence should be presented.

2.4.1 Yes Nothing further No response required

2.4.2 Yes Nothing further No response required

2.4.3 Yes Nothing further No response required

2.5.1 Yes Nothing further No response required

2.5.2 Yes Nothing further No response required

2.5.3 Yes Nothing further No response required

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 231 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

3.1.1 Yes Nothing further No response required

3.1.2 Yes Nothing further No response required

3.1.3 Yes Nothing further No response required

3.2.1 No (scoring I questioned whether there were P2 outcomes based on the Examples related to P2 outcomes are added to the Accepted implications scoring text. The response was, paraphrasing - "It's fine - see a scoring rationale. Additional explanations were included (no score unknown) section in the introduction". Fair enough that there is more in P3 rationales throughout. change) information presented there, but the basic outline has to be included in the scoring rationale as that is what justifies the score! Currently, there is nothing there to show that the P2 considerations are addressed explicitly. 3.2.2 Yes Nothing further No response required

3.2.3 Yes Nothing further No response required

3.2.4 Yes Nothing further No response required

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 232 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

7.3 Stakeholder input Written input submitted to the team from WWF Russia pertained to a different fishery in assessment. However, when we met with the representative in Petropavlovsk, he did mention some concerns with a large coal mining project in planning stages for the mountain areas potentially bringing pollution to and degrading freshwater habitat quality in salmon spawning streams in western Kamchatka, including those included within the present UoAs. The team acknowledged this concern and intends to keep an eye on developments.

Following the site visit, the following comments were submitted to MRAG Americas specific to this fishery. The table below contains the stakeholder comment and team response. Edits to the report have been made throughout to address the comment. Please note that difficulty with formatting in the below table requires us to paste it into the document as an image which may make it very small to read. However, the content of the table is also available for download on the MSC website here: https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/zarya-kolpakovsky- sobolevo-salmon-fisheries/@@assessments.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 233 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Sugge Performance CAB response Input summary Input detail Evidence or references sted CAB response to stakeholder input Indicator (PI) code Performance scoreIf Indicator - please suitable, The CAB shall respond in this column. The CAB shall copy and insert please Objective evidence or references assign a response row s to raise more provide Summary sentence Detail of stakeholder input should be provided in support of any CAB responses should include details of w here different code to each row than one input a claims or claimed errors of fact. changes have been made in the report (w hich section #, completed by the against a suggest table etc). stakeholder. Performance ed Indicator score 2.4.3 - Habitats Additional information on habitats UoA as stated in Draft report includes salmon fisheries harvesting salmon stocks of Icha river. Stock As objective evidence and for <60 Based on this comment, concerns for the potential impacts of Accepted (no score information status w ith regard to continuous impact assessment w ithin certification process provides assessment of harvesting strategy, operations, impact reference please consider official mining activities w ere identified in the assessment. In the change) of mining operations taking place in the of fishing operations etc. But gives no information on cumulative impact on Icha salmon habitats and publications on the problem by MSC fisheries standard, the fishery responsibility to to area of UoA. stocks from not only fishing operation by UoA fisheries, but non-fishing businesses taking place in the Kamchatka scientific fisheries regulate harvest consistent w ith stock productivity w hich w atershed. Here w e mean gold-mining by Aginsky factory (KamGold LTD) w hich is located in the research Institute (KamchatNIRO) and can be reduced by mining. The principle 2 standard for upstream of Icha w atershed. The problem of negative impact from Aginsky gold mining factory (w hich All-Russia Institute for Fisheries habitat is assessed based on fishery impacts on habitat, not uses chemicals) on Aga stream, that goes into Icha river, is w ell-know n in Kamchatka, but not officially Research and Oceanography on habitat impacts of other activities independent of the and openly discussed due to the support of the factory by Kamchatka government. At the moment, there (V NIRO) fishery. is no objective and official information that salmon stocks of Icha w atershed are not being impacted by 1. By KamchatNIRO: mining, moreover independent scientists and local activists insist that such an impact exist. Official http://w w w .kamniro.ru/presscenter/n Therefore, this concern is most apprpriately addressed monitoring data reg. mining operations in Kamchatka in general (chemicals going into w ater, area of ew s/krupnomasshtabnaya_dobycha_ under PI 1.2.3 regarding information and monitoring spoiled spaw ning grounds) is either not publicly available, or manipulated to hide negative info. With zolota_opasna_dlya_kamchatki necessary to support the harvest control rule. The mining regard to this particular area regular monitoring of Icha upstream (tributaries) doesn't exist. Kamchatka 2. By V NIRO: concern w as specifically identified in the scoring rationale Branch of Russian Fishery Agency (SVTU) and KamchatNIRO are responsible for performing the State http://w w w .vniro.ru/files/trydi_vniro/a for PI 1.2.3(b). It w as noted that the current survey intensity Monitoring of Salmon Watersheds, but over the last 5 years this monitoring has not been performing rchive/tv_2015_t_157_article_11.pdf likely provides sufficient precision to distinguish large and regularly due to several reasons: lack of finance, barriers built by government and mining business. At small runs but lack the resolution to avoid estimation bias due the moment scientific data on habitat status and impacts on stocks caused by habitat degradation is not to differences in run timing or fish distribution, and also complete and is not taken into account w hen harvest strategy is being developed. In this regard there is prohibits the detection of effects on spaw ning escapement no evidence that management of stocks for fishing operations takes into account impact on stocks from from degradation of habitat due to mining in the Icha River mining. With this in mind, w e insist on including into UoA Conditions framew ork the follow ing actions: 1) w atershed. Historical assessments have generally been to obtain objective information on impact of gold mining operations on Icha w atershed and spaw ning sufficient to support the current harvest strategy but current habitats and make it publicly available and discussable; 2) to assess cumulative impact - of both fishing survey frequency may not be sufficient to identify any future and mining - on salmon stocks in the long-term, comparing the baseline (before beginning of mining changes in productivity or distribution patterns w hich might operations) w ith modern state; 3) to adjust fishing management strategy according to results of these confound effective implementation of the harvest control assessments; 4) UoA fishing companies to establish dialogue w ith respective mining company to require rules. improving mining operations management and regular independent monitoring of habitat quality. This w ork to be done by fishing companies of UoA via contracting KamchatNIRO and independent experts Condition 1 addressing Principle 1.2.3 identified a need to (biologists and hydrologists of Moscow State University w ho used to w ork in the w atershed several provide sufficient information on w ild spaw ning escapement times over the last 10 years, w ith last time in 2018). The results of the assessment to be officially for a representative range of w ild pink and chum populations publicized and taken into account w ithin MSC certification process w ith respective conditions. Without in the unit of certification to support the harvest strategy and this w ork and w ithout taking into account impacts of gold mining on salmon habitats of Icha river, MSC demonstrate that w ild abundance is regularly monitored at a certification cannot be considered reliable and salmon stocks sustainable. level of accuracy and coverage consistent w ith the harvest The results of this additional assessment to be used in scoring the follow ing performance indicators control rule and precautionary management in light of impact (right now scores presented in Draft report are not objective and reliable): P1 - Stock status, Stock of mining activities on habitat quality in the Icha River rebuilding, Information and monitoring; P2 – Habitats outcome, Habitats information, Ecosystem w atershed. information.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 234 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

MRAG Americas received additional comments by the MSC in the form of Technical Oversight comments. These are given in the table below, together with the team’s responses.

Requirement Page Grade Oversight Description Pi CAB Comment Version Refer to G7.8.1.1 - The “eligibility date” is the date from which the CAB determines that product from the certified fishery will be eligible to enter the supply chain. The eligibility date is confirmed in the Public Comment Draft Report.

In cases where the eligibility date is set before the certification date, the CAB will need to consider any potential traceability impacts – and for example, the risk of product from outside the UoC The eligibility date has been specified as the 11 Minor FCP-7.8.1 v2.1 being incorrectly identified as an under- beginning of the 2020 salmon fishing season with assessment product. As a result, CABs should the accompanying required justification. verify traceability and identification systems before the eligibility date.

Reporting template instructions: The report shall include the eligibility date and the justification for selecting this date, including consideration of whether the traceability and segregation systems in the fishery are appropriately implemented.

Refer to G7.9.1.5: Clear information on the UoC must be available to stakeholders and particularly any party purchasing certified product from the fishery client. Any specific conditions related to eligibility of product from the UoC to bear the MSC ecolabel should be clearly stated in this section. FCP-7.9.2.1 The report should also list the specific operators This has been clarified in the final sentence of 12-13 Guidance v2.1 covered, the eligibility criteria, or where to find this section 4.3. information.

From the Reporting template (6.3): The CAB shall include in the report a list of parties, or category of parties, eligible to use the fishery certificate, and sell product as MSC certified.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 235 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Therefore, please confirm the inclusion of transport and the list of landing points used that are included in the fishery certificate. Please also confirm the eligibility of product when sold direct from vessel to a buyer that is not a client group member.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 236 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

7.4 Conditions & Client Action Plan Condition 1

Performance 1.2.3. Information and monitoring - Relevant information is collected to Indicator support the harvest strategy Pink – 65 Score Chum – 65

a) SG 80 - Sufficient relevant information related to SMU structure, SMU production, fleet composition and other data is available to support the harvest strategy, including harvests and spawning escapements for a representative range of wild component populations. This standard is not met because recent reductions in aerial surveys of escapement mean that a majority of wild component populations are no longer represented. Assessments based on index stocks and historical distribution patterns may not be adequate for long-term management under conditions of changing fishery dynamics, fish productivity or fish distribution patterns. This is particularly the case for odd-year pink salmon, where escapements are not well correlated with historical patterns and the average escapements from available years may not accurately reflect the true situation. (b) SG 80 – SMU wild abundance and UoA removals are regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest Rationale control rule, and one or more indicators are available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. The continuing effectiveness of the harvest strategy will depend also on monitoring of spawning escapements. The SG80 standard for regular monitoring is not met because recent reductions in aerial survey intensity have substantially reduced the accuracy and precision of spawning escapement estimates used to guide management decisions. Surveys have been reduced due to budget limitations. The current survey intensity likely provides sufficient precision to distinguish large and small runs but lack the resolution to avoid estimation bias due to differences in run timing or fish distribution, and also prohibits the detection of effects on spawning escapement from degradation of habitat due to mining in the Icha River watershed (see P2 for more details). Historical assessments have generally been sufficient to support the current harvest strategy, but current survey frequency may not be sufficient to identify any future changes in productivity or distribution patterns which might confound effective implementation of the harvest control rules.

Provide sufficient information on wild spawning escapement for a representative range of wild pink and chum populations in the unit of certification to support the harvest strategy and demonstrate that wild abundance is regularly monitored at Condition a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule and precautionary management in light of impact of mining activities on habitat quality in the Icha River watershed.

By the first annual surveillance, the Client must present evidence that a plan is in place to address this condition. By the second annual surveillance, the Client must present evidence that the Milestones plan has been implemented. By the fourth annual surveillance, the Client must demonstrate that the condition has been met, at which time the fishery will rescore at least 80.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 237 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

The Client will provide a written plan to improve escapement monitoring sufficient to identify the status of pink and chum salmon in relation to harvest in the UoA during the first annual surveillance. The plan will include the methodology (e.g. aerial surveys, weir counts, etc.), approximate time period (e.g. mid-August to early September), frequency (e.g. bi-weekly surveys), Client action plan streams/stream sections for each species, and identify steps to provide sufficient information on wild spawning escapement to support the harvest strategy and demonstrate monitoring of abundance. The plan will be implemented prior to the second surveillance audit. Information on survey effort and distribution and escapement results from the previous season will be provided during each audit. The Client will work with KamchatNIRO, AFC and other stakeholders. Consultation on condition

Condition 2

2.1.3. Primary Species Information - Information on the nature and extent Performance of primary species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA Indicator and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species 70 Score

(a) SG 80 - Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to assess the impact of the UoA on the main primary species with respect to status. Continuing reductions in aerial survey effort, which is the basis for in-season Rationale and post season stock assessment, raises concern for the sufficiency of information on spawning escapements for a representative range of component populations in the future. The SG80 standard is not met due to reductions in the accuracy and precision of wild abundance estimates resulting from recent reductions in aerial survey efforts.

Provide quantitative information on escapement of sockeye and coho salmon Condition adequate to assess the impact of the UoA with respect to status.

By the first annual surveillance, the Client must present evidence that a plan is in place to address this condition. By the second annual surveillance, the Client must present evidence that the Milestones plan has been implemented. By the third annual surveillance, the Client must demonstrate that the condition has been met, at which time the fishery will rescore at least 80.

The Client will provide a written plan to improve escapement monitoring sufficient to identify the status of sockeye and coho salmon in relation to harvest in the UoA during the first annual surveillance. The plan will include the methodology (e.g. aerial surveys, weir counts, etc.), approximate time period (e.g. mid-August to early September), frequency (e.g. bi-weekly surveys), Client action plan streams/stream sections for each species, and identify steps to provide sufficient information on wild spawning escapement to support the harvest strategy and demonstrate monitoring of abundance. The plan will be implemented prior to the second surveillance audit. Information on survey effort and distribution and escapement results from the previous season will be provided during each audit.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 238 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Consultation on The Client will work with KamchatNIRO, AFC and other stakeholders. condition

Condition 3

2.1.3. Primary Species Information - Information on the nature and extent Performance of primary species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA Indicator and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species 70 Score

(a) SG 80 - Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to assess the impact of the UoA on the main primary species with respect to status. For the past several years, intensity of fishing with coastal set gillnets (where legal north of 54 degrees N) increased significantly in even years when catches of pink salmon are relatively low. This is because large and expensive coastal trap nets are less profitable that gillnets in situation of relatively low catches. But using this fishing gear for fishing salmon in Kamchatka can result in Rationale unaccounted catch when gillnets are lost. This gear is mostly targeting valuable Pacific salmon species (i.e. not pink salmon) which migrate close to shoreline, particularly, coho salmon. The coastal set gillnets are fully prohibited now south to 54 latitude (in Kamchatka-Kuril fisheries subzone) but are allowed in most parcels to the north of this latitude with several limitations (see 5.2.1). Because there is presently a condition regarding coho salmon in PI 2.1.1 due to unknown status, it would be beneficial to monitor the extent to which gillnets are being used and the incidence of loss and therefore potentially “ghost fishing” on coho and other species. Since this is not yet a conservation concern, the assessment team will raise this as a condition on the information PI.

Provide quantitative information on the use and or catch of coastal set gillnets, Condition incidence of loss and potential for impact of gear loss and unaccounted mortality on coho salmon.

By the first annual surveillance, the Client must present evidence that a plan is in place to address this condition. By the second annual surveillance, the Client must present evidence that the Milestones plan has been implemented. By the third annual surveillance, the Client must demonstrate that the condition has been met, at which time the fishery will rescore at least 80.

The Client will provide a written plan that allows for monitoring and tracking of coastal set gillnets by the first audit. This will likely include uniquely marking each set gillnet at the beginning of the season and keeping track of when and where the gear is deployed. Any lost gear will be recorded, and any found gear will be noted along with any identifying information (if part of the client group) Client action plan and incidental catches of fish, birds or other species. The plan will be implemented prior to the second surveillance audit. Information from the previous season will be summarized (number of set gillnets deployed and retrieved over the season as well as numbers of lost and/or found gear and incidental catches) and provided during each audit.

Consultation on The Client will work with KamchatNIRO, AFC and other stakeholders. condition

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 239 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Condition 4

3.2.2. Decision-making processes - The fishery-specific and associated Performance enhancement management system includes effective decision-making Indicator processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery.

Score 75

Monitoring of decision making for the fishery is limited by the inconsistent availability of information outside the local governmental management system. Results of fishing season and effectiveness of management actions undertaken are discussed at the both management agencies such as AFC, SVTU and FAR, and also at Research Councils of fisheries institutes such as KamchatNIRO, TINRO-Center and VNIRO on a regular basis. However, information on run size, harvest by time and area, fishery management actions, and escapement is not Rationale typically reported outside the management system except in rare cases. Occasional publications of related information (e.g. Shevliakov 2013b) provide a historical perspective but are not sufficient to allow tracking action associated with findings and relevant recommendations. Inconsistent availability of annual fish run and fishery information outside the local governmental management system limits the availability of information for actions or lack of action associated with findings and relevant recommendations; therefore, the fishery does not score 80.

Demonstrate that information on fishery performance and management action is available on request, and explanations are provided for any actions or lack of Condition action associated with findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity.

By the first annual surveillance, the Client must present evidence that a plan is in place to address this condition. By the second annual surveillance, the Client must present evidence that the Milestones plan has been implemented. By the third annual surveillance, the Client must demonstrate that the condition has been met, at which time the fishery will rescore at least 80. Annually the Client will provide a written report explaining management actions taken during the previous fishing season that were relevant to the fishery. The report will identify initial passing days, modifications to passing days, and season closures as well as clearly specify Anadromous Fish Commission Client action plan protocols for the fishery area. The report may also include relevant information on the fishery management adopted from other management agencies and institutes.

Consultation on The Client will work with SVTU, Kamchatka Ministry on Fisheries, and condition KamchatNIRO.

Condition 5 3.2.3. Compliance and Enforcement - Monitoring, control and surveillance Performance mechanisms ensure the management measures in the fishery and Indicator associated enhancement activities are enforced and complied with.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 240 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Score 70

An assessment of illegal harvest has been completed as a condition of assessments in other areas of west Kamchatka. This assessment found that some poaching continues to occur among local residents but that the current monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented and demonstrated some ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules in order to provide significant control of illegal harvest, particularly in areas of limited road access.

At the same time, there is information about poaching in in Vorovskaya River, which is easily accessible from villages Sobolevo and Ustievoe (total population 2005 inchabitants). It is important also that these rivers are connected to Rationale Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky by so-called technological road constructed to build up and maintain gas pipeline. Quality of this road is not good, but it is nevertheless actively used for transportation of illegal roe from this area to Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. Other sources also confirm high level of poaching in Vorovskaya River. Therefore, this standard is not met.

Questions remain regarding the consistency of application and the effectiveness of deterrence for illegal harvest activities in freshwater by non-commercial fishers. Sanctions do not appear to provide effective deterrence to components of illegal fishing which remains significant in accessible systems including the Vorovskaya River. While apparently much reduced from historical levels, illegal harvest remains a chronic concern in other areas.

Demonstrate that a monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery and associated enhancement activities and has Condition demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules, and that sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are consistently applied and thought to provide effective deterrence.

By the first annual surveillance, the Client must present evidence that a plan is in place to address this condition.

By the second annual surveillance, the Client must present evidence that the Milestones plan has been implemented.

By the third annual surveillance, the Client must demonstrate that the condition has been met, at which time the fishery will rescore at least 80.

The Client will provide a detailed plan for assessing the effectiveness of the monitoring, control and surveillance system within the Vorovskaya River drainage by the first surveillance audit. In addition, to documenting enforcement activities undertaken by SVTU, KamchatNIRO and the fishing companies, and media reports, the plan will include some methodology to evaluate the relative effectiveness of enforcement activities. For example, this may include anthropological/sociological studies of local communities to assess the types

Client action plan and scale of different illegal activities, potential trade routes, and strategies for reducing incentives for these activities.

The Client will present evidence that the plan has been implemented during the second surveillance audit. A final report on the results demonstrating an effective monitoring, control, and surveillance system will be provided during the third surveillance audit.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 241 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Consultation on The Client will work with SVTU, KamchatNIRO, and others as appropriate to condition develop and implement the plan as well as consult with ForSea Solutions LLC

Условие 1

Показатель 1.2.3. Информация и мониторинг – Собирается соответствующая Эффективности информация для поддержания стратегии добычи Горбуша - 65 Балл Кета - 65

Данный стандарт не удовлетворен, поскольку недавнее сокращение количества авиа учетов пропусков означает, что информация о численности большинства компонентов диких популяций больше не предоставляется. Оценки, основанные на индикаторных запасах и историческом распределении могут оказаться неадекватными для долгосрочного управления под влиянием меняющейся динамики промысла, продуктивности рыб и их распределения. Обеспечение эффективности стратегии в дальнейшем зависит в том числе и от мониторинга заполнения нерестилищ. Стандарт SG80, предусматривающий регулярный мониторинг, не выполнен поскольку недавнее сокращение количества авиа учетов значительным образом Обоснование повлияло на снижение точности и аккуратности оценки заполняемости нерестилищ, которая используется как руководство для принятия решений. Количество учетов было сокращено вследствие ограничений бюджета. Интенсивность учетов в настоящее время является достаточной для получения информации о сильных и слабых подходах, однако недостаточна чтобы избежать неточностей в оценках из-за разницы в сроках путины или распределения рыбы. Исторические оценки были в целом достаточны для поддержки настоящей стратегии промысла, однако частота исследований в настоящее время может оказаться недостаточной для идентификации любых изменений в продуктивности или распределении паттернов в будущем, что может стать неожиданным препятствием для эффективного выполнения мероприятий по контролю за исполнением правил добычи.

Предоставить достаточный объем информации о заполнении нерестилищ диким лососем для репрезентативных популяций горбуши и кеты на территории сертифицируемой единицы для поддержки стратегии добычи, Условие а также чтобы продемонстрировать, что уровень точности и масштаб мониторинга численности диких популяций достаточен для обеспечения эффективного контроля за добычей данных видов.

К началу первого ежегодного надзорного аудита клиент должен предоставить доказательства того, что существует план по удовлетворению этого условия. К началу второго ежегодного надзорного аудита клиент должен Этапы представить доказательства того, что план был выполнен. К началу третьего ежегодного надзорного аудита клиент должен продемонстрировать, что условие было выполнено, и в таком случае промысел получит не менее 80. Клиент предоставит письменный многолетний план по улучшению План действий мониторинга заполнения, достаточный для определения состояния Клиента запасов горбуши и кеты на UoA во время первого ежегодного надзорного

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 242 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

аудита. План будет включать в себя методологию (например, авиаучеты, подсчет на РУЗах и т. Д.), приблизительный период времени (например, с середины августа до начала сентября), частоту (например, каждые две недели), реки / участки рек для каждого вида и определение шаги по предоставлению достаточной информации о заполнении нерестилищ диким лососем для поддержки стратегии добычи и демонстрации того, что ведется мониторинг численности. План будет реализован до начала проведения второго надзорного аудита. Информация о работах по обследованию, распределению и результатах заполнения за предыдущий сезон будет предоставляться во время каждого аудита. Клиент будет работать с КамчатНИРО, Комиссией по регулированию Консультация добычи анадромных видов рыб, а также другими заинтересованными по выполнению сторонами. условия

Условие 2

2.1.3. Информация по основном видам - Информация о характере и Показатель величине запасов основных видов адекватная для того, чтобы Эффективности определить риск, связанный с UoA (Единица оценки), а также эффективность стратегии управления основными видами. 70 Балл

Продолжающееся снижение авиаучетов, которые являются основой оценки запасов в течении сезона и по его завершению, вызывает обеспокоенность за предоставлении достаточной информации о пропусках Обоснование на нерестилища репрезентативных компонентов популяций в будущем. Стандарт SG80 не выполнен из-за снижения точности и достоверности оценок численности диких популяций как результат недавнего сокращения количества авиаучетов.

Предоставить количественную информацию по пропускам нерки и кижуча, Условие достаточную для оценки воздействия промысла на данные виды и сопоставления с целевыми пропусками.

К началу первого ежегодного надзорного аудита клиент должен предоставить доказательства того, что существует план по удовлетворению этого условия. К началу второго ежегодного надзорного аудита клиент должен Этапы представить доказательства того, что план был выполнен. К началу третьего ежегодного надзорного аудита клиент должен продемонстрировать, что условие было выполнено, и в таком случае промысел получит не менее 80. Клиент предоставит многолетний план по улучшению мониторинга пропусков, достаточный для определения состояния запасов нерки и кижуча в отношении к добыче во всех районах промысла во время первого ежегодного надзорного аудита. План будет включать в себя методологию (например, авиаучеты, подсчет на РУЗах и т. Д.), приблизительный период План действий времени (например, с середины августа до начала сентября), частоту Клиента (например, каждые две недели), реки / участки рек для каждого вида и определение шаги по предоставлению достаточной информации о заполнении нерестилищ диким лососем для поддержки стратегии добычи и демонстрации того, что ведется мониторинг численности. План будет реализован до начала проведения второго надзорного аудита.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 243 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Информация о работах по обследованию, распределению и результатах заполнения за предыдущий сезон будет предоставляться во время каждого аудита. Клиент будет работать с КамчатНИРО, Комиссией по регулированию Консультация добычи анадромных видов рыб, а также другими заинтересованными по выполнению сторонами. условия

Условие 3

2.1.3. Информация по основном видам - Информация о характере и Показатель величине запасов основных видов адекватная для того, чтобы Эффективности определить риск, связанный с UoA (Единица оценки), а также эффективность стратегии управления основными видами. 70 Балл

За последние несколько лет интенсивность промысла с помощью прибрежных жаберных сетей (севернее 54 градусов северной широты) значительно увеличилась в четные годы, когда уловы горбуши относительно невелики. Это связано с тем, что крупные и дорогие прибрежные невода менее выгодны, чем жаберные сети в условиях относительно низких уловов. Однако использование этих орудий лова для ловли лосося на Камчатке может привести к неучтенному вылову в случае утери жаберных сетей. Этот механизм в основном нацелен на ценные виды тихоокеанских лососей (то есть не горбушу), которые мигрируют Обоснование вблизи береговой линии, в частности, кижуча. Прибрежные жаберные сети полностью запрещены в настоящее время к югу от 54 широты (в подзоне Камчатско-Курильской рыболовной зоны), но разрешены на большинстве участков к северу от этой широты с некоторыми ограничениями (см. 5.2.1). Поскольку в настоящее время в PI 2.1.1 имеется условие, касающееся кижуча, из-за неизвестного статуса, было бы полезно отслеживать степень использования жаберных сетей и вероятность их потери, и, следовательно, потенциально «призрачный промысел» кижуча и других видов. Так как вопрос о сохранении вида еще не стоит, команда оценки поставит это как условие для информации PI

Предоставить количественную информацию об использовании Условие прибрежных жаберных сетей, случаев утери и потенциального воздействия утери орудий и неучтенной смертности на кижуча.

К началу первого ежегодного надзорного аудита клиент должен предоставить доказательства того, что существует план по удовлетворению этого условия. К началу второго ежегодного надзорного аудита клиент должен Этапы представить доказательства того, что план был выполнен. К началу третьего ежегодного надзорного аудита клиент должен продемонстрировать, что условие было выполнено, и в таком случае промысел получит не менее 80.

Клиент предоставит письменный многолетний план, позволяющий План действий мониторить и отслеживать прибрежные жаберные сети к первому Клиента надзорному аудиту. Такой план скорее всего включит маркирование каждого набора жаберных сетей в начале сезона и отслеживание когда и где данные орудия лова использовались. Любое утерянное орудие лова

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 244 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

будет отмечено, так же как и любое найденное наряду с любой имеющейся информации по идентификации (если часть группы клиентов) и случайным приловом рыбы, птиц или других видов. План будет внедрен до начала второго надзорного аудита. Информацию за предыдущий сезон будет суммирована (количество установленных и демонтированных жаберных сетей за сезон, так же как и количество утерянного / найденного оборудования и случайный прилов) и предоставлена на каждом аудите.

Консультация Клиент будет работать с КамчатНИРО, Комиссией по регулированию по выполнению добычи анадромных видов рыб, а также другими заинтересованными условия сторонами.

Условие 4

3.2.2 Процессы принятия решений - Система управления, специализирующаяся на промысловой деятельности и ее Показатель оптимизации, включает в себя эффективные процессы принятия Эффективности решений, которые приводят к мерам и стратегиям по достижению определенных целей, а также такая система имеет соответствующий подход к фактическим разногласиям в промысле.

Балл 75

Мониторинг принятия решений по промыслу ограничен в связи с не постоянной доступностью информации за пределами местной системы управления. Результаты промыслового сезона и эффективность предпринятых действий по управлению регулярно обсуждаются органами управления, такими как Комиссия по регулированию добычи анадромных видов рыб, СВТУ и ФАР, а также на научных советах институтов рыбного хозяйства, таких как КамчатНИРО, ТИНРО-Центр и ВНИРО. Однако информация о размере подходов, вылове по времени и площади, действиям по управлению промыслом и пропускам обычно не выходит за Обоснование пределы системы управления, за исключением редких случаев. Периодические публикации, содержащие соответствующую информацию (например, Shevliakov 2013b) представляют историческую перспективу, но недостаточны для отслеживания действий, основанных на результатах исследований и соответствующими рекомендациями. Непостоянная доступность ежегодной информации о подходах и промысле за пределами местной государственной системы управления ограничивает доступность информации о действиях или их отсутствии,основанных на результатах исследований и соответствующими рекомендациями; следовательно, промысел не набирает 80 баллов.

Продемонстрировать, что информация о результатах деятельности промысла и действиях по управлению рыболовством предоставляется по запросу, а также разъясняются любые действия или отсутствие таковых, Условие связанных с выводами и соответствующими рекомендациями, вытекающими из исследований, мониторинга, анализа и обзора мероприятий.

К началу первого ежегодного надзорного аудита клиент должен предоставить доказательства того, что существует план по Этапы удовлетворению этого условия. К началу второго ежегодного надзорного аудита клиент должен представить доказательства того, что план был выполнен.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 245 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

К началу третьего ежегодного надзорного аудита клиент должен продемонстрировать, что условие было выполнено, и в таком случае промысел получит не менее 80. Ежегодно клиент будет предоставлять ежегодные отчеты с обоснованиями действий по управлению рыболовством, принятых в предыдущем промысловом сезоне, которые непосредственно влияют на промысел на единице сертификации. В отчете будут определяться начальные План действий проходные дни, изменения в проходных днях, даты закрытия сезона, а Клиента также четко указываться ссылки на протоколы Комиссии по регулированию добычи анадромных видов рыб для данной зоны промысла. Отчет также может включать сведения об управления промыслом, принятые от другими органами управления и институтами.

Консультация Клиент будет работать с СВТУ, Министерством Рыбного Хозяйства по выполнению Камчатского края, и КамчатНИРО. условия

Условие 5 3.2.3. Соблюдение требований и обеспечение их исполнения - Показатель Применяются и соблюдаются механизмы мониторинга, контроля и Эффективности надзора, обеспечивающие меры по управлению промыслом и связанные с ними мероприятия по оптимизации промысла.

Балл 70

Была сделана оценка масштабов незаконного промысла в рамках условия оценки в других районах Западной Камчатки. Эта оценка показала, что среди местных жителей продолжают встречаться случаи браконьерства, но существующая система мониторинга, контроля и надзора была внедрена и продемонстрировала способность обеспечивать соблюдение соответствующих мер управления, стратегий и / или правил для обеспечения контроля незаконного промысла, особенно в районах с ограниченным доступом к дорогам.

В то же время, есть информация о браконьерстве в реке Воровская, куда легко добраться из сел Соболево и Устьевое (общая численность населения 2005 человек.). Важно также, что эти реки связаны с Петропавловском-Камчатским так называемой, технологической дорогой, построенной для строительства и обслуживания газопровода. Качество Обоснование этой дороги не очень хорошее, но тем не менее она активно используется для перевозки нелегальной икры из этого района в Петропавловск- Камчатский. Другие источники также подтверждают высокий уровень браконьерства в реке Воровская. Поэтому данное условие не соблюдается.

Остаются вопросы относительно последовательности применения и эффективности сдерживания незаконной добычи в реках и притоках физическими лицами. Штрафы, по-видимому, не обеспечивают эффективного сдерживания незаконного промысла, размеры которого остаются значительными в доступных речных системах, включая реку Воровскую. Несмотря на то, что, по-видимому, ННН значительно сократился по сравнению с историческим уровнем, незаконный вылов по- прежнему остается проблемой в других областях.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 246 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Продемонстрировать, что система мониторинга, контроля и надзора устойчиво используется в ходе промысла и соответствующих действий по улучшению, и отражает способность применять соответствующие меры по Условие управлению, стратегии и/или правила, а также, что санкции за нарушения существуют, устойчиво используются на практике и считаются эффективными в ограничении нарушений.

К началу первого ежегодного надзорного аудита клиент должен предоставить доказательства того, что существует план по удовлетворению этого условия. К началу второго ежегодного надзорного аудита клиент должен Этапы представить доказательства того, что план был выполнен. К началу третьего ежегодного надзорного аудита клиент должен продемонстрировать, что условие было выполнено, и в таком случае промысел получит не менее 80. Клиент предоставит детальный план по оценке эффективности системы мониторинга, контроля и надзора в пределах бассейна реки Воровская к началу первого надзорного аудита. В дополнение к отчету по правоохранительным мерам, проводимым СВТУ, КамчатНИРО, рыболовными компаниями, а также репортажам в СМИ, данный план также будет включать в себя некоторую методику оценки относительной эффективности правоохранительных мер. Например, такая методика может включать в себя антропологические/социологические исследования План действий местных общин, для оценки типов и масштабов различных незаконных Клиента видов деятельности, возможных путей сбыта, а также стратегии по уменьшению предпосылок для таких видов деятельности.

Клиент представит доказательства того, что данный план был полностью реализован в ходе второго надзорного аудита. Окончательный отчет о результатах, демонстрирующих эффективную систему мониторинга, контроля и соблюдения правил рыболовства, будет предоставлен в ходе третьего надзорного аудита.

Консультация Клиент будет работать с СВТУ, КамчатНИРО и другими по выполнению заинтересованными сторонами для разработки и реализации плана, а условия также будет консультироваться с ForSea Solutions LLC

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 247 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

7.5 Surveillance If the fishery is certified, the fishery surveillance program will be default Level 6, based on the conditions, and associated deliverables and timelines. Surveillances will be conducted according to program and timeline requirements specified in FCRV2.0 7.23.

Table 19. Fishery Surveillance Program Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Level On-site On-site On-site On-site surveillance audit Level 6 surveillance audit surveillance audit surveillance audit & re-certification site visit

Table 20. Timing of surveillance audit. Anniversary date Proposed date of Year Rationale of certificate surveillance audit 1 Before 2021 During 2021 salmon season salmon season 2 Before 2022 During 2022 Previous year’s fishery information will be salmon season salmon season available and precedes the current year fishery 3 Before 2023 During 2023 data. Audits during the salmon season enable salmon season salmon season meaningful site visits by the assessment team. 4 Before 2024 During 2024 salmon season salmon season

Table 21. Surveillance level rationale Surveillance Number of Year Rationale activity auditors

1 On-site 2 auditors From client action plan it can be deduced that surveillance audit information needed to verify progress towards conditions will require on site visits to review 2 On-site 2 auditors progress toward milestones and consult with the surveillance audit fishery client and representative of the management system who provide collaboration 3 On-site 2 auditors in meeting conditions. surveillance audit

4 On-site surveillance audit & recertification site visit

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 248 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

7.6 Harmonised fishery assessments There are five salmon fisheries currently MSC certified on the Kamchatka Peninsula. Three are located in NE Kamchatka: The Delta Fish Salmon Fishery is located on the Kamchatka River south of Karaginsky Bay, the Tymlat Salmon Fishery is located in Karaginsky Bay, and the Delfin Salmon Fishery is located in Olyutorsky Bay north of Karaginsky Bay (in the same management subzone). Two of them are located in SW Kamchatka (Vityaz-Avto-Delta Salmon Fisheries and Narody Severa-Bolsheretsk Salmon Fisheries). The Vityaz-Avto-Delta Salmon Fisheries overlaps this fishery. There are two other groups of Karaginsky Bay fishing companies currently in assessment (not relevant for harmonization with these fisheries). Scores and conditions among assessments were reconciled to the extent possible recognizing specific circumstances in different rivers and additional or new information that has become available between assessments. In several cases, differences in scores reflect new information available to the assessment team.

Scoring differences for P1 are caused by some differences in stock status of target species (spawning escapement, coverage of information on escapement). Some differences in P3 scores are related to different level of poaching activities in the area, mostly caused by different development of transport infrastructure.

Table 22. Summary of PI Level Scores for Kamchatka salmon fisheries. Delta Fish Delfin VA-D W NS-B W Tymlat- Principle Species Kamchatka Olyutors Kamchatka Kamchatka Karaginsky R ky P1 – Target Spp. Pink 86.6a 85.4 -- 85.4 84.6 Chum 86.6a 82.1 83.7 85.4 84.6 Coho 86.6a -- 83.3 -- Sockeye 97.9 -- 84.1 85.4 Chinook 83.3 -- P2 – Ecosystem All 85.7 84.7 85.0 87.3 87.3 P3 –Mgmt. System All 83.1a 81.2 80.2 82.3 81.7 a Revised from assessment based on surveillance progress.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 249 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Table 23. Certified or under assessment salmon fisheries in Western Kamchatka. Narody Zarya- Vityaz-Avto Kamber- Severa et Kolpkovsky ORKZ 55 Delta Pymta al. Sobolevo Certified 2016, scope Scope This In Certification status Certified extension extension assessment assessment 2019 Certification date 2016 2019 2018 -- -- PIs to harmonize P1, P2, P3 P1, P2, P3 P1, P2, P3 P1, P2, P3 P1, P2, P3 Icha Pink, Chum ------X -- Oblukovina Pink, Chum ------X -- Krutogorova Pink, Chum ------X -- Kolpakova Pink, Chum ------X -- Vorovskaya Pink, Chum X -- -- X --

Kol Pink, Chum, Coho X ------Pymta Pink, Chum -- X ------Kikhchik Pink, Chum -- -- X -- -- Mukhina Pink, Chum -- -- X -- --

River & Species & River Khomutina Pink, Chum -- -- X -- -- Bolshaya Pink, Chum -- -- X -- -- Opala Pink, Chum X -- X -- -- Golygina Pink, Chum X ------X Kochegochek Pink, Chum X ------X Ozernaya Pink, Chum, Sockeye X ------X

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 250 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Table 24. Certified or under assessment salmon fisheries in Eastern Kamchatka. Vostochny Koryak Vyvenskoe Kolkhoz Delta Fish Delfin Tymlat Bereg more Belorechens Bekereva Maksimonsk produkt k Ukinskij Certification status In In In In Certified Certified Certified assessment assessment assessment assessment Certification date 2018 2018 2019 PIs to harmonize P3 P3 P3 P3 P3 P3 P3 Sockeye, Kamchatsky Bay Kamchatka R Chum, Coho, X -- Chinook Pink, Olyutorsky Bay Rivers entering Sockeye, -- X Chum Karaginsky Bay Rivers entering Pink, Chum X X X X X

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 251 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Table 25. Rivers and species included in certified or in assessment fisheries of eastern Kamchatka. VBMKNSV KBULBV

n

River Species k Bay

Delfin Tymlat Vostochny Bereg Maksimovsky Koryakmoreprodukt Nachinskoe Severo Vostochnaya Kolkhoz Bekereva Lima Ukinskij Belechens Vyvenskoe

Anana Pink, Chum, Sockeye X Apuka Pink, Chum, Sockeye X Pakhacha Pink, Chum, Sockeye X Imka Pink, Chum, Sockeye X Impuka Pink, Chum, Sockeye X Olyutorskiy Emet Pink, Chum, Sockeye X

Thahiybhiymayam Pink, Chum, Sockeye X Vyvenka Pink, Chum, Sockeye X Lingenmyvayam Pink, Chum, Sockeye Korfa X Gatymnvayam Pink, Chum, Sockeye X Khai-Anapka Pink, Chum X Anapka Pink, Chum X Virovayam Pink, Chum X X Belaya Pink, Chum X Kichiga Pink, Chum X Paklavayam Pink, Chum X Tymlat Pink, Chum X Vytvirovayam Pink, Chum X X

Ossora Pink, Chum X X Karaga Pink, Chum X X Kayum Pink, Chum X X Makarovaka Pink, Chum X X X X Dranka Pink, Chum X X X X Karaginsky Ivashka Pink, Chum X X Sukhaya Pink, Chum X X Rusakova Pink, Chum X X X Khaylyulya Pink, Chum X X X Esmiyk Pink, Chum X X X Nachiki Pink, Chum X X X Uka Pink, Chum X Malamvaya Pink, Chum X X Konskaya Pink, Chum X

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 252 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Table 26. Summary of PI levels scores for Kamchatka salmon fisheries. VA-D NS-B Delta Fish

W. Kamchatka W Kamchatka Kamchatka

Coho Sockeye Sock Chum Coho Chnk Component PI Performance Indicator (PI) Pink Chum Pink Chum (Kol) (Ozernaya) 1.1.1 Stock status 80a 80a 80a 100 80 80 70 70 70 70 P Outcome 1 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding 80 80 80 na na Na 85 85 85 85 - 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 85 85 85 95 85 85 80 80 80 80 T 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 85a 85a 85a 95 80 80 80 80 80 80 Management a 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 65 65 65 90 65 65 65 65 65 65 r 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 80a 80a 80a 95 75 75 75 70 65 65 g Enhancement 1.3.1 Enhancement outcome 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 e 1.3.2 Enhancement management 100 100 100 100 100 80 100 100 100 100 t 1.3.3 Enhancement information 100 100 100 100 100 90 100 100 100 100 2.1.1 Outcome 80 80 80 80 Primary 2.1.2 Management 90 90 90 80 species P 2.1.3 Information 70 80 70 80 2 2.2.1 Outcome 100 100 100 100 Secondary - 2.2.2 Management 80 80 80 80 species E 2.2.3 Information 80 80 85 80 c 2.3.1 Outcome 85 85 85 85 o ETP species 2.3.2 Management 90 90 85 80 s 2.3.3 Information 80 80 80 80 y 2.4.1 Outcome 95 95 95 95 s t Habitats 2.4.2 Management 95 95 95 95 e 2.4.3 Information 80 80 80 80 m 2.5.1 Outcome 90 90 80 90 Ecosystem 2.5.2 Management 90 90 85 90 2.5.3 Information 80 80 80 80 3.1.1 Legal/customary framework 100 100 100 95 P Governance & 3 3.1.2 Consultation, roles, etc. 85 85 85 80 policy - 3.1.3 Long term objectives 80 80 80 80 M 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 80 80 80 80 g Management 3.2.2 Decision making processes 75 75 75 75 m system 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 80a 80a 80a 70 t 3.2.4 Performance evaluation 80 80 80 80

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 253 MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 April 2020

Continuation of Table 26-Summary of PI levels scores for Kamchatka salmon fisheries.

Delfin Olyutorsky Tymlat_Karaginsky

Component PI Performance Indicator (PI) Pink Chum Sock Pink Chum 1.1.1 Stock status 80 80 80 70 70 P Outcome 1 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding na na na 85 85 - 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 80 80 80 80 80 T 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 80 80 80 80 80 Management a 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 75 75 75 75 75 r 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 70 70 70 70 70 g Enhancement 1.3.1 Enhancement outcome 100 100 100 100 100 e 1.3.2 Enhancement management 100 100 100 100 100 t 1.3.3 Enhancement information 100 100 100 100 100 2.1.1 Outcome 100 100 Primary 2.1.2 Management 80 80 species P 2.1.3 Information 95 95 2 2.2.1 Outcome 100 100 Secondary - 2.2.2 Management 80 80 species E 2.2.3 Information 85 85 c 2.3.1 Outcome 80 80 o ETP species 2.3.2 Management 80 80 s 2.3.3 Information 80 80 y 2.4.1 Outcome 95 95 s t Habitats 2.4.2 Management 95 95 e 2.4.3 Information 80 80 m 2.5.1 Outcome 90 90 Ecosystem 2.5.2 Management 90 90 2.5.3 Information 80 80 P 3.1.1 Legal/customary framework 95 95 Governance & 3.1.2 Consultation, roles, etc. 85 85 3 policy - 3.1.3 Long term objectives 80 80 M 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 80 80 g Management 3.2.2 Decision making processes 75 75 m system 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 80 75 t 3.2.4 Performance evaluation 80 80 a Revised from assessment based on surveillance progress.

MRAG Americas –Zarya-Kolpakovsky Sobolevo West Kamchatka Salmon Public Certification Report 254 Amanda Stern-Pirlot MRAG Americas,Inc. 8950 Martin Luther King Jr. St. N., Suite 202 St. PetersburgFL33T02

June26,2020

Re: Full MSC assessment of the Zrrya-Kolpakovskiy Sobolevo Salmon Fisheries

Dear Ms. Stem-Pirlot,

On behalf of Zarya LLC and Kolpakovskiy Fish Factory Co, LTD and other companies, Khangar, LLC, Crystal Fish, LLC, andZapadny Bereg, LLC (co-sharers), and Icha-Fish Co LTD, RK Krutogorovskoye, LLC, and Skit Co LTD (co-sharers), we are happy to formally accept the Public Certification Report for the Zarya-Kolpakovskiy Sobolevo Salmon Fisheries. We have read the Final MSC Report and agree with the certification decision.

We would like to thank you and your hard-working team for the effort and knowledge you have put into the assessment of our fisheries.

Best regards,

Yuri Lupik Roman Yanovskiy

General Director, Director, d Zarya,LLC w Kolpakovskiy Fish Factory Co, LTD #.#q etlt,ttt*l;nilil')i [e,*#