MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
PUBLIC CERTIFICATION REPORT:
Faroe Islands Silver Smelt Fishery
Source: www. Fisheries.is
REPORT NO. 2011-0016 REVISION NO. 5 – 18.08.2012
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
DET NORSKE VERITAS AS
DNV Certification AS Date of first issue: Project No.: Veritasveien 1, 1322 HØVIK, Norway 29.10.2011 41981144 Tel: +47 67 57 99 00 DET NORSKE VERITAS Organisational unit: Fax: +47 67 57 99 11 CERTIFICATION LTD DNV Certification AS http://www.dnvba.com
Client: Client ref.: TavanPalace House SP/ F Joen Magnus Rasmussen 3 Cathedral Street
LondonProject SE19DE Name: Faroe Island Silver Smelt Fishery DeterminationUnited Kingdom Phases/Type of report: http://www.dnv.com Preliminary Draft Report DET NORSKE VERITAS CERTIFICATION Peer Review LTD Draft Report
Palace PublicHouse Comment Draft Report (Stakeholders review) 3 Cathedral Final Street Report London SE19DE Public Certification Report United Kingdom Thehttp://www.dnv.com objective of this project has been to assess the Faroe Island Silver Smelt Fishery, on behalf ofApproved the client by: Tavan SP/F, against Marine Stewardship Council’s principles and criteria for sustainable fishing.
Report No.: Date of this revision: Rev. No. Key words: 2011-0016 18.08.2012 5 Report title: MSC Fishery Assessment report: Faroe Island Silver Smelt Fishery Work carried out by: Mr. Stephen Lockwood - Independent Expert No distribution without permission from the Client or responsible organisational unit Mr. Oli Samro - Independent Expert Sandhya Chaudhury - DNV, Lead auditor Work verified by: Anna Kiseleva, DNV Certification AS Limited distribution
more people!!
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 2 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
ABBREVIATIONS
ACOM (ICES) Advisory Committee BIOFAR BIOlogical investigations of the FARoese benthos DNV Det Norske Veritas EDIOS European Directory of the Ocean-observing system EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EFZ Exclusive fishing zone ENVOFAR Environmental Agency of the Faroe Islands ETP Endangered, threatened and protected species EU European Union FAM Fisheries Assessment Methodology FaMRI Faroe Marine Research Institute (Havstovan) FIS Fisheries Inspection Service FVE Faroese Fisheries Inspection GSS Great Silver Smelt ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature NAFO North Atlantic Fisheries Organisation NAMMCO North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission NASCO North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation NEAFC North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (Oslo – Paris Convention) VME Vulnerable Marine Communities WGDEC Working Group on Deep-water Ecology, ICES WGDEEP Working Group on the Biology and Assessment of Deep-Sea Fisheries Resources WKDEEP ICES benchmark group on deep sea species.
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 3 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
LIST OF SYMBOLS & REFERENCE POINTS
Bmsy Biomass corresponding to the maximum sustainable yield (biological reference point); the peal value on a domed yield-per-recruit curve.
Bloss Lowest biomass ever observed (biological reference point)
F Instantaneous rate of fishing mortality
Fmax F where total yield or yield per recruit is highest (biological reference point)
M Instantaneous rate of natural mortality
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 4 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
ABBREVIATIONS ...... 3
LIST OF SYMBOLS & REFERENCE POINTS ...... 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS: ...... 5
SUMMARY ...... 8
1 INTRODUCTION ...... 11 1.1 Scope 11 1.2 The Unit of Certification 11 1.3 Report Structure and Assessment Process 12
2 THE CLIENT FISHERY ...... 13 2.1 Client vessels 13 2.2 The greater silver smelt fishery 14 2.3 Fleet Structure & Fishing Practice 16
3 THE GREAT SILVER SMELT STOCK ...... 19 3.1 The Great Silver Smelt Stock Unite and Structure 19 3.2 The Distribution and Biology of NE Atlantic Greater Silver Smelt 19 3.3 Biological Research on Great Silver Smelt in the NE Atlantic (excluding Vb) 23
4 ECOSYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS ...... 25 4.1 The Marine Environment 25 4.2 Benthos and Biogenic Habitats 27 4.3 Fish Communities 31 4.4 Seabirds 31 4.5 Marine Mammals 32 4.6 Retained Fish Species, By-catch and Discards 34 4.7 Interactions with Endangered, Threatened and Protected species 35 4.8 Other Fisheries Relevant to this Assessment. 35 4.9 The Fishery’s Effect on the Surrounding Ecosystems 35 4.10 Closed Areas 36 4.11 Waste Management 36
5 STATUS OF THE GREAT SILVER SMELT STOCK ...... 37 5.1 Data Sources 37 5.2 Monitoring stock status 46 5.3 Stock Management Plan and Harvest Control Rule 50 5.4 Management Reference Points 50
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 5 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
5.5 Management Advice and Forecast 50
6 RISK-BASED ASSESSMENT ...... 51 6.1 Greater Silver Smelt Stock Identity 51 6.2 Calibration of Reference Points for Stock Abundance 52 6.3 Recruitment Estimates 53 6.4 Biological–Management Reference Points 53 6.5 Productivity–Susceptibility Assessment 54
7 FISHERIES MANAGEMENT IN THE UNIT OF CERTIFICATION ...... 57 7.1 Cooperation on shared and migratory fish stocks 57 7.2 Management objectives 57 7.3 Management responsibilities and interactions 57 7.4 Legislation 59 7.5 Consultative process 60 7.6 Enforcement and control 61 7.7 Summary of management system for the Faroe Islands Silver Smelt fishery 63
8 BACKGROUND TO THE REPORT ...... 64 8.1 Authors/Reviewers 64 8.2 Previous certification evaluations 64 8.3 Harmonisation 65 8.4 Field Inspections 65 8.5 Stakeholder consultations 65 8.6 Assessment Criteria 66 8.7 Evaluation Techniques 70 8.8 Limit of Identification of Landings from the Fishery 71 8.9 Conditions or recommendations associated with this certification 73
9 PEER REVIEW ...... 75
10 STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS ...... 76
11 OBJECTION PROCESS ...... 77
12 FORMAL CONCLUSION AGREEMENT ...... 78 12.1 Applicant's Agreement to meet Specified Conditions. 78
INFORMATION SOURCES ...... 79
REFERENCES ...... 79
ENCLOSURE 1: OVERVIEW OF IDENTIFIED STAKEHOLDERS AND THEIR MAIN INTERESTS IN THE FAROE ISLAND SILVER SMELT FISHERY ...... 80
ENCLOSURE 2: LIST OF VESSELS ...... 83
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 6 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
ENCLOSURE 3: CLIENT ACTION PLAN ...... 84
ENCLOSURE 4: PEER REVIEW COMMENTS ...... 91
ENCLOSURE 6: SCORING COMMENT TABLE FOR FAROE ISLAND SILVER SMELT FISHERY ...... 113
ENCLOSURE 7 SCORING TABLE...... 155
ENCLOSURE 8 ...... 156
ENCLOSURE 9: STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS TO PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT REPORT...... 163
ENCLOSURE 10: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTANCY RBF ...... 166
ENCLOSURE 11. SURVEILLANCE FREQUENCY ...... 168
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 7 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
SUMMARY This report provides information on the assessment of the entire Faroe Islands Silver Smelt Fishery on behalf of the client Tavan SP/F against the Marine Stewardship Council’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing. The report is prepared by Det Norske Veritas Certification AS. The assessment team used the default assessment tree as defined in the MSC Fishery Assessment Methodology version 2.1 (FAM v.2.1) with the RBF for PI 1.1.1 (stock status). The rationale for using the RBF is that there is no absolute estimate of spawning stock biomass, natural or fishing mortality rate. There are no biological reference points or target reference points. The RBF was used for the first time by this team but the Lead Auditor/Team leader has had RBF training at Marine Stewardship Council, London in October 2010 & November 2011.
The Assessment team Sandhya Chaudhury: Lead Auditor & Team Leader, DNV (RBF training) Stephen Lockwood: Expert for Principle 1 & 2 Oli Samro: Expert for Principle 3
Assessment timeline Announcement of Main Assessment: 13th June 2011 Site Visit and Stakeholder Consultation: 23-24 August 2011 Expected Date of Certification: August 2012
Scores for each Principle Principle 1: 81.3 PASS Principle 2: 92.0 PASS Principle 3: 91.8 PASS
Strength and weakness Strengths The attributes of the Faroe Island Silver Smelt Fishery that are helpful in achieving sustainability and thereby complying with MSC principles are: National research institute undertakes a variety of research-vessel surveys to gather information on GSS distribution, abundance and biology. Research is on-going in plotting the distribution of sponges, corals and other marine habitats in the Faroese EFZ. Several coral areas in Faroese waters are already closed to all fishing activity. Client fleet consists of the lightweight trawls which pose a lower risk to marine ecosystem than more traditional heavyweight demersal trawls. Being a relatively small fishery, the ecosystem impacts are low No retained species other than the targeted species. Strict adherence of skippers to laws, regulations and requirements
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 8 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Pro-active cooperation with stakeholders
Weaknesses The attributes of the Faroe Island Silver Smelt Fishery that may be a hindrance to achieving sustainability and thereby meeting the MSC principles are: The current understanding of greater silver smelt stock structure is limited and unclear. There are no biological or management reference points for this species or the fishery around Faroe.
Determination The fishery achieved a score of 80 or more for each of the three MSC Principles, and did not score under 60 for any of the set MSC Criteria. The assessment team therefore recommends the certification of the Faroe Island Silver Smelt Fishery.
Conditions, Recommendations and timescales Conditions: The fishery attained a score of below 80 against 2 Performance Indicators (PI 1.2.1 Harvest Strategy and PI 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives). The assessment team has therefore set conditions for continuing certification that the client is required to address. The conditions are applicable to improve performance to at least the 80 level within the periods set by the DNV assessment team but no longer than the term of the certification.
Condition 1: HARVEST STRATEGY
PI CATEGORY 1
PI 1.2.1: A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted; the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery.
SG: 80: The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points.
ASSESSMENT TEAM FINDINGS: Although Faroe Marine Research Institute (Havstovan) continues to work on the development of a structured analytical (XSA) assessment model (consistent with ICES standard procedures), the current harvest strategy is based on a simple steady state surplus production assessment.
ACTION: The client should continue to provide Faroe Marine Research Institute (Havstovan) with such assistance as is necessary to maintain the annual stock assessment project and to improve the reliability of the parameters upon which it is dependant. The age-based structure of the assessment must be expanded to include individual age groups up to and including age 20, with a 20+ group, within 5 years of certification. Until such times as the assessment is robust enough to support a formal and responsive harvest control rule the client should reach a formal agreement with the Ministry of
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 9 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Fisheries to limit annual catches to no more than that indicated at F0.1 on the stock yield curve (as calculated by Havstovan), or Fmsy when an estimate is made.
TIMESCALE: Evidence on agreement with Havstovan and the Ministry of Fisheries should be presented at 1st surveillance audit along-with monitoring of the agreements and annual assessments at subsequent audits. The expansion of the age based structure of the assessment within 5 years of certification.
Condition 2: FISHERY SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
PI CATEGORY 3
PI : 3.2.1: The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.
SG: 80: Short and long term objectives, which are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery’s management system.
ASSESSMENT TEAM FINDINGS: Both the ship owners and the Faroese Ministry of Fisheries have accepted the scientific advice from Faroe Marine Research Institute (Havstovan) for this fishery and this advice is consistent with MSC principles 1 & 2. At the time of site visits and consultation, however, the advice is not formally adopted as there is no statutory effort limit, TAC or quota allocation (hence the reduced score). Currently catch limits are voluntary although the fishery inspectorate retains the option to close the fishery under the days at sea regulations if Havstovan /size inspections advice prompts such action.
ACTION: Until such times as the assessment is robust enough to support a formal and responsive harvest control rule the client should reach a formal agreement with the Ministry of Fisheries to limit annual catches to an adaptive management plan with 20Kt as an initial value and then implement a HCR based on some metric of biomass (CPUE, survey).
TIMESCALE: Evidence of agreement with the Ministry of Fisheries at 1st surveillance audit and monitoring of the agreement and implementation at subsequent audits
RECOMMENDATION 1.2.3 The client should present the results of genetic comparisons between Faroe-Iceland; Faroe-N Norway; Faroe-Biscay (or south of Porcupine Bank) within 5 years of certification.
RECOMMENDATION 2.3 : When the e-logbooks are introduced there will be a statutory requirement for the presence or absence of any ETP species (birds and marine mammals) in the catch to be recorded. The client should anticipate this change by making it a requirement on the current paper log books with immediate effect.
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 10 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
1 INTRODUCTION This report sets out the results of the assessment of the Faroe Island Silver Smelt fishery against the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing.
1.1 Scope The Faroe Island Silver Smelt fishery is not conducted under any controversial unilateral exemptions to any international agreements. The fishery does not use destructive fishing practices such as poisons or dynamite, these are illegal within the management country.
1.2 The Unit of Certification The MSC Guidelines specify that the unit of certification is "The fishery or fish stock (=biologically distinct unit) combined with the fishing method/gear and practice (=vessel(s) pursuing the fish of that stock) and management framework." The fishery proposed for certification is defined as: Name of Fishery Faroe Islands Silver Smelt Fishery Species Common The greater silver smelt. Name(s) Species Latin Name Argentina silus Stock and Geographical FAO area 27. North-East Atlantic; ICES sub-areas I, II, IV, VI, area VII, VIII, IX & division Vb (Faroe Bank & Faroe Plateau). At present, ICES does not recognise Div Vb as containing a unit stock but describes the fish and fishery in this area as being part of a more widely distributed stock and fishery extending from the Barents Sea in the north to the Iberian Peninsula in the south – but excluding Icelandic waters and Greenland (ICES division Va & sub-area XIV). Harvest method: Semi-pelagic demersal trawl Management System The fishery is managed under Faroese jurisdiction by the Ministry of Fisheries with the Fisheries Directorate providing information regarding resource management as well as performing a regulatory role. Client name and Contact Tavan SP/F details FO-520 Leirvik Faroe Islands Contact: Joen Magnus Rasmussen Email: [email protected] Client Group This certification applies exclusively to the fleet of semi- pelagic demersal trawlers that deliver mainly to Tavan SP/F and P.P. Faroe Pelagic. It applies only to these vessels when they are fishing for great silver smelt (Argentina silus) within ICES Division Vb – Faroe Bank & Faroe Plateau.
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 11 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
1.3 Report Structure and Assessment Process The aim of this assessment is to determine the degree of compliance of the fishery with the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing, as set out in Chapter 9, Section 9.5. This report sets out: the background to the fishery under assessment the qualifications and experience of the team undertaking the assessment the standard used (MSC Principles and Criteria) Stakeholder consultations carried out. Stakeholders are all those parties that have an interest in the management of the fishery and include, but are not limited to, fishers, management bodies, scientists and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO’s) the methodology used to assess (score) the fishery against the MSC Standard. MSC’s default Scoring Indicators have been adopted by the assessment team for the assessment of the Faroe Islands Silver Smelt Fishery and the RBF for PI 1.1.1 (stock status). . The scoring table sets out the Scoring Indicators and Scoring Guidelines which aid the team in allocating scores to the fishery. The comments in this table sets out the position of the fishery in relation to these Scoring Indicators. The intention of Chapters 2-8 of the report is to provide the reader with background information to interpret the scoring comments in context. Finally, as a result of the scoring, the Certification Recommendation of the assessment team is presented, together with any conditions attached to certification. In draft form, this report is subject to critical review by appropriate, independent, scientists (peer review) and public scrutiny on the MSC website. The comments of the Peer Reviewers and stakeholders are appended to the final report. The report, containing the recommendation of the assessment team, peer review comments and any further stakeholder comments is then considered by the DNV Governing Board (a panel of experts independent of the assessment team). The Governing Board then makes the final certification determination on behalf of Det Norske Veritas Certification AS (DNV). It should be noted that, in response to comments by peer reviewers, stakeholders and the DNV Governing Board, some points of clarification may be added to the final report.
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 12 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
2 THE CLIENT FISHERY
2.1 Client vessels
The fishery of great silver smelt started in the 1990s.
There are currently 6 member vessels in the unit of certification targeting the GSS stock and all 6 vessels are approved for human consumption catch by the food authorities: 1. Stjørnan: Hold 120 tons, length (LOA) 36.5 m, width 8.5 m, depth 6.9 m- owned by P/F JFK Trol 2. Polarhav: Hold 120 tons, length (LOA) 36.5 m, width 8.5 m, depth 6.9 m - owned by P/F JFK Trol 3. Fram: Hold 150 tons, length (LOA) 44.4 m, width 8.5 m, depth 6.5 m- owned by JFK 4. Vestmenningur: Hold 150 tons, length (LOA) 44.4 m, width 8.5 m, depth 6.5 m- - owned by JFK 5. Vesturbúgvin (RSW): Hold 120 tons, length (LOA) 36.4 m, width 9.5 m, depth 6.9 m –owned by Vørðustiggjur and Vesturbúgvin 6. Eysturbúgvin (RSW): Hold 120 tons, length (LOA) 36.4 m, width 9.5 m, depth 6.9 m –owned by Vørðustiggjur and Vesturbúgvin
These six vessels in the client fishery are the only vessels licensed to fish for GSS in the Faroese waters; thus, their catch is equal to entire Faroese landings of GSS. The vessels are mainly fishing great silver smelt vest of the Faroe Islands. The vessels are fishing during the whole season with trip length varying from 3 to 7 days depending on the fishery and they take samples of fish sizes during their trip. All the vessels are semi pelagic trawlers ad use a mesh size of 80mm.
The three couples of pair trawlers fishing Great Silver Smelt agreed to fish in total 20.000 tonnes annually based on the advice from Havstovan.
Operated by P/F JFK Trol
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 13 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
2.2 The greater silver smelt fishery 2.2.1 The International and Faroe Islands Fisheries Historically, GSS did not attract any directed fishing effort, certainly compared to the main target species such as blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou), cod (Gadus morhua) , haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus), saithe (Pollachius virens), redfish (Sebastes spp) or herring (Clupea harengus). If any was landed at all, it was taken as bycatch in the deeper-water trawl fisheries, particularly the international redfish fisheries.
Fig 2.2 Reported international landings (tonnes) of greater silver smelt (GSS) by ICES areas 1988–20101.
In the early 1990s landings of GSS from Icelandic waters fluctuated around c.500 t year–1 but in the late 1990s and onward they ranged between c.5000 and 10 000 t year–1 but reached a recorded high of over 16 000 t in 2010 (Table 2.2). Elsewhere, the first major fishery was developed by Norway in the Norwegian and Barents Seas (ICES areas I & II) where landings have fluctuated around c.10 000 t since the late 1980s (maximum 22 000 t, 2006; Table 2.2). Norway also took GSS in the northern North Sea area (III & IV) where it was second to Denmark in quantities landed but the international total has never exceeded 5500 t from this area. The quantity landed from west of the British Isles (VI & VII) since the late 1980s has been similar to that from the Norwegian and Barents Seas (i.e. average c.10 000 t) but the dominant landings have been made variously since 1990 by Ireland, Netherlands and UK (Scotland) with Netherlands being the most consistent. The reported landings taken further south in the Bay of Biscay and off Iberia have been trivial by comparison (< 500 t year–1). It is quite probable; however, that discarding in this area is commonplace, and elsewhere in EU members’ deep-water fisheries, due to low market value (WGDEEP, 2011).
1 WGDEEPgss, 2011
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 14 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Div Va2 Areas Areas Div Vb3 Areas Areas Total all Year Iceland I & II III & Faroe VI & VII VIII– areas excl. IV XIV Va 1996 250 6604 3300 9498 5863 1 25 266 1997 2257 4463 2598 8433 7300 22 494 1998 11 8261 3982 17 570 5555 35 350 1999 4456 7163 4320 8214 8856 28 726 2000 3491 6293 2471 5209 13 866 2 28 109 2001 1577 14 369 2925 10081 19 050 46 490 2002 3127 7407 1811 7471 15 985 191 32 858 2003 1965 8917 1188 6549 2451 37 19 203 2004 2688 16 162 1157 6451 5133 27 28 953 2005 3520 17 093 791 7009 3808 524 31 080 2006 3725 21 685 4016 12 559 1115 42 943 (12 309) (42 693) 2007 3441 13 273 3343 14 093 4122 37 975 (13 437) (37 419) 2008 8407 11 876 1629 14 595 4035 33 638 (19 249) (38 292) 2009 10 197 11 929 1572 14 228 1923 30 358 (19 740) (35870) 2010 16 428 11 843 1091 15 609 6247 2 34 793 (19 176) (38 350) (13 651)* *, total as of 19 August 2011
Table 2.2 Reported international landings of greater silver smelt reported to ICES since 19964.
A targeted fishery for GSS in Faroese waters did not develop until the mid-1990s (Fig 2.2). The only vessels licensed to fish for GSS in Faroese waters are those specified under section 2.1 of this report. All vessels in the unit of certification land its GSS catches in Faroe Islands. With the exception of 2000 when non-Faroese vessels landed c.1500 t, the annual landings from ICES DIV Vb by non-Faroese vessels since 1996 has not exceeded 500 t; i.e. the client fleet accounts for virtually all GSS from Faroese waters. For ten years from 1996 GSS landings ranged between 500 and 10 000 t year–1, with the exception of 1998 when they peaked at 17 570 t. Over the period 2006–2010 there was a rapid and sustained increased equivalent to c.50% the 2006 landings (Table 2.2). This was contrary to the consistent ICES advice over the same period that “the [international] fishery should not be allowed to expand and a reduction in catches should be considered” (ACOMgss, 2011). The total international catch from non-Icelandic waters over the same period, however, has been relatively stable at c.35 000+ t (Table 2.2); a decline in landings from other areas has balanced the increased landings by Faroese vessels from Div Vb.
2 Landings from Icelandic waters are deemed by ICES to be from a different stock to the remainder of GSS landing. 3 Div Vb Faroe figures in parentheses are figures provided by the Faroese Ministry of Fisheries, with corresponding changes in the Total column. 4 WGDEEPgss, 2011
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 15 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
2.3 Fleet Structure & Fishing Practice The directed Faroese fishery for GSS takes place primarily around the Faroe Island Plateau (Div Vb1), Faroe Bank (Div Vb2) and Lousy Bank (also Div Vb1; Fig 2.3a). Only six pair- trawling vessels (working in three permanent pairs) in the client fleet are licensed to fish for GSS in Faroese waters. These vessels take c.95% of the total Faroese GSS landings; the remaining c.5% is taken as bycatch, mainly in the directed blue whiting fishery but occasional small quantities may also be taken in the saithe or redfish fisheries. The main fishing season is from April to September with the greatest landings made in July and August.
The vessels use lightweight semi-pelagic (bottom-skimming) trawls that are rigged and fished to avoid seabed contact. Typical headline height is c.30 m and the trawl spread is thought to be c.100 m. A headline echo-sounder shows fish entering the net, the footrope and the seabed. At the end of each trawl warp, immediately before the trawl bridles are 2.5 t chain clumps hanging from 12 m wire legs. The length of wire is set so that when fishing, it is higher in the water column than the footrope; i.e. if the gear touches the seabed it is the footrope that will touch first and probably part, splitting the trawl belly, before the clumps come into contact with the seabed. Headline transducers allow the skipper to see footrope and seabed while fishing and simple commercial pressure will ensure that the skipper does not allow his trawl to touch the seabed. Although the gear is fished clear of the seabed (i.e. in pelagic mode) the Fishery Inspection Service classify it as demersal fishing gear for which the statutory minimum cod-end mesh is 80 mm. In the event that the gear is lost for any reason (e.g. warps parting) skippers will make every effort to recover the lost gear due to its high value. With the benefit of modern sonar, echo-sounders and position-fixing equipment, the recovery rate of such lost gear is very high. None of the vessels engaged in this fishery has (permanently) lost a net in the past five years (TAVAN, pers comm.).
Fig 2.3a Distribution of commercial trawl hauls containing more than 50% greater silver smelt, 1995–2009 (Ofstad & Steingrund, 2011).5
5 Ofstad, L.H. & Steingrund, P. (2011). Greater silver smelt Argentina silus) in Faroese area (Division Vb): distribution and assessment. Working Document: Working Group on the Biology and Assessment of Deep-Sea Fisheries Resources, ICES WGDEEP Report/ACOM17. http://www.ices.dk/reports/ACOM/2011/WGDEEP/wgdeep_Annex02_WorkingDocuments_2011.pdf
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 16 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Faroese fisheries management applies a range of measures which aim to balance fishing in relation to the ecosystem in which it takes place. These measures include seasonal fisheries closures, the separation of different fishing methods between areas, minimum fish and mesh sizes to prevent catches of immature and young fish, real-time area closures and sorting grids to minimise unwanted by-catch. Such measures are based on scientific advice provided by FaMRI in consultation with the fishing industry.
Closed areas have been used in a targeted way in Faroese waters for many years. At certain times of the year, defined areas, in particular gadoid spawning areas, are closed to fisheries either partly or entirely. In addition, 60% of the Faroe Plateau at depths of less than 200 m and within the entire 12 nautical miles of the Territorial Sea is closed to trawling for most of the year. (Some small inshore vessels are allowed to trawl for flatfish in summer.) Most of the Faroe Bank is permanently closed to trawling. There are also seasonal closures on spawning grounds (Fig 2.3b).
Fig 2.3b Area restrictions on fishing in Faroese waters: within 12-miles, no trawling; █, closed to trawlers all year; █, temporal closures (e.g. spawning areas); █, (C1, C2, C3) coral areas closed to bottom trawlers
In addition to the standing closed area regulations, stringent limitations apply regarding the level of young fish permitted in individual catches in Faroese waters. Vessels have a statutory obligation to report to Fisheries Inspection Service (FIS) catches of juvenile cod (<50 cm), haddock (<40 cm) or saithe (<55 cm) exceeding 30% the total catch in an individual haul. In consultation with FaMRI, the FIS then decides whether or not to implement an immediate, but temporary, area closure. Although there is no statutory requirement to report while at sea the presence of GSS less than the 28 cm minimum permitted size in the catch, vessels are expected to move from areas where catches of small GSS are made. Even if < 28 cm GSS are caught, they must be retained, recorded and landed (but not sold to the vessel’s advantage) as there is an absolute ban on discarding any fish species, irrespective of whether they are of commercial value or considered trash species.
The catches tend to be very clean (i.e they comprise virtually nothing but GSS). Catches are ‘bagged’ aboard (i.e. not pumped) and fed to a conveyor system on the sorting deck. As the fish pass along the conveyor all non-GSS species are removed, recorded and stored separately
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 17 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
from the GSS catch. The main GSS catch passes along the conveyor to c.300 kg storage bins with ice and is held in chilled storage aboard the vessel. Very small quantities of redfish, saithe and other deep-water species may be taken but the total is ≤1% the total catch (see below). (Cod, haddock and saithe tend to be caught at shallower depths than the GSS fishery.) Conversely, small quantities of GSS (< 5% the annual Faroese GSS catch) are also taken in the Faroese targeted blue whiting fishery. All the GSS are processed (headed and gutted, filleted or minced) in Faroe for export.
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 18 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
3 THE GREAT SILVER SMELT STOCK
3.1 The Great Silver Smelt Stock Unite and Structure The current understanding of GSS stock structure is limited and unclear. It is implicit in ICES assessments of the species that GSS in the ICES area of the North-East Atlantic are separate from those in the NAFO (North Atlantic Fisheries Organization6) area of the North-West Atlantic but without committing to an explicit stock identity. Indeed, ICES has expressed no opinion as to whether this species might comprise a single NE Atlantic stock, such as the blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou) stock, or a number of stocks, such as herring (Clupea harengus), which span much the same geographic range. The position was reviewed in 2010 (WKDEEP, 2010)7 and ICES found insufficient evidence to change its position. Thus, for assessment purposes, ICES recognises two population management–assessment units: the GSS fished in Div Va off southern Iceland and the rest; i.e. GSS fished from sub-Area I (Barents Sea) in the north to sub-Area X (Iberian Peninsula) in the south (WGDEEP, 2011).8 Thus, the catches from Faroese waters are assumed to originate from the same extended population as all other GSS in the NE Atlantic, excluding GSS around Iceland.
It is with this stock–management background that the client company (Tavan SP/F) asked Havstovan (Faroe Marine Research Institute; FaMRI) to examine the possibility that the GSS fishery in Faroese waters (ICES division Vb) could be viewed and assessed as a separate management unit, comparable to the approach taken by ICES with respect to GSS in Icelandic waters (division Va). FaMRI accepted the task and have completed an assessment of a putative Faroese GSS management unit. The MSC assessment that follows is based primarily on the FaMRI management unit assessment but it is placed in the wider ICES context as appropriate.
3.2 The Distribution and Biology of NE Atlantic Greater Silver Smelt The greater silver smelt (GSS) is a long-lived (up to c. 35 years; Bergstad, 1993)9 fish found around the sub-Arctic rim of the North Atlantic from the Grand Banks of NE America, southern Greenland, southern Iceland, the SW Barents Sea and southern Svalbard, and as far south as the Bay of Biscay (Froese & Pauley, 2010).10 Although catches are taken throughout the distribution, the three major directed fisheries in the NE Atlantic are off Iceland, Faro and Norway (Fig 3.2a).
6 www.nafo.int 7 WKDEEP, 2010. Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Deep-water Species (WKDEEP). ICES CM 2010/ACOM:38. http://eocean.free.fr/publications/WKDEEP10.PDF 8 8 WGDEEP, 2011. Report of the Working Group on the Biology and Assessment of Deep-sea Fisheries Resources (WGDEEP): 8 – Great Silver Smelt. ICES CM 2010/ACOM:17. http://www.ices.dk/reports/ACOM/2010/WGDEEP/wgdeep_Sec08_Great%20Silver%20Smet.pdfl 9 O. A. Bergstad, O.A. 1993. Distribution, population structure, growth, and reproduction of the greater silver smelt, Argentina silus (Pisces, Argentinidae), of the Skagerrak and the north-eastern North Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science 50, 129–143. 10 Froese, R. & Pauley, D. FishBase. Available at http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/speciesSummary.php?ID=2700&genusname=Argentina&speciesname=silus&lang=English
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 19 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Fig 3.2a Distribution of exploited great silver smelt populations in the NE Atlantic with the areas of the principal directed fisheries highlighted in orange (Cohen, 1984).11
The GSS is a deep-water fish that swims in schools close to the seabed, typically at depths between 200 and 600 m (Fig 3.2b ;Wheeler, 1969) where the temperature is a relatively stable 7–10º c. Larger fish in the population tend to be found in the deeper water (Fig 3.2c; Ofstad & Steingrund, 2011).12 Also, there is a tendency for the average size of fish to greater at higher latitude (Johannessen & Monstad, 2003).
Although growth of GSS is slow [Faroe Island von Bertalanffy K = 0.22 (female, 0.22; male 0.24); L∞ = 43.4 (female, 43.9; male 40.3); t0 = –1.12 (female, –1.08; male, –1.11)], GSS ≥ 50 cm (age > 14 years) are found in Faroese commercial landings. Fifty per cent of females reach sexual maturity at length (L50) of 33.9 cm (age, A50 = 5.8 years) and male L50 = 35.5 cm (A50 13 = 7.6 years) (Ofstad, 2010). Individual fish may reach sexual maturity at any age from 4 to 12 years (Fig 3.2d; Bergstad, 1993;14 Johannessen & Monstad, 2003;15 Magnússon, 2006;16 Ofstad & Steingrund, 2011).
11 Cohen D M, 1984. Argentinidae. p. 386–391. In Whitehead P J P, Bauchot M L, Hureau J C, Nielsen J and Tortonese E (eds.). Fishes of the North-eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean, Vol I. UNESCO, Paris. 12 Ofstad, L.H. & Steingrund, P. (2011). Greater silver smelt Argentina silus) in Faroese area (Division Vb): distribution and assessment. Working Document: Working Group on the Biology and Assessment of Deep-Sea Fisheries Resources. In ICES WGDEEP 2011/ACOM17. 13 Ofstad, L.H. 2010. Growth and reproduction of Greater Silver Smelt in Faroese waters (Area Vb). In: ICES WKDEEP 2010 WD: GSS-07. 14 Bergstad O. A. (1993). Distribution, population structure, growth, and reproduction of the greater silver smelt, Argentina silus (Pisces, Argentinidae), of the Skagerrak and the north-eastern North Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science 50: 129–143. 15 Johannessen, A. & Monstad, T. (2003). Distribution, growth and exploitation of greater silver smelt (Argentina silus (Ascanius, 1775)) in Norwegian waters 1980–83. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Science 31: 319–332. 16 Magnússon, J. V. (2006). Greater silver smelt, Argentina silus in Icelandic waters. Journal of Fish Biology 49A: 259–275.
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 20 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Fig 3.2b Vertical distribution for greater silver smelt in Norwegian surveys in the Norwegian Sea, 2009. The coloured scale on the y-axis indicates relative abundance (Hallfredsson, 2010, 17 from WGDEEP, 2011).
Fig 3.2c Comparison of depth-stratified length-frequency distributions of GSS taken during the FaMRI bi-annual groundfish surveys(___,---) and commercial landings (▬) made in Faroese waters (Ofstad & Steingrund, 2010, from WKDEEP, 2010).
17 Hallfredsson, E.H. (2011) Observations on the status of greater silver smelt in the North East Atlantic and research on Greater silver smelt in Norway 2010. Working Document; Working Group on the Biology and Assessment of Deep-Sea Fisheries Resources, ICES WGDEEP Report/ACOM17. http://www.ices.dk/reports/ACOM/2011/WGDEEP/wgdeep_Annex02_WorkingDocuments_2011.pdf
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 21 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Fig 3.2d Greater silver smelt maturity ogives from Faroe Islands (Ofstad, 2010 in WKDEEP, 201).
The exact location and behaviour of GSS at spawning time is far from certain as very few GSS are ever found ripe (maturity stage V) or running (stage VI; L. Ofstad, pers comm.). This suggests that there may be a behavioural change in distribution that lowers their catchability; nevertheless, planktonic eggs and larvae are present in greatest numbers at 300–400 m (Wheeler, 1969)18 April–May through to August–September. Although spawning adults may aggregate in deep water the larvae (and subsequently juveniles) are drawn into shallower water, e.g. onto the Faroe Plateau (Fig 3.2d; WKDEEP, 2010).19 The fecundity of GSS is relatively low: 16 000–36 000 eggs (Mazhirina, 1991).20
Fig 3.2e The distribution of sampling stations (blue square) in the Faroese annual 0-group fish survey June–July 1994–2009, observations of spawning greater silver smelt (pink cross) and late-stage smelt larvae (yellow square), observations of greater silver smelt larvae; depth contours at 100 m intervals (WKDEEP, 2010).
18 Wheeler, A. 1969. The Fishes of the British Isles and North-West Europe. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press. 19 WKDEEP, 2010. Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Deep-water Species (WKDEEP). ICES CM 2010/ACOM:38. http://eocean.free.fr/publications/WKDEEP10.PDF 20 Mazhirina, G.P. (1991). Nature of spawning and formation of fecundity on argentine (Argentina silus Ascanius). ICES CM1991; Pelagic Fish Committee): H:57.http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/waves-vagues/search-recherche/display-afficher/134615
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 22 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Greater silver smelt feed primarily on large planktonic species such as euphausids, amphipods (Themisto spp.), gastropods (Clione spp.), chaetognaths, ctenophores and small fishes (Scott & Scott, 1988).21 Their principal predators are probably whales, including both toothed long- finned pilot whales (Globicephala melas22) and baleen minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata; Lydersen et al., 2006).23
3.3 Biological Research on Great Silver Smelt in the NE Atlantic (excluding Vb) Since 2001, Spain has carried out research-vessel demersal-trawl surveys of the Porcupine Bank area west of Ireland (ICES Division VIIc) in which they have taken mixed catches of greater silver smelt (90%+) and lesser silver smelt (Argentina sphyraena). Sampling data tend to be limited to length-frequency distributions and catch per unit of effort (see § 6.1; Velasco et al., 2011). In Norway, commercial landings are sampled for biological data and additional data are collected from research-vessel demersal-trawl surveys targeting cod (Gadus morhua) and haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus), which tend to be more abundant at depths shallower than the GSS optimum. The Norwegians also undertake shelf-edge acoustic surveys in which they attempt to estimate stock abundance (see § 6.2; Monstad & Johannessen, 2003;24 Halffredsson, 2010).
The biological data of most immediate relevance to this assessment are collected by the Faroese. All aspects of marine environment and fishery research in Faroe are carried out by FaMRI (www.frs.fo). The main task of FaMRI is to advise the Faroe Islands fisheries minister on the basis of research into the marine resources harvested by Faroese fishermen and the environment governing their distribution and production. This not only includes fish biology but also physical and biological oceanography, fish behaviour and gear technology. For historic reasons, seabird research is also part of FaMRI’s responsibilities but it is undertaken alongside the sea mammal research programme at the Faroese Museum of Natural History25. On the basis of its research findings, FaMRI also provides scientific and technical information and advice to the Faroese industry, the Nordic Network26 and other international scientific and regulatory bodies (albeit under the aegis of Denmark); (e.g. ICES27, the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation28 (NASCO) and the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission29 (NEAFC); OSPAR30 and the North Atlantic Marine mammal Commission31). The greater part of the scientific information that appears in the later sections of this report originates from research undertaken by FaMRI scientists although citations tend to be the readily available ICES reports.
21 Scott, W.B. & M.G. Scott 1988 Atlantic fishes of Canada. Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries Aquatic Sciences 219. 22 http://www.nammco.no/webcronize/images/ Nammco/635.pdf 23 Lydersen, C., Weslawski, J. M. & 2 Øritsland, N. A. (2006). Stomach content analysis of minke whales Balaenoptera acutorostrata from the Lofoten and Vesterålen areas, Norway. Ecography 14: 219–222. 24 Monstad, TY. & Johannessen. (2003). Acouystic recordings of the greater silver smelt (Argentina silus) in Norwegian waters and west of the British Isles, 1989–94. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Science 31: 339–351. 25 http://www.whaling.fo/Default.aspx?ID=7083 26 Nordic network: Climate impacts on fish, fishery industry and management in the Nordic Seas. http://www.nordforsk.org/en/programs/nordic-network-climate-impacts-on-fish-fishery-industry-and-management-in-the- nordic-seas 27 http://www.ices.dk/indexfla.asp 28 http://www.nasco.int/neac_measures.html 29 www.neafc.org 30 www.ospar.org 31 www.nammco. no
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 23 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
The primary aim of FaMRI research is to provide a basis for responsible exploitation of the marine resources around the Faroe Islands. Assessments are made of the most important fish stocks based on 0-group surveys, demersal-trawl surveys and acoustic surveys, carried out by the 44.5 m research vessel Magnus Heinason. Through these surveys, information is also gathered on the biology of species of fish in Faroese waters, including fluctuations in stock abundance, growth, spawning and feeding. Experimental fisheries are conducted on fish and benthic invertebrates, which traditionally have not been fished (e.g. Lamhauge et al., 2008).32 Consideration is then given to whether these could be fished commercially, and experiments are carried out to find the best fishing gear.
There are extensive research programmes into most aspects of oceanography and marine biology in the waters around the Faroes: temperature and currents (e.g. Hansen et al., 2010),33 the conditions for living organisms to grow (e.g Ofstad, 2010) and reproduce (e.g. Hátún et al., 2007)34, climatic changes likely to affect the reproductive success of fish in Faroese waters (e.g. Debes et al., 2009;35 Hátún et. al., 2009).36 Also, there is research covering multi- species interactions among the trophic layers of the marine ecosystem (e.g. Eliasen et al., 2004;37 Hátún et al., 2010).38 While much of this research is undertaken under the direction of individual scientists or groups, a national, coordinated environmental programme was undertaken 1988–90 to gain a better understanding of habitats and biodiversity in Faroese waters: the BIOFAR project (Jákupsstovu, 2005;39 Tendal et al., 2005).40 All this work contributes to the on-going monitoring and modelling of the effects of area and seasonal closures on fish stocks and their habitats. FaMRI’s intended aim (as yet to be attained) is to develop an ecosystem model for the Faroe Plateau and Bank, which is capable of providing comprehensive information on optimum and sustainable use of the marine ecosystem41.
In addition to the results from BIOFAR42, research data and results are made publicly available through the Environment Agency of the Faroe Islands43 (ENVOFAR), peer- reviewed scientific journals, contributions to scientific meetings (e.g. ICES stock assessment working groups44; and participation in international data-sharing networks, (i.e. the European Directory of the Ocean-observing System45 (EDIOS)).
In addition to the scientific and technical research, there is a regular biological monitoring of commercial landings and analysis of the commercial catch and effort data (collected by
32 Lamhauge, S.; Jacobsen, J.A.; Jákupsstovu, S.H.í; Valdemarsen, J.W.; Sigurdsson, Th; Bardarsson, B.; Filin, A.A. 2008. Fishery and utilisation of mesopelagic fishes and krill in the North Atlantic. TemaNord, 2008:526: 1-36 33 Hansen, B., Hátún, H., Kristiansen, R., Olsen, S.M., Østerhus, S. 2010. Stability and forcing of the Iceland-Faroe inflow of water, heat, and salt to the Arctic. Ocean Sci., 6, 1013–1026, 2010. www.ocean-sci.net/6/1013/2010/doi:10.5194/os-6-1013-2010. 34 Hátún, H., Jacobsen, J. A., and Sandø, A. B. 2007. Environmental influence on the spawning distribution and migration pattern of northern blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou). ICES CM 2007/B:06, 10 pp. 35 Debes, H. H., Gaard, E., Hansen, B., and Hátún, H. 2009. Changes in phytoplankton biomass during a period of significant warming in the south-western Norwegian Sea. ICES CM 2009/D:27. 11 pp. 36 Hátún, H., Payne, M.R., Beaugrand, G., Reid, P.C., Sandø, A.B., b,g, Drange, H., Hansen, B., Jacobsen, J.A., Bloch, D. 2009. Large bio- geographical shifts in the north-eastern Atlantic Ocean: from the subpolar gyre, via plankton, to blue whiting and pilot whales. Progress in Oceanography 80 (2009) 149–162 37 Eliasen S.K. 2004. Zero-Dimensional Model of the Lowest Trophical Levels of the Marine Ecosystem on the Faroe Shelf. Faroese Fisheries Laboratory Technical Report, 04-02. http://www.frs.fo/ew/media/Ritgerðir/2004/TecRep0402.pdf 38 Hátún, H. and Gaard, E. 2010. Marine climate, squid and pilot whales in the northeastern Atlantic. Doreteher book, Annales Societatis Scientarium Færoensis Suplementum 52: 50-68. Faroe University Press, Tórshavn, 307 pp. 39 Jákupsstovu, S.H. (2005). The BIOMAR Project. BIOFAR Proceedings 2005: 7–8. http://www.biofar.fo/documents/00003.pdf 40 Tendal, O.S., Brattegard, T., Nørrevang, A. & Sneli, J-A. (2005). The BIOFAR 1 programme: Background, accomplishment and some outcome from inter-Nordic benthos investigations around the Faroe Islands (NE Atlantic). BIOFAR Proceedings 2005: 9–32. http://www.biofar.fo/documents/00004.pdf 41 http://www.frs.fo/get.asp?gid=fCAD8011C-8357-445E-AD08-3D9C8D10C4BF 42 http://www.biofar.fo/00003/00035/ 43 www.envofar.fo 44 http://www.ices.dk/workinggroups/WorkingGroups.aspx 45 www.edios.org
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 24 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Fiskimálaráđiđ, the Faroese fishery inspection service) recorded in vessel logbooks and landing statistics.
4 ECOSYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS
4.1 The Marine Environment The Faroe Islands form an oceanic archipelago at 62°N and 7°W comprising 18 larger islands and a host of islets and skerries. The Faroe Plateau, depths less than 200 m around the islands, comprises c.20 000 km² (c. 6.5% of the 308 000 km2 EEZ) while depths less than 100 m only constitute c.5400 km². Depths of less than 500 m comprise c.43 000 km².46The Faroes themselves and their shelf area are the basalt and tufa remnants of a volcanic area evolved during the Lower Tertiary. The Faroe Islands constitute part of the ridge stretching from the European continental shelf off northern U.K. (Shetland) to Iceland and Greenland. Between Shetland and Faroe it is named the Wyville-Thompson Ridge after the biologist who inferred its existence from benthic species differences found in a line of dredge samples taken through the Faroe–Shetland Channel (Wyville-Thompson, 1873).47 To the south of the ridge both the water column and seabed are subject to the moderating influence of the warmer waters of the North Atlantic Drift (Fig 4.1a). This influence also moderates surface-water conditions to the north of the ridge but the deep water and seabed is predominantly boreal in nature and species’ communities.
Fig 4.1a The main features of the north-eastern North Atlantic. Warm water (red arrows) flows across the Scotland – Greenland Ridge into the Nordic Seas where they cool. Most of this water then sinks and then flows back (white arrows) into the north-east Atlantic as cold, dense overflow (Hansen, 2011).48
To the SW of the Faroes there are banks, more or less shaped as seamounts and c.100 m deep. The largest of these is the Faroe Bank, which is separated from the Faroe Plateau by the 800+ m deep Faroe Bank Channel.
46 http://www.biofar.fo/00005/00021/ 47 Wyville-Thompson, c.1873). The Depths of the Sea: an account of the general results of the dredging cruises of H.M.SS. 'Porcupine' and 'Lightning' during the summers of 1868, 1869, and 1870. MacMillan: London. 48 Hansen,m B. (2011) How will climate change affect Northeastern Atlantic and the Nordic seas? In The pelagic complex in the North East Atlantic Ocean (Jákupsstovu, S.H.í., ed.) pp 52–54. Copenhagen: TemaNord.
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 25 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
4.1.1 Faroe offshore ecosystem Like most areas in the Nordic Seas, Faroese waters are very productive with most of the primary production occurring between May and September–October. Maximum production and biomass occurs during the spring bloom, i.e. April–June (Fig 4.1b).
Fig 4.1b Primary production (phytoplankton biomass, μg chlorophyll a l–1) in the upper 50 m of the water column in the Faroe–Shetland Channel (Foinavon oil platform, green star) and the Norwegian Sea (weather station M, red star) during 1997 (redrawn from Heath et al., 2000).49
The oceanic zooplankton is dominated by the copepod Calanus finmarchicus. It overwinters in cold deep water in the Norwegian Sea. In late winter–spring it rises towards the surface to feed on phytoplankton and reproduce. From the Norwegian Sea deep water it is also flushed through the deep part of the Faroe–Shetland Channel and Faroe Bank Channel to the more southerly waters around Faroe. Larger zooplankton, mainly krill species, are also abundant in the Faroese waters. The abundance of zooplankton is generally higher to the north of the Faroes in the Norwegian Sea than to the south and it is to these more northern waters that many pelagic, plankton-feeding fish species such as blue whiting, herring and mackerel (Scomber scombrus) migrate each summer
4.1.2 Faroe Shelf ecosystem The Faroe shelf is often viewed as a separate ecosystem, albeit one that is subject to oceanic influences. Phytoplankton species composition differs from that in the surrounding oceanic areas and maintains higher concentrations most of the time but with considerable variability in the time of peak production (Fig 4.1c).
49 Heath, M. R., Astthorsson, O. S., Dunn, J., Ellertsen, B., Gaard, E., Gislason, Á, Gurney, W. S. C., Hind, A., T., Irigoien, X., Melle, W., Niehoff, B., Olsen, K., Skreslet, S. and Tande, K. 2000. Comparative analysis of Calanus finmarchicus demography at locations around the Northeast Atlantic. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57: 1562–1580.
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 26 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Fig 4.1c Primary production (phytoplankton biomass, μg chlorophyll a l–1) on the Faroe shelf, 1997- 2003.
The zooplankton species and composition is also quite different from that in the surrounding oceanic environment. It is a mixture of shelf species, oceanic species and larvae belonging to fish and benthic fauna that spawn on the shelf. The seasonal cycle of the zooplankton closely follows the phytoplankton cycle. The main spawning season for the fish on the shelf is spring, between February and May. The eggs and larvae are dispersed around the shelf area with the currents and feed on zooplankton during spring and early summer.
A clear relationship between primary production and higher trophic levels, such as fish and birds, has been found in the Faroe shelf ecosystem with a rapid response at all trophic levels to variations in primary productivity (Gaard et al., 2002).50 The productivity of the Faroese waters was very low in the late 1980s and early 1990s with concomitant negative effects on fish recruitment and growth. It appears that this correlation may be driven by the strength of the sub-polar gyre, which is itself driven by the relative strengths of the warm and cold water currents (Hansen, 2011). Since then, however, fishery productivity appears to have reverted to conditions many consider normal (WGDEEP, 2009).51
4.2 Benthos and Biogenic Habitats The benthic fauna of the seas around the Faroe Islands have been sampled and studied for over 200 years (Tendal & Bruntse, 2001)52 but it is only relatively recently that these studies have been drawn into more formal frameworks aimed at mapping species and habitat distributions and assessing the effects of fishing and other anthropogenic influences (Tendal
50 Gaard. E., Hansen, B., Olsen, B & Reinert, J. 2002. Ecological features and recent trends in physical environment, plankton, fish stocks and sea birds in the Faroe plateau ecosystem. In:. Large Marine Ecosystems of the North Atlantic (K. Sherman and H.-R. Skjoldal eds), pp 245-265. Elsevier. 51 WGDEEP, 2009. Report of the Working Group on the Biology and Assessment of Deep-sea Fisheries Resources (WGDEEP):8 – Great Silver Smelt. ICES CM 2010/ACOM:14. Available at http://www.ices.dk/reports/ACOM/2009/WGDEEP/WGDEEP_2009.pdf 52 Tendal, O.S., Bruntse, G. (2001). A brief history of the investigations on the benthic fauna of the sea around the Faroe Islands with emphasis on the expiditions and research vessels. In Marine biological investigations and assemblages of benthic invertebrates from the Faroe Islands (Bruntse, G. & Tendal, O.S. eds). Kaldbak Marine Biological Laboratory, The Faroe Islands.
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 27 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
et al., 2005; Garcia et al., 2007).53 The most detailed and up-to-date information on the distribution of benthic species and broad-scale habitats has been compiled as part of the BIOFAR project (Fig 4.2; Bruntse & Tendal, 2001).54
Faroe Shelf
Faroe Bank
Bill Bailey’s Lousey Bank Bank
Fig 4.2 Distribution of broad habitat features and key species around the Faroe Islands (adapted from Bruntse & Tendal, 2001).
Many habitats and species of conservation interest receive an element of protection either through fishery management measures or explicit environment protection measures; (e.g. three areas of cold-water coral (Lophelia pertusa) are closed to trawling (Fig 2.3b).
4.2.1 Sponge communities Among the areas receiving particular attention with respect to the potential effects of fishing are the sponge accumulations, known by Faroese fishermen as ostur, meaning “cheese bottom” (Klitgaard & Tendal, 2001).55 The presence of large sponges adds a low three- dimensional structure to the bottom that increases habitat complexity and attracts a large number of other species (Klitgaard et al., 1997).56 The fauna associated with the large sponges off the Faroe Islands were found to act as keystone habitat for c.250 species of invertebrates
53 Garcia, (e.g., Ragnarsson, S.A., Steingrímsson,S.A., Nævestad, D., Haraldsson, H.P., Fosså, J.H., Tendal, O.S.& Eiríksson, H. 2007. Bottom Trawling and Scallop Dredging in the Arctic Impacts of fishing on non-target species, vulnerable habitats and cultural heritage. TemaNord: Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen. http://www.norden.org/en/publications/publications/2006- 529/at_download/publicationfile 54 Bruntse, G. & Tendal, O.S. Eds (2001). Marine biological investigations and assemblages of benthic invertebrates from the Faroe Islands. Kaldbak Marine Biological Laboratory, The Faroe Islands. www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/217806.pdf 55 Klitgaard, A.B., Tendal, O.S. (2001) “Ostur” – “Cheese bottoms” – sponge dominated areas in Faroese shelf and slope areas. In Marine biological investigations and assemblages of benthic invertebrates from the Faroe Islands (Bruntse, G. & Tendal, O. S. eds). Kaldbak Marine Biological Laboratory;The Faroe Islands. 56 Klitgaard, A.B., Tendal, O.S. & Westerberg, H. (1997) Mass occurrences of large-sized sponges (Porifera) in Faroe Islands (NE Atlantic) shelf and slope areas: characteristics, distribution and possible causes. In The responses of marine organisms to their environment. (Hawkins, L.E., Hutchinson, S., Jensen, A.C., Williams, J.A. & Sheader, M., eds). University of Southampton, pp 129–142
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 28 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
(Bett & Rice, 1992).57 All associated species are facultative sponge dwellers; i.e. they are found also in other habitats. The only near-obligate species reported are the isopod Gnathia abyssorum and the chitonid mollusc Hanleya nagelfar (Klitgaard 1995;58 Warén and Klitgaard 1991).59
Very few species utilize the sponges as a food source; it is assumed, therefore, that the sponges act as keystone species providing associated species with habitat, refuge from predation or physical strain and enhanced food supply from the surrounding water. Juvenile redfish and other groundfish have been regularly observed in association with large sponges, suggesting that ostur is a suitable feeding ground for particular life-history stages of some fish species (Garcia et al., 2007). Although no investigation has been conducted on trawl interactions with sponges around the Faroe Islands, or elsewhere in the north-east Atlantic, anecdotal information (from the Faroe Islands) indicates detrimental effects of trawling and dredging on such habitats. Surveys of areas where sponges had once been found recorded very few sponges during the survey (Garcia et al., 2007). Of the larger sponges found (20– 40cm in maximum dimension), many were found with their inhalant current channel system filled with sediment particles. It was assumed that something happened in the surroundings that re-suspended large quantities of sediment in the water column. While it is not certain that trawling was the cause, at depths of 300+ m it was considered unlikely to be a storm-driven effect. Since the sponges otherwise gave the impression of being healthy, it would seem that they have some ability to recover by cleaning the respiro-feeding system after exposure to high sediment loads. Nevertheless, persistent exposure would undoubtedly result in severe stress and (some) mortality (Garcia et al., 2007).
Self-evidently, direct trawl-gear impact will damage and break sponge colonies but aquarium experiments show that damages can be healed relatively fast (Hoffmann et al. 2003).60 In contrast, all observations point to very slow somatic growth, probably only in the productive time (i.e. summer) of the year. The size structure within sponge populations indicates slow reproduction and recruitment, and high age of the large specimens. No exact aging has so far been done but both size structure and comparable investigations in Antarctica point to decades if not centuries (Dayton 1979;61 Gatti 2002).62 Consequently, it will take a long time for a sponge-dominated area to recover even after partial destruction, and repeated disturbance may lead to permanent extirpation of the species in the area.
No areas have been specifically designated for the protection of sponge communities in Faroese waters but sponge-community areas do fall within the various boundaries in which trawling is prohibited (Fig 2.3b). The use of the GSS semi-pelagic (bottom skimming) pair trawls fished clear of the seabed pose no risk to sponge communities as any significant seabed contact is likely to result in damage to, if not loss of the fishing gear with concomitant loss of fishing time and costs that skippers wish to avoid.
57 B.J. Bett & A.L. Rice, 1992. The influence of hexactinellid sponge (Pheronema carpenteri) spicules on the patchy distribution of macrobenthos in the Porcupine Seabight (Bathyal NE Atlantic). Ophelia 36: 217–226. 58 Klitgaard, A.B. 1995. The fauna associated with outer shelf and upper slope sponges (Porifera, Demospongiae) at the Faroe Islands, northeastern Atlantic. Sarsia 80: 1–22. 59 Warén, A. & A. Klitgaard, 1991. Hanleya nagelfar, a sponge-feeding ecotype of H. hanleyi or a distinct species of chiton? Ophelia 34: 51– 70. 60 Hoffmann, F., Rapp, H.T., Zöller, T. & Reitner, J. (2003). Growth and regeneration in cultivated fragments of the boreal deep water sponge Geodia barrette Bowerbank, 1858 (Geodiidae, Tetractinellida, Demospongiae). Journal of Biotechnology 100: 109–118 61 Dayton PK (1979) Observations on growth, dispersal, and population dynamics of some sponges in McMurdo Sound, Antarctica. In Biologie des Spongiaires (c. Lévi and N. Boury- Esnault, eds.), pp 272–282. Centre Nationale de Recherche Scientifique; Paris 62 Gatti S (2002) The role of sponges in the High-Antarctic carbon and silicon cycling – a modelling approach. Berichte zur Polar- und Meeresforschung 434.
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 29 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
4.2.2 Cold-water coral Another group of keystone species that offer three-dimensional variety to the demersal environment are the cold-water corals Lophelia pertusa, Paragorgia arborea and Primnoa resedaeformis. Of these, Lophelia is the most widespread and abundant in Faroese waters (Fig 4.2) but their distribution tends to be limited to depths 200–400 m (i.e. within the depth band 63 for fishing GSS) at temperatures of 4–8º C (Brentse & Tendal, 2001loph). An individual reef (bioherm) studied during the BIOFAR project was measured by sonar equipment to be c.10 m high and 110 m wide (Bruntse & Tendal, 2001loph). A census of associated fauna carried out on a total of twenty-five 2 kg blocks of coral taken from two BIOFAR sampling locations identified 300 (non-fish) species, of which 256 species were found on the blocks examined and 42 species were identified from loose coral rubble (Bruntse & Tendal, 2001loph). Reef areas are also recognised as good long-line fishing areas (Husebø et al., 2002)64 and ROV studies in Norwegian waters have shown a preponderance of saithe and redfish around such reefs (Mortensen et al., 1995).65
It is probable that these structures take many centuries, possibly millennia, to grow and it is universally recognised that their brittle structure makes them highly vulnerable to damage by towed fishing gears. Nevertheless, the continuing, widespread existence of such large, potentially vulnerable structures suggests that while some reefs may have been razed by past fishing activity there are still many areas in Faroese waters that remain unaffected. Any coral area that is within the Faroese 12 mile limit of the Territorial Sea receives permanent protection as trawling is prohibited. Beyond the 12 mile limit there are also very extensive areas in which demersal trawling is prohibited and there are three additional areas closed to towed gear explicitly to protect coral reefs (Fig 2.3b). Although it would appear that GSS and Lophelia occupy similar depth bands, the use of semi-pelagic (bottom skimming) pair trawls fished clear of the seabed pose minimal risk to coral communities as any significant seabed contact is likely to result in damage to, if not loss of the fishing gear with concomitant loss of fishing time and costs that skippers wish to avoid.
4.2.3 Horse mussel Modiolus modiolus Another species that provides three-dimensional structure, albeit a somewhat lower profile than coral, and acts as a keystone species in which many other species are found, is the horse mussel (Modiolus modiolus). Its distribution is shallower (< 200 m) than either the corals or most of the sponge communities and its current distribution around Faroe tends to be limited to three main areas (Fig 4.2; Dinesen & Bruntse).66 As with the corals, there is a wide variety of other fauna associated with horse mussel reefs; 175 species were identified during the BIOFAR project, many of which are known to be prey species for commercially exploited fish. These beds are most vulnerable to fishing gears that dig into the seabed such as dredges and possibly rock-hopper trawls but as the distribution of these beds is overwhelmingly within the Territorial Sea and other areas in which trawling is prohibited (Fig 2.3b), they are exposed to minimal risk of fishery-related disturbance and none from GSS fishing.
63 Bruntse, G. & Tendal, O.S. (2001) Lophelia pertusa and other cold water corals in the Faroe area. In Marine biological investigations and assemblages of benthic invertebrates from the Faroe Islands (Bruntse, G. & Tendal, O.S. eds) pp 22–32. Kaldbak Marine Biological Laboratory, The Faroe Islands. www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/217806.pdf 64 Husebø, Å., Nøttestad, L., Fosså, J.H., Furevik, D.M. & Jørgensen, S.B. (2002). Distribution and abundance of fish in deep-sea coral habitats. Hydrobiologia 471: 91–99. 65 Mortensen, P.B., Hovland, M., Brattegard, T. & Farestveit, R. (1995). Deep water bioherms of the Scleractinian coral Lophelia pertusa (L.) at 64° N on the Norwegian shelf: structure and associated megafauna. Sarsia 80: 145–158. 66 Dinesen, G. & Bruntse, G. (2001). Modiolus modiolus beds. In Marine biological investigations and assemblages of benthic invertebrates from the Faroe Islands (Bruntse, G. & Tendal, O.S. eds) pp 33–362. Kaldbak Marine Biological Laboratory, The Faroe Islands. www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/217806.pdf
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 30 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
4.3 Fish Communities The range of species comprising the fish community of Faroese waters is what might be expected from such a central position in the NE Atlantic67: a wide variety of shelf and deep- water gadoid species, principally cod, haddock, saithe, blue whiting and ling (Molva molva); shelf and deep-water flatfish such as plaice (Pleuronectes platessa), lemon sole (Microstomus kitt) and dab (Limanda limanda), halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus) and Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides); deep-water species such as blue ling (Molva dypterygia), tusk (Brosme brosme) and grenadiers (Coryphaenoides rupestris); elasmobranchs such as blue skate (Dipturus batis), spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) and porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus). Of these, it is the species most regularly associated with deeper water along the shelf edge that are most likely to be taken as bycatch in the GSS fishery but as the directed fishery is very clean (≥ 99% GSS, see § 5.6) the potential effect on any of these species at the population level is trivial to non-existent. Through Denmark, the Faroe Islands is a signatory to NEAFC with respect to the management and allocation of fishery resources in the NE Atlantic. Hitherto it has been compliant with the convention and decisions made by the commission but currently Faroe Islands is in dispute with other parties to the NEAFC convention with respect to management and allocation of mackerel in the NE Atlantic. It continues to be compliant with respect to management and allocation of all other fishery resources.
4.4 Seabirds It is estimated that there are some 2 million pairs of seabirds on the Faroe Islands: fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis) 600 000 pairs (600 kp), puffin (Fratecula arctica) 550 kp, common storm petrel (Hydrobates pelagicus) 250 kp, kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla) 230 kp, guillemot (Uria aalge) 175 kp, manx sheerwater (Puffinus puffinus) 25 kp, lesser black-back gull (Larus fuscus) 9 kp, razorbill (Alca torda) 4.5 kp, black guillemot (Cepphus grylle) 3.5 kp, eider duck (Somateria molissima) 3.5 kp, gannet (Sula bassana) 2 kp, Arctic tern (Sterna paradisea) 2 kp, shag (Phalacrocorax aristotelis) 1.5 kp, herring gull (Larus marinus) 1.2 kp, great black-back gull (Larus marinus)1.2 kp, common gull (Larus canus) 1 kp, Leach’s storm petrel (Oceanodroma leucorhoa) 1 kp, Arctic skua (Stercorarius parasiticus) 0.9 kp, great skua (Stercorarius skua) 0.5 kp, black-headed gull (Larus ridibundus) 0.3 kp plus a further variety of species in smaller numbers (Seabirds of the Faroe Islands68). All of these species are found throughout the temperate–sub-Arctic north-east Atlantic and none is listed as cause for concern on the IUCN Red List69.
The largest change in recent times was the huge invasion of fulmars in the early 19th century but more generally the populations have seen a decrease since the late 1950s (Wildlife Extra70). In the 1980s and early 1990s there was a fall in primary productivity affecting all trophic layers (Gaard et al., 2002), including a scarcity of food for seabirds, which resulted in a reduction in seabird numbers around the Faroe Islands. This scarcity was an issue for everyone on the Islands as fishing is a major industry, and it also led to a reduction in sea bird numbers (Wildlife Extra71).
67 http://fishin.fo/Default.aspx?ID=9802 68 www.visitfaroeislands.com/Admin/Public/download.aspx 69 www.iucnredlist.org 70 http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/world/bw-faroes.html#cr 71 http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/world/bw-faroes.html#cr
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 31 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
There have been no formal investigation of seabird bycatch in the Faroe Islands but, it is thought not to be a major problem, except for the longline fishery where FaMRI has estimated that 5000–25 000 fulmars (all ages) are taken each year, i.e. equivalent to 1–5% the breeding population (SGBYC, 2011).72 (A similar number of fulmars are probably taken in the traditional annual seabird hunt during late August–early September. Newly fledged but flightless fulmars are taken from the sea surface by inshore fishing vessels and other craft. The birds form part of the traditional Faroese diet and are still highly prized.) More generally, the ICES working group on seabird ecology (WGSE) has noted that larger petrels have been associated with trawl-warp bycatch and there is the potential for even smaller, more agile seabird species to become caught and drowned or crushed in nets as they are set or hauled. Birds are attracted to nets being set if they are not cleaned sufficiently prior to setting. Equally, many more birds are attracted to nets on the haul as offal discharge begins, while fish are being removed and processed. Birds will attempt to take offal and discards discharged near the net and can be ensnared. Equally, they can be ensnared as they attempt to take fish and other catch from the net itself as it is hauled aboard. While there is potential for this interaction to exist, no data are currently available from Faroese trawl fleets; nevertheless, one TAVAN skipper (Jørmund Olsen, pers comm.) estimated that there may be ten to 20 occasions during the year when a single gannet is ensnared and drowned (i.e. 60–120 total for the GSS fleet). This information was new to the scientists in the Department of Zoology, Natural History Museum who then put it in context by explaining that c.50% of gannet chicks just at the point of fledging are taken from the nest (for human consumption) during the annual seabird hunt in late August– early September (Bergur Olsen, pers comm.). Although there is currently no requirement for skippers to record bird mortalities in current logbooks, there is a space for them to do so if they wish. Once the new electronic logbooks are introduced to the fishing fleet, however, it will be mandatory to record the presence or absence of seabirds in the catch (Ministry Fisheries pers. comm.).
4.5 Marine Mammals 4.5.1 Cetaceans Many different species of whales and dolphins occur in the waters around the Faroe Islands and, in common with other Nordic countries (e.g. Iceland and Norway), the Faroe Islanders consider marine mammals an exploitable resource. The clearest manifestation of this is the traditional hunt, the grind, for pilot whales (Globicephala melas) and some dolphins during the summer73. Organised at the local community level, strictly recorded74 and regulated by national legislation, the Faroese whale drive has adapted to modern standards of resource management and animal welfare.
The Faroese Museum of Natural History is responsible for on-going biological sampling and research on cetaceans in Faroese waters, including sightings surveys75 and satellite tracking projects76, aimed at providing up-to-date information for sustainable management of cetacean catches in the Faroe Islands. Its scientists participate in the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO) scientific committee77, and provide Faroese data on stock status,
72 SGBYC (2010). Report of the Study Group on Bycatch of Protected Species. ICES CM 2010/ACOM:25. http://www.ices.dk/reports/ACOM/2010/SGBYC/sgbyc_final_2010.pdf 73 http://www.whaling.fo/Default.aspx?ID=6767 74 http://www.whaling.fo/Default.aspx?ID=7125 75 http://www.nammco.no/Nammco/Mainpage/Tnass/Partners/ 76 http://www.ngs.fo/Default.aspx?ID=11876 77 http://www.nammco.no/Nammco/Mainpage/Links/MemberGovernmentOrganisations/
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 32 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
ecology and other aspects relevant for the NAMMCO management committee (Mikkelsen et al., 2010).78
An important aspect of NAMMCO’s scientific work is the coordination of regular cetacean sightings surveys, the Trans North Atlantic Sightings Survey (TNASS), which provides crucial information from which to estimate and monitor the stock abundance of different whales species. The most recent (2007) achieved the broadest coverage of all such surveys to date79.
In addition to pilot whales, TNASS records show northern bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon ampullatus), minke whales (Balaenoptera acurostrata), humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), sperm whales (Physeter catodon), killer whales (Orcinus orca), white-sided dolphins (Lagenorhynchus acutus), bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) and harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) are all common species in Faroese waters (TNASS, reported in WGMME, 2010).80
Reporting of fishery bycatch of marine mammals is not mandatory at present but if cetaceans are reported they are included in the Faroese annual cetacean catch record reported to NAMMCO (e.g. Mikkelsen et al., 2010). A new electronic logbook system for all fishing vessels is under development and will require the presence or absence of marine mammals in the catch to be reported (Ministry of Fisheries, pers comm.). “By-catch of marine mammals and interaction with fisheries has never been quantified in Faroese waters. But because of the structure of the Faroese fishery, with little gill-net effort and no trawling in shallow waters, by-catch of marine mammals has been considered insignificant, i.e. less than ten animals in total per year in the total Faroese fleet.” (Bjarni Mikkelsen, Museum of Natural History, pers. comm.). Ten cetaceans taken in all fisheries is, indeed, “insignificant compared with up to 700+ dolphins taken with as many as 1100 pilot whales in the annual grind (Table 4.5).
Year Pilot whales White-sided Bottle-nosed Risso’s Bottlenose whales dolphins dolphins dolphin (stranding) 2000 588 265 0 3 2001 918 546 6 0 2002 626 773 18 6 2003 503 186 3 0 2004 1012 333 0 0 2005 302 312 0 1 2006 856 622 17 0 2007 633 0 0 3 2008 0 1 7 2009 310 170 1 3 2 2010 1107 14 0 21 0 2011 303+
+ as of 15 August 2011
Table 4.5 Annual number of cetaceans recorded from whale drives & stranding 2000–201181
78 Mikkelsen, B., Bloch, D., Dam, M. & Desportes, G. (2010) Faroe Islands – Progress Report on Marine Mammals 2009-2010 . Annual Report NAMMCO 2010: pp 413- 420. http://www.nammco.no/webcronize/images/Nammco/955.pdf 79 http://www.nammco.no/Nammco/Mainpage/Tnass/StatusReport/ 80 WGMME (2011). Report of the Working Group on Marine Mammal Ecology. ICES CM 2011/ACOM:25. http://www.ices.dk/reports/ACOM/2011/WGMME/wgmme_2011_final.pdf 81 Ministry of Fisheries statistics: http://www.vmr.fo/Default.aspx?ID=7125
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 33 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
4.5.2 Pinnipedia Grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) are found in relatively low numbers in quiet, sheltered areas throughout the Faroe Islands but the total population is estimated to be no more than 2000 (Bloch et al, 2000).82 It is the only species known to breed on the islands but tagging studies indicate that grey seals from Scottish breeding areas will feed in Faroese waters. The common harbour seal (Phoca vitulina) was known to breed in the Faroe Islands until it was extirpated by hunting in the 19th century. Both the hooded (Cystophora cristata) and harp seals (Pagophilus groenlandicus) are northerly species, which prefer deep offshore water but are found in north Faroe coastal waters in the vicinity of salmon (Salmo salar) farms. This predilection for salmon means that hooded seals are occasionally taken in the offshore salmon long-line fishery (Bloch et al., 2000). Some grey seals are shot every year to protect salmon farms, but without reporting, and the numbers killed remained unknown. Once the electronic logbooks are introduced to the Faroese fleet, it will be necessary to record the presence or absence of any marine mammal in the catch (Ministry of Fisheries pers. comm.)
The Scientific Committee of NAMMCO reported that by-catch of marine mammals probably constitutes an appreciable proportion of total removals of coastal seals “in all areas” (i.e. including the Faroe Islands) but there is no estimate of total by-catch (nor abundance) for many species and stocks (NAMMCO, 2010).83 The committee also noted that there has been no progress for monitoring seal bycatch in the Faroes but a new electronic logbook system for all fishing vessels is under development and the Ministry of Fisheries will ensure that bycatch reporting will be mandatory, and enforced, once the system is operational.
4.6 Retained Fish Species, By-catch and Discards The fishery tends to be very clean (Fishery Inspectors, pers. comm.) with very small quantities of retained species. There is a statutory requirement to retain, record and land all fish species; such landings are set against the vessels’ quota and the TACs with the corresponding data being reported for stock assessment purposes. This regulation is enforced through surveillance at sea (Faroese fishery patrol vessel), over-flights (Danish fishery patrol aircraft) and comparison of logbooks etc. with the documentation of other vessels fishing in the same area at similar times of year.
4.6.1 Retained commercial species The quantities of non-target retained species is trivial (< 200 t; i.e. < 1% the total catch of the GSS fleet; Table 4.6) relative to the scale of the corresponding Faroese and international fisheries for the same species. The quantities taken have no bearing on the management or long-term sustainability of the stocks concerned.
82 Bloch, D., Mikkelsen, B. and Ofstad, L.H. 2000. Marine Mammals in Faroese Waters with special attention to the south-south-eastern Sector of the region. GEM Report to Environmental Impact Assessment Programme: 1-26. http://www.foib.fo/foibportal/projects/eia/Faroe_eia/Studies/Mammal_Final_Part1.pdf 83 NAMMCO, 2010. Annual Report NAMMCO 2010. http://www.nammco.no/webcronize/images/Nammco/955.pdf
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 34 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Black scab Blue Hali Porbeagle bard Ling but Ling Pollack shark Redfish Saithe Other* Total 2008 2009 2010 3.554 0.038 0.317 0.322 0.429 0.476 71.170 20.224 90.211 186.741
*, non-commercial species (Ministry of Fisheries, pers. comm.).
Table 4.6 Annual recorded bycatch in the Faroese greater silver smelt fishery (tonnes; data provided by the Ministry of Fisheries)
4.6.2 Bycatch and discarded fish species All fish caught must be retained, recorded and landed. Commercial species too small to process for human consumption are recorded against the appropriate species for management purposes but then often go for reduction to fishmeal, as do non-commercial species. Non- commercial species are recorded as ‘other’ and once landed, go with processed fish offal to the fishmeal factory. The quantities of non-commercial species landed from the GSS fishery are trivial (Table 4.6).
4.7 Interactions with Endangered, Threatened and Protected species The endangered, threatened and protected (ETP) species fall into four main groups: benthic species and their associated habitats, (large) fish species, birds and marine mammals. The species and fishery interactions are described and discussed above. The Faroe Islands is a signatory (either in its own right or under the aegis of Denmark) to a wide range of international conventions that embrace the conservation and protection of marine biota, their habitats and environment, (i.e. Bern, Bonn, NAMMCO, OSPAR, Ramsar, Rio conventions. Such evidence as there is points to an absence of any significant adverse interaction between the GSS fishery and any of the ETP species.
4.8 Other Fisheries Relevant to this Assessment. Across the board, there are no other fisheries relevant to this assessment. Over 98% of the Faroese GSS catch is taken in the directed fishery, small quantities are taken in directed saithe and blue whiting fisheries. The total bycatch of non-target fish in the GSS fishery is less than 200 t (Table 4.6), a quantity that is trivial compared with the quantities taken in the directed demersal fisheries. There are no other fisheries for GSS in Faroese waters; the only other directed GSS fishery of any quantity is that carried out by Iceland in Icelandic waters, which ICES views as a separate assessment–management unit.
4.9 The Fishery’s Effect on the Surrounding Ecosystems The assessment of ecosystem effects of fishing is a difficult subject to assess and the overall aim of an ecosystem approach to fisheries management is still under development, not least in the NE Atlantic (WGDEC, 2011).84 The most recent ICES efforts in this area have focussed on fishery interactions with ‘vulnerable marine communities’ (VME), such as sponge
84 WGDEC (2011). Report of the ICES/NAFO Joint Working Group on Deep-water Ecology (WGDEC). ICES CM 2011/ACOM:27
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 35 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
communities, cold-water corals (principally Lophelia pertusa) and deep-water seamounts (WKMARBIO, 2011).85 None of the most recent studies, however, have included Faroese waters but have been to the south and south-west of the islands (WGDEC, 2011). While there is ongoing concern for the potential adverse effects of fishing on VMEs, including the fish communities, the state of knowledge is too limited to draw any firm conclusions as present and, certainly, no specific concerns have been raised either with Faroese waters or the Faroese GSS fishery in particular.
The use of semi-pelagic pair trawls fished clear of the seabed pose no risk to benthic communities as any significant seabed contact is likely to result in damage to, if not loss of the fishing gear with concomitant loss of fishing time and costs that skippers wish to avoid.
4.10 Closed Areas There are extensive management regulations in place that close areas both permanently and seasonally for fishery conservation purposes and there are three areas closed to trawling to protect cold-water coral habitats (Fig 2.3b). There are no closed areas to protect other habitats, seabirds or marine mammals.
4.11 Waste Management In compliance with the OSPAR convention on the management of waste at sea, Faroese legislation requires all Faroese-registered fishing vessels to limit the discharge of waste to fish offal (i.e. heads and guts) and biodegradable galley waste. All other domestic waste (e.g. cans, glass and plastics), fishery waste (e.g. damaged netting, broken warp etc.) and vessel waste (e.g. used engine oil) must be returned to port and disposed on in an approved manner (for which receipts are issued by the harbour authorities). All these waste products are collect by approved waste control companies that arrange for their approved disposal, incineration or recycling. The Ministry of Fisheries (pers. comm.) is satisfied that the client fleet is fully compliant in this regard.
85 WKMARBIO (2011). Report of the Workshop on Marine Biodiversity (WKMARBIO): furthering ICES engagement in biodiversity issues. ICES CM 2011/SSGSUE:02. REF. SIBAS, SCICOM, ACOM.
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 36 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
5 STATUS OF THE GREAT SILVER SMELT STOCK The information that follows is a drawn from both the Faroese Marine Research Institute, specifically Ofstad & Steingrund (2011), and ICES sources, particularly the most recent report of the ICES working group on the biology of deep-sea fisheries and fisheries resources (WGDEEP, 2011) and ICES advice to the international fishery commissions and member states (ACOMgss, 2011).
5.1 Data Sources The ICES working group does not have the comprehensive suite of commercial and biological data available that are normally associated with ICES stock assessments. There is considerable uncertainty as to what constitutes the stock or stocks of GSS in the north-east Atlantic; although all the countries that have deep-water fisheries report catches of GSS, there is uncertainty about the level of discarding in fisheries within EU waters and catches from more southerly areas are mixed with the lesser argentine (Argentina sphyraena) (Velasco et al. 2011);86 there are limited data with which to analyse catches, catch rates, length or age structure. Such data as there are, provided by Denmark, Faroe, Norway and Spain (WGDEEP, 2011). Denmark has limited logbook catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) data, Spain carries out trawl surveys of the Porcupine Bank (ICES Division VIIc), Norway carries out a variety of surveys and samples commercial landings, and Faroe undertakes a spring and summer trawl survey each year and samples commercial landings.
5.1.1 Landing and biological sampling data Discarding by any vessel is prohibited within the fishery jurisdictions of Faroe and Norway and both countries have directed fisheries. It is assumed that the official landing statistics are accurate. Landing statistics from within EU fishing areas are less reliable due to discarding and the inclusion of lesser silver smelt. Faroe, Norway and Spain carry out biological sampling and analysis of catches taken in the course of scientific stock surveys.
An annual Spanish random stratified bottom-trawl survey (Velasco & Serrano, 2003)87 has been carried since 2001 in the areas surrounding the Porcupine Bank (ICES Divisions VIIc and VIIk) to study the distribution, relative abundance and biological parameters of commercial fish in the area. The main target species for these surveys are hake (Merliccius merluccius), monkfish (Lophius piscatorius), and megrim (Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis), for which abundance indices are estimated by age (Velasco et al., 2005;88 Velasco et al., 2007).89 Data are also collected for all other fish species captured, including Argentina spp. (Velasco et al., 2011). For the argentine catch, GSS dominate catches (90%+) on the deeper margins of the bank and lesser silver smelts are more abundant towards the centre of the bank (Velasco et al., 2011). A comparison of the aggregated (i.e. both species) length-frequency analysis 2001–
86 Velasco1, F., Blanco, M.,Baldó, F. & Gil, J. (2011). Results on Argentine (Argentina spp.), Bluemouth (Helicolenus dactylopterus), Greater forkbeard (Phycis blennoides) and Spanish ling (Molva macrophthalma) from 2010 Porcupine Bank (NE Atlantic) survey. Working Document; Working Group on the Biology and Assessment of Deep-Sea Fisheries Resources, ICES WGDEEP Report/ACOM17. http://www.ices.dk/reports/ACOM/2011/WGDEEP/wgdeep_Annex02_WorkingDocuments_2011.pdf 87 Velasco, F. and Serrano, A., 2003. Distribution patterns of bottom trawl faunal assemblages in Porcupine Bank: implications for Porcupine surveys stratification design. Working document: ICES International Bottom-Trawl Survey Working Group. 88 Velasco, F.; Castro, J.; Fariña, C.; Piñeiro, C.G. & Sainza, M. 2005. Results on hake and Nephrops from the 2001-2004 Porcupine Bank bottom trawl surveys. Working document: presented to the ICES Working Group on the Assessment of Southern Shelf Stocks of Hake, Monk and Megrim. 89 Velasco, F.; Landa, J.; Fontenla, J. and Barrado, J. 2007. Results on megrim (Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis) and anglerfish (Lophius piscatorius) from the 2001-2006 Porcupine Bank bottom trawl surveys. WD presented to the ICES Working Group on the Assessment of Southern Shelf Stocks of Hake, Monk and Megrim. 13 pp.
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 37 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
2010 does not indicate any obvious trend in length range or mode (Fig 5.1a) but some distributions due show a clear bimodality. More rigorous species separation and length- frequency analysis of 2009–2010 data indicate (Fig 5.1b) that the lower mode could be attributed to lesser smelt (A. sphyraena) and the larger fish to GSS (A. silus).
Fig 5.1a Aggregated mean stratified length-frequency distributions of silver Argentina spp. from the Spanish trawl survey of the Porcupine Bank (ICES Div. VIIc) 2001–2010 (from Velasco et al., 2011).
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 38 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Fig 5.1b Mean stratified length-frequency distribution of A. silus and A. sphyraena from the Spanish trawl survey of the Porcupine Bank (ICES Div. VIIc) 2001–2010 (from Velasco et al., 2011).
Length-frequency distributions of GSS taken in the Norwegian commercial spring fishery in ICES division IIa in 2010 (Fig 5.1c) do not differ substantially from data gathered annually since 2000 but they do differ from samples taken in the 1980s. The 1980’s samples had significant numbers of fish > 40 cm and > 14 years of age whereas both the upper end of the range and the modal length have been reduced (Hallfredsson, 2011).
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 39 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Fig 5.1c Length-frequency distributions of individual catch samples (individual colours) of A. silus taken from five Norwegian commercial fishing areas, February–June 2010 (Hallfredsson, 2011).
In Faroese waters, FaMRI has undertaken two standardised groundfish surveys since 1994, one in the spring (100 stations) and another in the summer (200 stations). The surveys are designed primarily to sample cod, haddock and saithe, all of which tend to occupy shallower depths than GSS. Consequently, station sampling depths are limited to less than 400 m where juvenile GSS tend to be more prevalent while the mature fish tend to be more prevalent at depths greater than 300 m. Ofstad and Steingrund (2011) analysed length-frequency distributions from these survey data (Fig 5.1d) and found a decline in the abundance of large
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 40 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
fish and concomitant decrease in both modal length and age in the early years of exploitation (1994–1998). In more recent years, the distribution has stabilised with no clear trends or changes in range or pattern being evident. Similarly, they found no clear trends in recent year’s data from Faroese commercial catch samples (Fig 5.1e). These samples differ from scientific survey samples, however, in having a lower frequency of smaller (immature) fish; probably a manifestation of the surveys targeting gadoid species and tending to fish more shallower areas than those fished by commercial vessels. Commercial catches include fish > 45 cm in length and > 15 years of age (Fig 5.1e).
Fig 5.1d Length frequency distribution of greater silver smelt from Faroese gadoid trawl-survey samples, 1996 – 2010 (Ofstad & Steingrund, 2011 in WGDEEP, 2011).
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 41 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Fig 5.1e Length-frequency (left) and age-frequency (right) distributions of greater silver smelt from Faroese commercial fishery landings 1994 – 2010 (Ofstan & Steingrund, 2011 in WGDEEP,2011).
Length and age maturity indicate that 50% of the population of GSS attain maturity at an age of 4–7 years (Fig 3.2d). The overwhelming majority of fish in the Faroese commercial landings are greater than 5 years of age, which is indicative of catches comprising predominantly mature fish. It is also worth noting that the Spanish survey and Norwegian commercial length-frequency distributions are similar in shape and range to those from the Faroese commercial catches, which in turn would suggest that GSS from these areas are also predominantly mature fish. In addition, the length-frequency distributions from all three areas have been relatively stable in recent years, which, when taken with the evidence of predominantly mature fish, is indicative of a stock that is not currently under undue pressure. In both the Norwegian and Faroese samples it has been noted that the length range and mean– modal length of fish have decreased from what was reported earlier (1980s, Johannnessen & Monstad, 2003; 1990s, Ofstad & Stieingrund, 2011) but this is a characteristic phenomenon associated with any stock that moves from an unexploited to exploited state (irrespective of the degree of exploitation) and is not of itself an indicator of excess exploitation.
5.1.2 Biomass and abundance indices Estimates of abundance and biomass have been made with commercial logbook and scientific survey data collected by Denmark, Faroe Islands, Norway and Spain.
At the most recent ICES GSS benchmark meeting (WKDEEP, 2010), Denmark provided logbook catch and corresponding effort data for the Danish fleet in Division IIIa for the period 1992–2006 (Fig 5.1f). Although the series appears to show a consistent negative trend, suggesting a slow decline in stock abundance, the study group was not prepared to accept the data at face value as providing a reliable index of abundance, either at the local or stock level (WKDEEP, 2010). Although not stated by the working group, it is worth noting that GSS in this area are at the margin of their NE Atlantic distribution and might wax and wane in
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 42 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
abundance more readily in response to environmental variability than nearer the core of the species distribution.
Fig 5.1f Greater silver smelt catch–days fishing CPUE estimates from Danish commercial logbooks for the fishery in ICES Div IIIa, Skagerrak–Kattegat.
Two different methods were used to estimate abundance variability from the Spanish Porcupine Bank research-vessel trawl-survey data: (i) the parametric standard error derived from the random stratified sampling (Grosslein & Laurec, 1982),90 and (ii) a non-parametric bootstrap procedure implemented in R (R Development Core Team, 2008)91 resampling randomly with replacement stations within each stratum to maintain the sampling intensity, and using 80% bootstrap confidence intervals from the 0.1 and 0.9 quantiles of the resultant distribution of bootstrap replicates (Efron & Tibshirani, 1993).92
90 Grosslein M.D. and Laurec A., 1982. Bottom trawl survey design, operation and analysis. CECAF/ECAF Series 81/22. 91 R Development Core Team. 2008. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3- 900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org. 92 Efron and Tibshirani, 1983. An Introduction to the Bootstrap.London: Chapman & Hall.
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 43 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Fig 5.1g Time series (2001–2010) of Argentina spp. (> 90% Argentina silus) biomass (upper) and abundance (lower) indices from the Spanish bottom-tral random stratified survey. Boxes mark parametric standard error of the stratified abundance index. Lines mark bootstrap confidence inte (Velasco et al., 2011).
Although abundance and biomass appear to have been relatively stable 2006–2010 (Fig 5 .1g) both are at a level c. one third the level estimated earlier in the decade. This apparent decrease in abundance and biomass has occurred over the same period that commercial landings from ICES area VI & VII fell from c.15 000 t to < 5000 t year–1 (Table 2.2).
The Norwegian estimates of GSS abundance have been made on the basis of acoustic surveys, initially in the period 1989–1992 and more recently in 2009 (Harbitz, 2010).93 Length frequency distributions were provided from 45 trawl hauls distributed over the shelf slope west and north of Norway. The acoustic data were interpreted with respect to four length groups above and below 500 m north of 68º N, and stratified by depth intervals limits 1000 m, 700 m, 500 m, 450 m, 400 m, 350 m, 300 m and 250 m south of 68º N. The total abundance estimated was the sum of the stratified samples. The abundance north of 68º N was negligible and this was omitted from further analysis. The estimate of GSS biomass in Norwegian waters in 2009 was 390 kt (WKDEEP, 2010). Monstad and Johannessen (2003) made similar
93 Harbitz. 2010. WKDEEP, WD GSS‐01. Report of the ICES Working Group on the Biology and Assessment of Deep Sea Fisheries Resources (WGDEEP). ICES CM 2010/ACOM:17.
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 44 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
estimates for the same area 1989–1992, i.e. just as the directed fisheries were beginning. While no firm conclusions can be drawn on the basis of a single (2009) survey, it is an indication (alongside the length-frequency data; Fig 5.1c) of relative stock stability over the period that a directed fishery has developed.
Spring Summer
CPUE kg h-1 CPUE kg h-1
Fig 5.1h Distribution of greater silver smelt average catch per unit of effort (kg h–1) on the Faroe Plateau (ICES division Vb1) from spring, 1994–2008, and summer, 1996–2008, bottom-trawl surveys for cod, haddock and saithe (WGDEEP, 2009).
Although the FaMRI trawl-survey sampling depths are limited to less than 400 m, where juvenile GSS tend to be more prevalent, while the mature fish tend to be more prevalent at depths greater than 300 m, CPUE indices of GSS population abundance within the survey area have been calculated each year since 1994 (Fig 5.1i). Over time there has possibly been a slight positive trend in the spring survey CPUE (Fig 5.1i), with an apparently anomalous spike in spring 2005. The summer survey data, however, are more erratic but with a negative trend, possibly equal but opposite to the spring survey data. (The summer survey 2010 CPUE is c. the same as 2008; Ofstad & Steingrund, 2011).
Fig 5.1i FaMRI spring and summer gadoid groundfish trawl survey; greater silver smelt standardised catch per unit of effort (Ofstad & Steingrund, 2011).
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 45 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Data from two of the four pairs are subject to quality assurance checks by FaMRI (Ofstad & Steingrund, 2011). These data reveal that GSS is fished mostly in the area west of the Faroes and on the continental slope north and northwest of the Faroe Bank, at depths c. 300–700 meters (Fig 2.3a). The CPUE data indicate a positive trend with a notional doubling in local population abundance 1994–2009.
Fig 5.1j CPUE (kg h–1) for four different pairs of pair-trawlers (1 to 4), *, logbook data are stored in a FaMRI database and are subject to quality assurance checks. CPUEglm is the predicted CPUE from a general linear model (GLM) where each haul was standardized by area, month and pair.
Such an interpretation must be treated with extreme caution, however, as the apparent increase may be a function of an increased tendency to target GSS in response to reduced fishing opportunities elsewhere. Nevertheless, if the pre-2000 results are ignored as they may reflect an element of skippers’ technical learning in a new fishery, and if the 2009 peak is assumed to equate to the spike in the FaMRI data (Fig 5.1i), the commercial CPUE data do not show any negativity. Overall, however, these data, when taken with the length and age- frequency distributions, and the Spanish and Norwegian survey data, suggest that the Faroese fishery is relatively stable with no obvious signs of over exploitation.
5.2 Monitoring stock status The international effort to monitor the status of the GSS stocks is undertaken annually by the ICES working group on the biology and assessment of deep-sea fisheries resources (WGDEEP). Typically, this working group comprises scientists from ten ICES member states’ institutions who collate, analyse, assess and report on commercial and scientific data supplied by member states, not the least of which are the GSS data supplied by Faroe Islands, Norway and Spain. Whereas most ICES stock assessment working groups have sufficient data of suitable quality to undertake analytical assessments based on one or more standardised variants of virtual population assessment (VPA), the necessary data are not available to WGDEEP, certainly not for the current interpretation of a single non-Icelandic stock in the NE Atlantic. To date, WGDEEP has limited itself to summarising fishing activity, biological data and abundance indices, as above, without providing any significant interpretation or management advice.
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 46 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
5.2.1 FaMRI monitoring and assessment 1994 – 2009 At the instigation of the Faroese GSS fishing interests, and as part of its scientific contribution to fill this current vacuum and advance the scientific understanding of the stock, FaMRI has undertaken an exploratory analytical age-based assessment. The assessment is based on the assumption that, as with Iceland, GSS in Faroese waters are (relatively) independent of GSS elsewhere in the NE Atlantic and can be treated as a separate assessment and management unit (Ofstad & Steingrund, 2011).
The XSA (eXtended Survivor Analysis) variant of VPA was chosen, utilising: landings (t), catch number at age, weight at age in the catch from the commercial fleet, natural mortality (M = 0.1), maturity–age ogive (from commercial data), proportion of M before spawning (set to 0), proportion of F before spawning (set to 0), calibration fleet (the standardized pair trawler CPUE series), youngest fish in catch 4 years, oldest fish 14+ years.
The instantaneous mortality rate (M) was taken as 0.10 on the basis that the virgin population in 1995 comprised c. 20% fish in the catch 14+ years old (mean age of about 18 years), which corresponds to M ≈ 0.1 (Ofstad & Steingrund, 2011).
Preliminary runs indicated that the settings (e.g. having plus-group of 14+ or 20+) had a significant influence on the results with estimates ranging from 70 kt to 23 kt but with an average of c.145 kt [Fig 5.2a(i)]. Such wide variation might be expected as there is relatively little variation in the reference abundance (commercial CPUE) index, i.e. the abundance index data set does not exhibit and extreme events to provide robust reference points.
To refine the procedure further, the proportion of trawl-survey hauls that contained at least one individual GSS was calculated and compared with similar values for saithe (where the stock size is known). The average stock size of saithe 1996–2009 was 253 kt. (NWWG, 2011),94 the average percentage of saithe in the surveys was 74% in March, 80% in August, and 77% both surveys combined. The corresponding figures for GSS were 29%, 61% and 45% respectively. On the basis of these figures, the total stock size for GSS is: 253(45/77) ≈ 148 kt, i.e., similar to the XSA estimate of 145 kt. Spawning stock biomass (SSB) was estimated to be about two thirds of total stock; SSB ≈ 95 kt [Fig 5.2a(ii)].
In addition to stock size, the assessment indicated that the mean instantaneous rate of fishing mortality (F) 1994–2010 was about the same level as natural mortality, F ≈ 0.1 [Fig 5.2a(iii)].
94 NWWG (2011). Report of the North Western Working Group. ICES CM 2011/ACOM:7 http://www.ices.dk/reports/ACOM/2011/NWWG/Sec%2006%20Faroe%20Saithe.pdf
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 47 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
(ii) Spawning stock biomass (i) Total biomass
(iii) Fishing mortality rate (iv) Estimated annual recruitment
Fig 5.2a Faroe greater silver smelt XSA stock assessment results (Ofstad & Steingrund, 2011)
Recruitment estimates do not show the erratic inter-annual variation seen with many (most) stocks but after a rising trend through the 1990s to 2004–2005 there has been a negative trend in recent years, a trend also seen in the biomass estimates since 2007 [Fig 5.2a(i & ii)]. Some confidence in the validity of the pattern (if not the absolute level) of these recruitment estimates may be drawn from the observation that, in common with other fish stocks in Faroese waters, the recruitment estimates show a positive correlation with the strength of the sub-polar gyre (Fig 6.2 b).
Fig 5.2b The relationship between XSA recruitment estimates for greater silver smelt and the strength of the NE Atlantic sub-polar gyre (Ofstad & Steingrund, 2011).
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 48 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
The time-series average estimate of recruitment (75 544 recruits; Ofstad & Steingrund, 2011) was combined with a standard yield per recruit model to estimate a steady-state total yield curve for GSS in Faroese waters (Fig 5.2c). As a first step towards estimating biological reference points for long-term sustainable management of the fishery F0.1 (a surrogate for 95 Fmsy) was calculated and the corresponding steady-state catch interpolated: F0.1 = 0.24 ≡ 15 500 t (Ofstad & Steingrund, pers. comm.).
20000 200000 F0.1 = 2.4*Fbar = 0.24 18000 180000 16000 160000 Catch 14000 140000 Biomass 12000 120000 10000 100000
8000 80000 Catch (tonnes)
6000 60000 Total biomass (tonnes) 4000 40000 2000 20000
0 0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75 4.00 4.25 4.50 4.75 5.00 5.25 5.50 5.75 6.00 F multiplier
Fig 5.2c Steady-state catch curve for GSS in Faroese waters (from Ofstad & Steingrund, 2011) showing F0.1 and a corresponding catch of c.15 500 t (Ofstad & Steingrund, pers. comm.).
The results of the FaMRI assessment were submitted to the ICES benchmark workshop on deep-water species for review, along with all other data available for GSS in all areas of the NE Atlantic (WKDEEP, 2010). The working groups noted that: “The [Faroese] analysis is run on what is considered by ICES as a part of an assessment unit. As the stock structure is unclear the use of single-stock model might be inappropriate. The XSA is calibrated with pair trawlers as tuning‐series. Several different settings were tried in XSA however the model did not converge largely because of the tuning fleet being composed of commercial data also used to create the catch-at-age [data]).”
Clearly this statement falls far short of a ringing endorsement of FaMRI’s efforts but in view of the expertise available to the working group it might be reasonable to expect a more detailed critique than a simple reiteration of the shortcomings already highlighted by Ofstad and Steingrund (2011). While this assessment may not throw any new light on the stock status, one way or the other, of GSS in the NE Atlantic it is a constructive contribution upon which future work can build. In the meanwhile, it can be noted that as an estimate of stock availability within a limited area, it does not appear to be out of scale with the Norwegian (acoustic) estimates for GSS in a similarly limited area (390 kt; § 5.1 above).
95 Gayanilo, F.D. & Pauley, D. (1997). FAO–ICLARM stock assessment tools reference manual. FAO Computerized Information Series 8 fisheries. FAO, Rome; ICLARM, Manilla. http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search/display.do?f=1999/XF/XF99032.xml;XF1998081063
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 49 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
5.2.2 Up-dated FaMRI monitoring and assessment August 2011 At the time of submitting the Ofstad & Steingrund (2011) working paper to WGDEEP (2011) the full 2010 FaMRI survey data had not been integrated with the FaMRI assessment of GSS in ICES Div Vb. The revised FaMRI assessment was made available to the DNV team in response to discussions held with FaMRI in Torshavn. This revised assessment appears in full as Appendix 1.
The key features of this revised assessment compared with the earlier version (Ofstad & Steingrund, 2011) are a further reduction in the annual recruitment (i.e. 2010 recruitment estimate is down on the 2009 estimate); an increase in total stock size of c. 100 000 t (i.e. c. 145 000 t to c. 250 000 t); a slight decrease in the value of F0.1 from 0.24 down to 0.22; an increase in F0.1 yield from c. 15 500 t to 24 000 t. This discrepancy in two successive year’s assessments serves to emphasise the preliminary nature of the assessment and the need for further research and refinement.
5.3 Stock Management Plan and Harvest Control Rule At present there is neither an agreed international harvest control rule nor formal Faroese national stock management plan. Insofar as there is a management plan, it comprises an informal agreement between the Faroese GSS fleet and the Faroese Ministry of Fisheries that the total annual catch of GSS should not exceed 20 000 t (TAVAN–Ministry of Fisheries, per comm.). Faroese GSS catches have been close to, but within this voluntary limit since 2007 (Table 2.2).
5.4 Management Reference Points At present there are no internationally recognised biological or management reference points nor are any under active consideration. As a first step towards providing such reference points, FaMRI has estimated F0.1, a surrogate for Fmsy on an asymptotic yield-per-recruit curve (Fig 5.2c & Appendix 1); current estimates are in the region F0.1 = 0.22–0.24
5.5 Management Advice and Forecast Current ICES advice has been limited since 2007 to a reiteration of, “The fishery should not be allowed to expand, and a reduction in catches should be considered” (ACOMgss, 2011). Since this advice was first given in 2007, the total international landings (i.e. excluding discards which may be significant in ICES areas VI, VII and VIII) have equated to the advice, stabilising at a little under 40 000 t year–1 (Table 2.2). This overall stability has occurred despite the rise in Faroese landings from 12 000+ t in 2006 to 19 000+ t in 2008–2010.
At present, the GSS fleet operators have reached an informal (voluntary) agreement with the Faroese Ministry of Fisheries to cap their annual catch at no more than 20 000 t. This is significantly more than the more precautionary level implicit in F0.1 yield = 15 500 t (Ofstad & Steingrund, 2011) but less than the most recent estimate of 24 000 t (Appendix 1). A more precautionary approach to management of the fishery, therefore, might be to limit catches to no more than 15 500 t year–1 until a more robust and stable stock assessment is achieved. It might be argued, however, that as the latest assessment includes an additional year’s data it is more reliable and yield could be increased to 24 000 t year–1 (Appendix 1). Such an interpretation at this stage would be contrary to the precautionary approach to resource
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 50 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
management demanded by MSC Principles 1 & 2. It is worth noting, however, that the estimates of fishing mortality rate in both Ofstad and Steingrund (2011) and Appendix 1 have been relatively stable over the past three years when catches have also been stable at ≤ 20 000 year–1 (Table 2.2). From this it might be argued that a formalisation of the status quo (i.e. total catches limited to 20 00 year–1) is acceptable until future indicators or assessment suggest otherwise.
6 RISK-BASED ASSESSMENT The assessment undertaken by FaMRI embraces virtually all the elements normally associated with a fishery stock assessment undertaken under the imprimatur of ICES. Consequently, the assessment probably attains a higher level of reliability than might normally be expected when reviewing a data-deficient fishery under the MSC Risk-Based Fishery methodology. Indeed, it is possible to provide positive responses to all of the performance indicators in both Principles 1 and 2; but not always to the highest level. Nevertheless, the FaMRI assessment has failed to reach the threshold standards necessary to be endorsed by ICES for a variety of reasons; principally stock identity, calibration reference points for stock abundance, recruitment estimates and biological–management reference points. Each of these is considered in turn along with the MSC productivity–sensitivity analysis (PSA).
STAKEHOLDER CONSULTANCY: The use of the RBF was announced on the MSC website on the 12th of July and a stakeholder notification was sent by DNV on the same date. Site visit agenda was sent to the client on the 31st of July 2011. The stakeholder meeting for the RBF was held on the 23rd of August 2011. The SICA table and stakeholder participants are in enclosure 10.
6.1 Greater Silver Smelt Stock Identity To date, ICES has not committed to any particular concept of stock identity for greater silver smelt in the North-East Atlantic. For assessment purposes (insofar as ICES undertakes assessments of GSS) ICES recognises GSS in Icelandic waters (Division Va) as a separate management unit from GSS in all other ICES areas and divisions. This places non-Icelandic GSS on a par with blue whiting and mackerel in the NE Atlantic. There are however, key differences between the blue whiting and GSS with respect to indicators of stock identity.
Both blue whiting and GSS are deep-water species which makes it impractical to undertake large-scale tagging programmes as a basis for studying annual life-history migrations. In such circumstances, migration patterns are frequently inferred from indirect evidence, such as the seasonal pattern of fishing activity. With respect to blue whiting, a key factor is the long- established knowledge that blue whiting spawn in spring–early summer, off the edge of the continental shelf to the west of the British Isles and then move north to summer feeding grounds in ICES subareas II and V (WGWIDE, 2010).96 A similar annual migration is inferred from fishing patterns for mackerel; but the migration has also been confirmed by tagging (Lockwood, 1988).97 In both instances, neither blue whiting nor mackerel are associated with a specific topographic feature (other than spawning tends to be associated with the shelf break). Throughout the summer they are to be found in mid water, frequently
96 WGWIDE 2010. Report of the Working Group on Widely Distributed Stocks (WGWIDE). ICES CM 2010/ACOM:15. 97 Lockwood, S.J. 1988. The Mackerel – its biology, assessment and the management of a fishery. Fishing News Books, Farnham.
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 51 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
over great depths, almost anywhere between Norway, UK, Faroe and Iceland. For this reason, if no other, the blue whiting and mackerel are treated as single stocks without separate assessment or management units associated with seamounts or coastal states around the summer feeding area.
In contrast, there is no evidence of greater silver smelt making any significant seasonal movement between areas. Insofar as there is any evidence of movement, it is for juvenile fish to move towards deeper water as they approach maturity (Fig 3.2c, e). Furthermore, whilst the blue whiting and mackerel move from their spawning grounds to feed in open-sea mid water, the GSS remain close to the seabed, at the shelf edge throughout the year. Thus, insofar as anything can be inferred about annual movements, it appears that GSS have more in common with relatively non-migratory demersal species such as Iceland cod, Faroe saithe or Rockall haddock, than with the widely distributed pelagic mackerel and blue whiting.
Despite its public position that ICES does not recognise any specific stock identity for GSS, it is implicit in the ICES recognition of GSS in Icelandic waters as a separate assessment– management unit that GSS has more in common with the geographically isolated, non- migratory gadoid stocks than with wide-ranging pelagic stocks. This being the case, it is not unreasonable to develop the Icelandic GSS approach as a separate assessment–management unit and apply it to Faroe, as FaMRI has done. Viewing Faroe GSS as a separate management unit from other non-Icelandic GSS as a working hypothesis is not the same as stating that it is a separate stock. That still has to be established. Within the framework of the MSC risk-based approach to fisheries however, it does seem to be a reasonable working hypothesis and one that need not preclude the potential for successful certification of the fishery.
6.2 Calibration of Reference Points for Stock Abundance With any fishery stock assessment it is necessary to have some reference point, some data independent of the core assessment data, against which to validate the scale and pattern of fishing mortality and stock abundance generated by the assessment. Among the reference data sets often used are catch-per-unit-of-effort time series; ideally from a research vessel survey rather than from commercial catch records. When such series have been established for a prolonged period it is reasonable to assume that they will show stable trends, peaks and troughs against which trends, peaks and troughs in the assessment outputs can be compared and assessment parameters varied to gain a closer match between independent observations and assessment products.
Such data are available for the Faroe GSS fishery and have been used as part of the FaMRI assessment, both for research vessel surveys (Fig 5.1i) and commercial catch records (Fig 5.1j). Their principal shortcoming in this context however, is that they are remarkably stable with neither clear trends (positive or negative) nor well-established, clearly identifiable anomalies. As Ofstad and Steingrund (2011) have noted, this makes it difficult to refine the assessment and come to a firm conclusion with respect to scale or trends over time. Whilst this is not helpful in terms of showing how robust, or otherwise, the assessment might be, a stable cpue time series does offer some indication that the stock itself is relatively stable and has not been subject to any significant change (positive or negative) over the period of the time series. In this respect there is an element of consistency between the cpue time series and the pattern of stock biomass over time; i.e. relative stability.
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 52 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Thus, whilst there is undoubted residual uncertainty affecting the exact level at which GSS stock tonnage around Faroe should be set, the relatively stable cpue time series and similar stock stability over the same period suggest that the scale of the fishery has not been excessive.
6.3 Recruitment Estimates At present there are no independent estimates of GSS recruitment in Faroese waters. Small numbers of juvenile GSS are caught in the annual FaMRI 0-group survey but both the gear and distribution of sampling stations (Fig 3.2e) are aimed primarily at sampling cod, haddock and saithe, not GSS. Insofar as the GSS data from these surveys contribute to the assessment it is by providing a fishery independent cpue time series (Fig 5.1i). Thus, the recruitment estimates are a product of [Fig 5.2a(iv)], rather than a contributor to the assessment. Nevertheless, these estimates do add some measure of support to the overall assessment in that they show a positive correlation with the strength of the polar gyre (Fig 5.2b); a feature that is consistent with other species recruitment estimates in Faroese waters (Ofstad & Steingrund, 2011). As with cpue and the scale of the parent stock, this correlation does not provide any insight as to the scale of recruitment but it is indicative that the pattern is probably reliable; another factor adding some credence to the overall stock assessment.
6.4 Biological–Management Reference Points The default position for MSC Principles 1 and 2 is that a fishery should be managed with respect to the concept of maximum sustainable yield: “The largest average catch or yield that continuously can be taken from a stock under existing environmental conditions (Ricker, 1975).98 It is implicit in this definition, and explicit within MSC Priciple 1, that MSY should be attained without adverse effects on potential recruitment but Ricker (1975) adds the caveat that: “For species with fluctuating recruitment, the maximum might be obtained by taking fewer fish in some years than in others.” i.e. MSY is not a fixed, absolute value but a point that fluctuates year on year relative to changes in environmental conditions (that affect growth, mortality and recruitment).
With a given set of data there are numerous ways in which MSY can be estimated99 without any one of them being either right or wrong; it often depends on the data that are available. Inevitably, there will be variations in the value calculated depending on the method chosen. In this instance, FaMRI have chosen to calculate a yield-per-recruit curve and, in the absence of a clearly defined peak that would correspond to MSY, have identified F0.1 as a provisional biological–management reference point and surrogate for MSY. Whilst this approach may currently be out of fashion, it is an approach with a long tradition (not least within ICES assessments in the 1970s and early 1980s, personal observation) and is a credible first step for this assessment.
The fact that two successive yield estimates based on this approach have produced such widely different results (15.5 kt, 2010; 29 kt, 2011) is not necessarily indicative of any fault in the approach. As is implicit in Ricker’s (1975) definition, two successive year’s data for the same stock will generate different estimates of MSY. The scale of inter-annual variability being a function of the variability among the measured variables and parameter estimates
98 Ricker, W.E., 1975. Computational interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 191. 99 http://www.fao.org/docrep/W5449E/w5449e0b.htm
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 53 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
contributing to the calculation. As discussed above, there is a current lack of stability within the overall assessment, which, inevitably is reflected in the F0.1 yield estimates. Nevertheless, the estimates made do offer some support to the recent harvest plan of taking no more than 20 kt year–1.
6.5 Productivity–Susceptibility Assessment The MSC guidance notes for a risk-based approach to assessment includes a requirement to complete a productivity–susceptibility analysis (PSA) to obtain equivalent MSC scores for aspects of Principle 1. This has been carried out here, as with the foregoing analysis and assessment, based on the hypothesis that there is a Faroe GSS management unit, more or less separate from GSS elsewhere in the NE Atlantic.
6.5.1 Productivity analysis The background to the basic productivity analysis can be found in the text report but is cross- referenced here. Average maximum age: the aggregated annual samples of fish taken from the commercial landings frequently include fish in excess of 20 years of age (Fig 5.1e) and occasionally in excess of 25 years. The numbers of old fish are not sufficient however, to identify them explicitly in the age-based stock assessment; all fish older than 14 years are aggregated as a 14+ age group. Average maximum age is identified as 15 years.
Average maximum length: the aggregated annual samples if fish taken from the commercial landings frequently include fish in excess of 45 cm and fish in excess of 50 mm are recorded in most years (Fig 5.1e). The tail of the length-frequency distribution tends to be rather thin above 45 cm, therefore, 45 cm is taken as the average maximum length.
Average age at maturity: there is a difference between ages with males appearing to mature a year later than females (Fig 3.2d). The average age at which 50% of male and females are mature is c. 6 years.
Average length at maturity: again, males appear to mature at a slightly higher length than females (Fig 3.2d) but 50% are mature at c. 34 cm.
Reproductive strategy: GSS are broadcast spawners; there is external fertilisation of eggs at spawning followed by a planktonic phase (Wheeler, 1969).
Trophic level: According to FishBase, this is 3.3.
Productivity analysis summary Attribute Value Productivity Average maximum age (Fig 5.1e) 15 years 2 Average maximum length (Fig 5.1e) 450 mm 1 Average age @ maturity (Fig 3.2d) 6 2 Average length @maturity 35 1 Fecundity (Mazhirina,1991) 16 – 36 000 2
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 54 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Reproductive strategy (WKDEEP, 2010) Broadcast 1 Trophic level (FishBase) 3.3 3 Average productivity score 1.7 MSC score 80
6.5.2 Susceptibility analysis Availability: There are two ways to view this attribute depending on whether it is the entire population or the exploited population under consideration. The juvenile fish (i.e. fish < 30 cm total length; Fig 3.2c & d) Are most abundant at depths < 350 m where they are taken in the annual FaMRI trawl survey (Fig 3.2c) while the mature fish are most abundant at greater depths (Fig 3.2b) and it is at these greater depths that the commercial fishery takes place. Thus, there is virtually 100% overlap (attribute score 3) with the exploited population but much lesser overlap with population as whole. If one takes the conservation benefits of such a strong separation of mature exploited fish from juvenile fish into account, it is reasonable to score this attribute at 2.
Encounterability: the mature fish occupy a restricted depth band just clear of the seabed (and hence, seabed protection) and their presence is readily identified by echo sounder (Fig 3.2c). This makes GSS a relatively easy fish to target (yielding clean catches) which indicated a susceptibility score of 3.
Selectivity: theoretically, the vessels could fish with pelagic trawls in which case they would be permitted to fish with a cod-end mesh as small as 35 mm; such trawls would retain a much higher proportion of small immature fish than is the case (Fig 3.2c). By opting to use demersal trawls with 80 mm minimum cod-end mesh the vessels reduce the proportion of immature fish in the catch [i.e. < 30 cm (Fig 3.2d), fish smaller than wanted by the processors] and optimise the catch of mature fish (modal length c. 38 cm; Fig 3.2c). Thus, although there is low selectivity on the exploited (target) population this is because fish distribution and choice of fishing gear ensure a sufficient degree of selection to minimise catches of immature fish. A susceptibility score of 2 seems to be appropriate.
100 Post-capture mortality: GSS are physoclists (Fahlén, 1965) living at great depth, which means that they would suffer extensive morbidity during hauling followed rapidly by 100% mortality. In addition, the Faroe Islands operate a no-discard regime; all fish are retained and landed. The appropriate susceptibility score is 3. Susceptibility analysis summary Attribute Value Susceptibility Availability Overlap with total GSS population in Faroese waters 2 (Fig 3.2c) Encounterability Mature GSS in restricted depth band with focussed 3 fishery Selectivity (80 mm) 380/80 = 4.75 Low encounter/retention of small fish 2 (Fig 3.2c & 3.2e) Post-capture mortality No discarding 3 Average productivity score 2.5 MSC score
100 Fahlén, G. 1965. Histology of the posterior chamber of the swimbladder of Argentina. Nature 207, 94–95
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 55 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
6.5.3 Productivity–Susceptibility Analysis & Vulnerability The vulnerability (V) of the target species to excessive exploitation is calculated as the Euclidean distance from the origin in the PSA plot (Fig 6.5): where V = √[P2 + S2] = √[1.72 + 2.52] = 3.0, a position right in the centre of the transition zone from low risk to high risk. This is consistent with overall balance of information presented and analysed above which indicates that, currently, there is no clear evidence that the fishery is subject to unsustainable fishing but there are elements of concern, primarily relating to the current deficiencies in data necessary for a robust stock assessment.
Fig 6.5 Productivity–Susceptibility analysis (PSA) for Faroe greater silver smelt. The amber star has a Euclidean distance from the origin of c. 3.0 which places it in the zone ‘of concern’ but not ‘at risk’.
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 56 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
7 FISHERIES MANAGEMENT IN THE UNIT OF CERTIFICATION
7.1 Cooperation on shared and migratory fish stocks A number of fish stocks of great importance for the Faroese fishing fleet can be fished both in the Faroese fisheries zone and in the zones of other countries and international waters.
Managing and conserving these fish stocks is therefore a shared responsibility requiring close international cooperation between all relevant nations in the region.
Faroe Islands are managing the GSS stock within Faroese Economic Zone. The others countries managing the GSS stock and fisheries are Norway, Iceland and EU.
7.2 Management objectives The objective of Faroese fisheries management is to conserve and utilise all marine fish stocks in order to ensure biological and economic sustainability and secure optimal socio- economic benefits from fisheries. (Chapter 1, Commercial Fisheries Act of 1994).
7.2.1 International level Fisheries in other zones and in international waters have long been an important part of total Faroese fisheries catches, both in terms of total tonnage and economic value.
Although the Silver Smelt is a shared stock, (Norway, Iceland and EU) there are no agreements for transferring fishing rights on GSS between the countries.
Norway, Iceland and EU cooperate in the management of the stock and the fisheries sharing data and knowledge in a working group within ICES.
7.2.2 National level The Ministry of Fisheries and Natural Resources is responsible for the management of all fisheries in Faroese waters and fisheries by Faroese vessels in other waters. The framework for the regulation of commercial fisheries, both in home, foreign and international waters, is the Commercial Fisheries Act of 1994 and its subsequent amendments. Based on this legislation, detailed regulations are implemented governing vessel and fishing licences, area closures, gear and data requirements and other technical regulations for commercial fisheries.
7.3 Management responsibilities and interactions 7.3.1 International level The North Atlantic region has a broad network of regional bodies for international cooperation on the conservation and management of living marine resources and the protection of the marine environment. For GSS following bodies are relevant:
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 57 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
ICES – International Council for the Exploration of the Sea – www.ices.dk International coordination and promotion of marine research in the North Atlantic, provides scientific advice on fisheries for governments and intergovernmental bodies.
NAMMCO: North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission – www.nammco.no International cooperation on the conservation, management and study of marine mammals in the North Atlantic.
OSPAR – Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-east Atlantic – www.ospar.org International cooperation on the prevention and elimination of pollution from land-based and offshore sources, dumping or incineration, and assessment of the quality of the marine environment.
7.3.2 National level Regulations for all fisheries in the Faroese fisheries zone (FFZ), and Faroese fishing vessels outside the Faroese fisheries zone are based on the Commercial Fishery Act, 1994.
Fisheries for groundfish species within the Faroese 200-mile fisheries zone are regulated by an effort management system of fishing days, combined with area closures and a range of technical measures. Total fishing effort and the total number of fishing licences are fixed by law.
In order to conduct commercial fishing in the Faroes following licences and certificates are required: Harvesting licence The harvesting licence is a licence for a specific vessel. This applies to all vessels above 15 GRT (gross register tonnes). To acquire harvesting licences for fishing vessels there are statutory requirements with respect to the nationality of the owner of the vessel. Fishing licence In addition to the harvesting licence, the owner of a fishing vessel must acquire a fishing licence. The fishing licence allocates a certain number of days in the Faroese fisheries zone and tonnes of fish outside the Faroese fisheries zone. Registry of Faroese vessel The owners must be individuals or individuals in a group who are mutually accountable and have a permanent connection to the Faroe Islands.
Within this framework, fishing vessels are grouped by size and gear type, and each group is allocated a set number of fishing days per year, which are then allocated among the vessels in the group. A vessel may transfer fishing days to another vessel in the same vessel group. Transfers between vessel groups are restricted with the aim of preventing increases in fishing efficiency in any one vessel group.
In each fishing year (September-August), each group of vessels is allotted a number of fishing days and these are again divided between a number of individual licensees in each group.
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 58 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
The five vessel groups under the fishing day system: I: Trawlers II: Pair trawlers III: Long-liners over 110 t IV: Coastal vessels larger than 40 t using long lines Coastal vessels larger than 40 t using trawls Coastal vessels between 15 - 40 t V: Coastal jiggers less than 15 t
The GSS fishery belongs to three pairs – six vessels – in vessel-group II. Those three pairs have an extra license to catch GSS under some conditions (see 7.4.). Those days these vessels are fishing on Silver Smelt will not count for used days.
In addition to limits on fishing effort, an integral part of Faroese fisheries management is a range of measures which aim to balance fishing in relation to the ecosystem in which it takes place. Such measures include seasonal fisheries closures, the separation of different fishing methods between areas, minimum fish and mesh sizes to prevent catches of immature and young fish, and sorting grids to minimise unwanted by-catch.
At certain times of the year, defined areas, in particular spawning areas, are closed to fisheries either partly or entirely. In addition, 60% of the Faroe Plateau at depths of less than 200 m is closed to trawling for most of the year. Most of the Faroe Bank is permanently closed to trawling. The waters within the entire 12 nautical mile zone on the Faroe Plateau are also closed to all trawling, except for a period in summer when limited trawling for flat fish by smaller vessels is permitted. A major part of the Faroe Plateau and most of the Faroe Bank are off limits to trawling all year round. (See Fig 2.3b: Area restrictions on fishing in Faroese waters). Specific and stringent limitations apply in Faroese fisheries regarding the level of young fish permitted in individual catches in Faroese waters. Immediate temporary closures are implemented if catches of young fish are too high.
Captains are legally required to report immediately to the Fisheries Inspection Service if their catches are above the permitted levels of young fish per haul or set.
Coral reefs, which provide an important habitat for marine life, have been identified and documented in Faroese waters. Three specific areas are closed to all trawling in order to protect these habitats. Marine environmental protection is regulated according to the Marine Environmental Act, with regulations implemented in line with requirements under international conventions such as the MARPOL convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships and the OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment in the North Atlantic. The responsible authorities are the Environmental Agency, the Faroese Maritime Authority and the Faroese Fisheries Inspection.
7.4 Legislation Regulations of all fisheries in the Faroese fisheries zone (FFZ), and Faroese fishing vessels outside the Faroese fisheries zone are based on the Commercial Fishery Act, 1994.
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 59 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
The GSS fisheries are regulated through a detailed regulation “No 13, 18th January 1993”.
Below follow a summary of the detailed regulation:
§ 1. The aim is to reduce the intensity of the fishing on saithe. The Ministry gives every year six trawlers (three pairs) fishing rights for GSS. Minimum mess-size is 80 mm. The vessels are only allowed to be fishing in limited areas.
§ 2. Bycatch of Redfish (Sebastes marinus and Sebastes mentella) and saithe (Pollachius virens) max 5% in each haul. By-catch of other species max 15 % of each landing. GSS below 30 cm max 5% in each haul. § 3. Minimum, 45 days fishing activities a year. § 4. Info has to be sent to the Fisheries Inspection (FVE) when starting and ending. Also if they switch to other fisheries than GSS § 5. Vessels are not allowed to fish on other species on same trip as they have been fishing on GSS. § 6. Penalties are: Fine, fishing gears and the catch
7.5 Consultative process Within the fishery regulation, 1994, there are clear defined consultative processes. The Ministry of Fisheries and Natural Resources consults with major fisheries stakeholders on fisheries legislation, regulations and international negotiations. Such consultations take place both through a number of formal standing advisory committees, as well as through focused consultative meetings dealing with specific issues.
Parliament
Commitee on Fishing Marine Research Advice Advice Days (Industry Institute (Science) Ministry of Fisheries Representative)
Bills for review
Fisheries advisory Board (Industry Representative)
Fig 7.5 Consultative process
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 60 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
The members of representatives in advisory boards represent the stakeholders in fisheries – fisherman, ship-owners, producers and the unions. The Fishery Minister appoints the chairman and the secretary.
The members of “Committee on Fishing Days represents all groups in the fishing days system and one person representing the fisherman. The chairman of the board is independent and appointed by the Fishery Minister for a period of four years.
The Marine Research Institute provides the Ministry of Fisheries and Natural Resources with scientific assessments and advice on the status and management of fish stocks and marine ecosystems around the Faroe Islands.
7.6 Enforcement and control The Faroese Fisheries Inspection (FVE) is responsible for monitoring and inspecting catches and landings of individual vessels and the weighing-in of catches. This includes both onboard inspection and inspection of landings in port. Faroese inspection and rescue vessels, in cooperation with Danish naval patrol vessels, provide for a constant patrol presence in Faroese waters.
The harvesting licence is an operating licence issued to an individual vessel. The fishing licence specifies the details of fishing activities (catch & area limitations and gear requirements) in which the vessel is permitted to participate, as well as outlining requirements for reporting of catch data and information on landings or transhipments.
The vessels must maintain a daily log of their activities in an authorised catch logbook which is issued for this purpose, recording data for each set or haul, and they must also have satellite vessel monitoring systems (VMS) in both national and international waters.
FVE is refering to the Ministry og Fishery. The inspection is a part og the legal act of 1994. FVE cooperate with the other fisheries inspetions in the North Atlantic.
The FVE´s task are: Inspection and registration on used days Inspection and registration on quotas and bycatch Inspection and registration on international quotas Inspectors on vessels Inspection on satelites Autorisation and control of weigts Inspection of trans-shipments (Port State Control) Faroese landings in foreign ports
Illegal to discharge waste at sea It is prohibited to discard trawls, nylon ends, plastic bags, oilskins or any other products containing plastics, which can be a potentially fatal hazard to many forms of marine fauna, such as seabirds. All waste from vessels, including general refuse, waste oil and other products must be taken ashore.
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 61 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
7.6.1 Reporting systems for fishing vessels
Faroese vessels engaged in GSS fishery shall give pre notification to the respective authorities prior to start of fishing activities, end of fishing activities and landing.
7.6.2 Level of compliance To date the inspectorate has not found it necessary to apply such penalties to the GSS fishery.
If the FVE find something illegal at sea or an unannounced forensic audit show a company accounts doesn´t tally with logbooks and sales notes, FVE will send the case further to the police for further handling. Prosecutors will decide if the accused will be sent to the court where the case will follow the normal procedures.
7.6.3 Inspection at Sea Fisheries control in Faroese EEZ is carried out by the Faroese and Danish Coast Guard. The fisheries inspectors may inspect any fishing vessel operating within the national fisheries jurisdiction as well as all fishing vessels flying the Faroese flag and operating in waters outside the national jurisdiction.
Logbook Faroese commercial fishing vessels operating in the North-East Atlantic must maintain a daily log of their activities in an authorised catch logbook issued for this purpose. The master of the vessel must ensure that the vessel details, gear and catch details are accurately recorded and sign the logbook every day, regardless of whether or not fishing takes place on that day.
The logbook contains numbered pages in triplicate which are referred to as log sheets. Original copies of log sheets must be returned to Faroese Fisheries Authorities no later than 1 day after landing in Faroe Islands and 2-3 days if landing takes place outside Faroe Islands.
VMS All vessels larger than 15 GT must have satellite vessel monitoring system in both national and international waters. The satellite vessel monitoring system (VMS) is mandatory for all vessels fishing for GSS.
7.6.4 Landing Control The Faroese Fisheries Inspection is responsible for insuring that all landings of GSS are in accordance with Faroese regulations and are properly recorded and verified.
The legislation requires that all vessel landings both in Faroe Islands and outside submit logbook accompanied by the sales notes/ landing notes shortly after landing. In order to ensure that the correct quantities are registered, the Faroese Fisheries Inspection conducts a cross-check analysis on the catch.
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 62 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
7.7 Summary of management system for the Faroe Islands Silver Smelt fishery The Ministry of Fisheries and Natural Resources is responsible for the management of all fisheries in Faroese waters and fisheries by Faroese vessels in other waters. The framework for the regulation of commercial fisheries, both in home, foreign and international waters, is the Commercial Fisheries Act of 1994 and its subsequent amendments. Based on this legislation, detailed regulations are implemented governing vessel fishing on GSS. The licence for GSS defines fishing areas, closed areas, gear and data requirements and other technical regulations for commercial GSS fisheries.
The North Atlantic region has a broad network of regional bodies for international cooperation on the conservation and management of living marine resources and the protection of the marine environment. Faroe Islands participate in North Atlantic networks on GSS fisheries and management in the body of ICES.
The Faroese Fisheries Inspection (FVE) is responsible for monitoring and inspecting catches and landings of individual vessels and the weighing-in of catches. This includes both on- board inspection and inspection of landings in port.
Decisions regarding the conservation of fish stocks and the management of fisheries are taken in close consultation with the Faroe Marine research Institute and the fishing industry. Such consultations take place both through a number of formal standing advisory committees, as well as through focused consultative meetings dealing with specific issues.
Marine environmental protection is regulated according to the Marine Environmental Act, with regulations implemented in line with requirements under international conventions such as the MARPOL convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships and the OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment in the North Atlantic. The responsible authorities are the Environmental Agency, the Faroese Maritime Authority and the Faroese Fisheries Inspection.
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 63 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
8 BACKGROUND TO THE REPORT
8.1 Authors/Reviewers The evaluation has been performed by the following: DNV : Sandhya Chaudhury (Lead Auditor, DNV Certification AS): B.Sc., MBA. Sandhya has been the Lead auditor for various MSC Pre-assessment and Full assessments since 2005. She has participated in various MSC workshops, introducing certification methodology for MSC Fisheries and Chain of custody to workshop participants. Sandhya has auditor experience with other quality management standards for seafood since 2002 and industry experience since 1991 and has had RBF training at Marine Stewardship Council, London in October 2010 & November 2011. Independent specialists: Dr Stephen Lockwood. Dr. Stephen Lockwood is an independent marine fishery and environmental consultant. Stephen is Vice chairman of North Western and North Wales Sea Fisheries Committee (inshore fishery management body); chairman of Welsh Assembly Government Agri-Food Partnership Fish & Aquaculture Group; and chairman of Welsh Minister’s fishing industry consultation group (2004–6). Stephen was also an independent, non-executive director (Wales) of the Sea Fish Industry Authority (Seafish; 2001–7) and continues to chair the Seafish Skate and Ray consultation group and the Seafish inter-agency Common Language (i.e. liaison) Group for Seafish. From 1986 to 1999 he was Head of the UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food laboratory at Conway, which undertook research and development work in the fields of fish and shellfish cultivation, and the environmental effects of fishing. He was responsible for providing advice to MAFF policy divisions, and through them to ministers, across the broad field of coastal zone management and fishery-related nature conservation. Previously he was based at the Fisheries Laboratory (CEFAS) Lowestoft where he led research and provided scientific advice on the conservation of fish stocks and the management of fisheries, including the Western mackerel stock, Celtic Sea and Bay of Biscay Demersal fisheries, pilchard (Sardina pilchardus) stocks and Western English Channel herring and sprats. He has published on stock assessment, fishery management and coastal development issues. Stephen has participated in numerous MSC assessments both as part of the expert team and as a peer reviewer.
Óli Samró (Principle 3 expert): Since 2002 Óli Samró has been Chairman of the Advisory board of the Faroese fisheries management system for Ground fish. Appointed by the Faroese Fishery Minister, two times in four years. Óli Samró is a Senior consultant with 18 years’ experience in consulting in Fisheries Business and Management and has studied economics at Aarhus University. Óli has worked for Føroya Banki and is now a consultant with FAREC dealing in expert consultancy in Fisheries Management, Economy, EU and fish & Business- development.
8.2 Previous certification evaluations A pre-assessment has been conducted for the Faroe Islands Silver Smelt Fishery on behalf of Tavan SP/F. The pre-assessment was conducted in November 2010 by Det Norske Veritas Certification AS.
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 64 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
8.3 Harmonisation There are no other fisheries for Great silver smelt undergoing certification process against MSC Fisheries standard for sustainable fisheries or already certified against it. Thus, there have been no harmonisation issues identified at this stage of the assessment process.
8.4 Field Inspections The following field visits were carried out: Name Affiliation Date Key Issues Ulla S. Wang The Ministry of 2011-08-24 Management system review; (Special advisor) Fisheries and Management system Natural Resources, transparency; Faroe Islands. Decision making process; Dispute mechanisms. Jørmund Olsen Client 2011-08-23 Fishing operations; (Skipper) Representatives Status of the stock; By-catch, habitats and Joen Magnus Rasmussen ecosystem; (Manager) Fisheries management; System of tracing and Marnar Pattinson tracking of fish. (Processing manager)
Durita I Grotinum (Quality Manager) Martin Kruse Fisheries 2011-08-24 Performance of the harvest (Advisor) Inspection, strategy; Faroe Islands By-catch, discards and slipping; Control, Enforcement and Surveillance; Respect for laws; Eilif Gaard Faroe Marine 2011-08-24 Status of the stock; (Director) Research Institute Harvest strategy; (Havstovan ) Target and limit reference Lise H. Ofstad points; (Biologist) Information and Monitoring; Assessment methods; Petur Steingrund Impact of fisheries on (Fish Biologist) ecosystem.
Berger Olsen (scientist) Bjarni Mikkelsen Natural History 2011-08-23 By-catch of marine mammals. (scientist) Museum, Faroe Islands
8.5 Stakeholder consultations Several stakeholders have been identified and contacted in connection with the assessment of the Faroe Islands Silver Smelt fishery. A full list of all stakeholders is given in enclosure 1.
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 65 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Information was also made publicly available at the following stages of the assessment: Date Information Media 13.06. 2011 Notification of Full assessment Direct E-mail/letter Notification on MSC website 13.06. 2011 Notification of Assessment Team Direct E-mail Notification on MSC website 30.06. 2011 Confirmation of Assessment Team Direct E-mail Notification on MSC website 12.07. 2011 Announcement of default assessment Direct E-mail tree with RBF Notification on MSC website 02.08.2011 Notification of assessment visit and Direct E-mail call for meeting requests Notification on MSC website 25.07.2011 Advertisement of certification + Advertisement on www.intrafish.com Invitation to contribute to assessment process 02.08.2011 Stakeholder Notification: Site Direct E-mail Visit scheduled Notification on MSC website 22.09.2011 Notification of Proposed Peer Direct E-mail Reviewers Notification on MSC website 22.05.2012 Notification of Public Comment Direct E-mail Draft Report Notification on MSC website 24.07.2012 Notification of Final Report Direct E-mail Notification on MSC website
8.6 Assessment Criteria The basis for the MSC-certification is the standard denoted as the “MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries”, organised in three main principles. Principle 1 concentrates on the need to maintain the target stock at a sustainable level; Principle 2 draws attention to maintaining the ecosystem in which the target stock exists, and Principle 3 addresses the requirement for an effective fishery management system in order to fulfil Principles 1 and 2. In addition Principle 3 takes into account national and international regulations. The Principles 1-3, with pertaining criteria, are presented below:
PRINCIPLE NUMBER 1 A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery101:
101 The sequence in which the Principles and Criteria appear does not represent a ranking of their significance, but is rather intended to provide a logical guide to certifiers when assessing a fishery. The criteria by which the MSC Principles will
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 66 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Intent: The intent of this principle is to ensure that the productive capacities of resources are maintained at high levels and are not sacrificed in favour of short term interests. Thus, exploited populations would be maintained at high levels of abundance designed to retain their productivity, provide margins of safety for error and uncertainty, and restore and retain their capacities for yields over the long term. Criteria: 1. The fishery shall be conducted at catch levels that continually maintain the high productivity of the target population(s) and associated ecological community relative to its potential productivity. 2. Where the exploited populations are depleted, the fishery will be executed such that recovery and rebuilding is allowed to occur to a specified level consistent with the precautionary approach and the ability of the populations to produce long-term potential yields within a specified time frame. 3. Fishing is conducted in a manner that does not alter the age or genetic structure or sex composition to a degree that impairs reproductive capacity.
PRINCIPLE NUMBER 2 Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends. Intent: The intent of this principle is to encourage the management of fisheries from an ecosystem perspective under a system designed to assess and restrain the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem. Criteria: 1. The fishery is conducted in a way that maintains natural functional relationships among species and should not lead to trophic cascades or ecosystem state changes. 2. The fishery is conducted in a manner that does not threaten biological diversity at the genetic, species or population levels and avoids or minimises mortality of, or injuries to endangered, threatened or protected species. 3. Where exploited populations are depleted, the fishery will be executed such that recovery and rebuilding is allowed to occur to a specified level within specified time frames, consistent with the precautionary approach and considering the ability of the population to produce long-term potential yields.
PRINCIPLE NUMBER 3: The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable.
be implemented will be reviewed and revised as appropriate in light of relevant new information, technologies and additional consultations.
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 67 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Intent: The intent of this principle is to ensure that there is an institutional and operational framework for implementing Principles 1 and 2, appropriate to the size and scale of the fishery. Part A: Management System Criteria 1. The fishery shall not be conducted under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement. The management system shall: 2. Demonstrate clear long-term objectives consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and contain a consultative process that is transparent and involves all interested and affected parties so as to consider all relevant information, including local knowledge. The impact of fishery management decisions on all those who depend on the fishery for their livelihoods, including, but not confined to subsistence, artisanal, and fishing- dependent communities shall be addressed as part of this process. 3. Be appropriate to the cultural context, scale and intensity of the fishery – reflecting specific objectives, incorporating operational criteria, containing procedures for implementation and a process for monitoring and evaluating performance and acting on findings. 4. Observe the legal and customary rights and long term interests of people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood, in a manner consistent with ecological sustainability. 5. Incorporates an appropriate mechanism for the resolution of disputes arising within the system102. 6. Provide economic and social incentives that contribute to sustainable fishing and shall not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing. 7. Act in a timely and adaptive fashion on the basis of the best available information using a precautionary approach particularly when dealing with scientific uncertainty. 8. Incorporate a research plan – appropriate to the scale and intensity of the fishery – that addresses the information needs of management and provides for the dissemination of research results to all interested parties in a timely fashion. 9. Require that assessments of the biological status of the resource and impacts of the fishery have been and are periodically conducted. 10. Specify measures and strategies that demonstrably control the degree of exploitation of the resource, including, but not limited to: Setting catch levels that will maintain the target population and ecological community’s high productivity relative to its potential productivity, and account for the non-target species (or size, age, sex) captured and landed in association with, or as a consequence of, fishing for target species. Identifying appropriate fishing methods that minimise adverse impacts on habitat, especially in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning and nursery areas.
102 Outstanding disputes of substantial magnitude involving a significant number of interests will normally disqualify a fishery from certification.
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 68 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Providing for the recovery and rebuilding of depleted fish populations to specified levels within specified time frames. Mechanisms in place to limit or close fisheries when designated catch limits are reached. Establishing no-take zones where appropriate. 11. Contains appropriate procedures for effective compliance, monitoring, control, surveillance and enforcement which ensure that established limits to exploitation are not exceeded and specifies corrective actions to be taken in the event that they are. Part B: Operational Criteria Fishing operation shall: 12. Make use of fishing gear and practices designed to avoid the capture of non-target species (and non-target size, age, and/or sex of the target species); minimise mortality of this catch where it cannot be avoided, and reduce discards of what cannot be released alive. 13. Implement appropriate fishing methods designed to minimise adverse impacts on habitat, especially in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning and nursery areas. 14. Not use destructive fishing practices such as fishing with poisons or explosives. 15. Minimise operational waste such as lost fishing gear, oil spills, on-board spoilage of catch, etc. 16. Be conducted in compliance with the fishery management system and all legal and administrative requirements. 17. Assist and co-operate with management authorities in the collection of catch, discard, and other information of importance to effective management of the resources and the fishery. The MSC Principles and Criteria presented above set the requirements for the fishery that undergoes certification. MSC’s certification methodology is based on a structured hierarchy of Sub-criteria and Performance indicators. The overall performance is decided on the basis of the scoring criteria that the fishery gets during assessment. These sub-criteria and performance indicators have been developed by the MSC in the form of a default assessment tree. When a fishery is evaluated the performance indicators (normally specific statements or questions) are checked out, and each performance indicator has three different “scoring guideposts” that can be defined. MSC characterises these scoring points as follows: Perfect practice, representing the level of performance that would be expected in a theoretically ‘perfect’ fishery (100 points). Exemplary or best practice (80 points). Minimum sustainable practice (60 points). An overview of the assessment methodology is given in Marine Stewardship Council Fisheries Assessment Methodology and Guidance to Certification Bodies. This guidance illustrates how the MSC Principles and Criteria give a basis for sub-criteria and performance indicators defined by DNV, resulting in various scores for the fishery.
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 69 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Figure 8.6: Assessment tree levels relevant to scoring fisheries.
8.7 Evaluation Techniques Site visits to the fishery are performed by the certification body (here DNV) and the assessment team and consultations are done with interested stakeholders. The performance indicators and the pertaining scoring systems are evaluated, and it is judged if the fishery meets the requirements for MSC certification. In order to fulfil the requirements for certification the following minimum scores are required: The fishery must obtain a score of 80 or more for each of the three MSC Principles, based on the weighted aggregate scores for all Performance Indicators under each Criterion in each Principle. The fishery must obtain a score of 60 or more for each Performance Indicator under each Criterion in each Principle. Even though a fishery fulfils the criteria for certification, there may still be some important potential risks to future sustainability that are revealed during assessment. These are performance indicators that score less than 80, but more than 60. In order to be granted a MSC fishery certificate the client must agree to do some further improvements regarding these points. The certification body (here DNV) sets a timescale for the fishery to improve the relevant areas, so that the certification process can continue. Default performance indicators and the scorings allocated in the evaluation are enclosed.
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 70 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
8.8 Limit of Identification of Landings from the Fishery 8.8.1 Traceability The directed Faroese fishery for GSS takes place primarily around the Faroe Island Plateau (Div Vb1), Faroe Bank (Div Vb2) and Lousy Bank (also Div Vb1; Fig 2.3a). Only six pair- trawling vessels (working in three permanent pairs) in the client fleet are licensed to fish for GSS in Faroese waters. These vessels take c.95% of the total Faroese GSS landings; the remaining c.5% is taken as bycatch, mainly in the directed blue whiting fishery but occasional small quantities may also be taken in the saithe or redfish fisheries. All 6 vessels are monitored by VMS which has mandatory recording every hour. The main fishing season is from April to September with the greatest landings made in July and August.
8.8.2 At – sea processing The catches tend to be very clean (i.e they comprise virtually nothing but GSS). Catches are ‘bagged’ aboard (i.e. not pumped) and fed to a conveyor system on the sorting deck. As the fish pass along the conveyor all non-GSS species are removed, recorded and stored separately from the GSS catch. The main GSS catch passes along the conveyor to c.300 kg storage bins with ice and is held in chilled storage aboard the vessel. Very small quantities of redfish, saithe and other deep-water species may be taken but the total is ≤1% the total catch. There is no processing like heading, gutting, mincing, etc. on board of the vessel. Chilled, whole fish is delivered to the landing points.
The vessels use individual coloured labels for the storage of GSS catch in the bins. These labels are numbered and document the name of the vessel. This information corresponds with the information in the Daylists which are mandatory. RED labels are used for catch day 1&2, YELLOW labels for day 3 & 4, BLUE labels for day 5& 6 GREEN label for day 7 and 8.
Figure 8.8: Example of labels used for storage of GSS catch aboard the vessel.
8.8.3 First point of landing The six vessels comprising the client fleet are the only vessels licensed to fish for GSS in Faroese waters and their entire catch is mainly landed in 3 landing sites in Faroe Islands. All the GSS are processed (headed and gutted, filleted or minced) in the Faroe Islands for export. There is no trans-shipment at sea activities involved in Faroe Island silver smelt fisheries. By trans-shipment at sea we mean that Faroese vessels do not transfer silver smelt catches onto transport ships, while still at sea. All catches are landed and go through the Port state control. The GSS caught by the client fleet will be able to enter Chain of Custody at any of the 3 points of landing in the Faroe Islands. The three present points of landing are specified below.
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 71 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
1. P/F Landingarmiðstøð Føroya (main point of landing for Eysturbúgvin & Vesturbúgvin)
Toftagjógv 3 FO-650 Toftir Faroe Islands www.lmf.fo Email [email protected] Tel +298 470020 Fax +298 470028
2. P/F Landingarmiðstøð Føroya (main point of landing for Polarhav & Stjørnan)
Kósaskákið 700 Klaksvík Faroe Islands www.lmf.fo Email [email protected] Tel +298 456999 Fax +298 456933
3. P.P. Faroe Pelagic (main point of landing for Vestmenningur & Fram) Langasandur 28 410 Kollafjørður Faroe Islands Tel. +298 478888
8.8.4 First Point of Sale Minced products are sold to Norway, Sweden, Denmark, England, Scotland and Ireland wherein approx. 70% is sold to Norway.
8.8.5 Eligibility to enter Chain of Custody Silver smelt caught in the Faroe Bank & Faroe Plateau inside FAO area 27 in ICES division Vb2 by the vessels listed in enclosure 2 of this report is eligible to enter Chain of Custody and carry the MSC logo from the point of landing at the three landing sites mentioned above (8.8.3) and further down the value chain.
8.8.6 The target eligibility date The main fishing season for this fishery is from April to September, but there is fishing activity outside this period too. In 2011 silver smelt catches were landed as late as November. The target eligibility date is 22nd November 2011.
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 72 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
8.9 Conditions or recommendations associated with this certification Conditions: The fishery attained a score of below 80 against 2 Performance Indicators (PI 1.2.1 Harvest Strategy and PI 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives). The assessment team has therefore set conditions for continuing certification that the client is required to address. The conditions are applicable to improve performance to at least the 80 level within the periods set by the DNV assessment team but no longer than the term of the certification.
Condition 1: HARVEST STRATEGY
PI CATEGORY 1
PI 1.2.1: A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery.
SG: 80: The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points.
ASSESSMENT TEAM FINDINGS: Although Faroe Marine Research Institute (Havstovan) continues to work on the development of a structured analytical (XSA) assessment model (consistent with ICES standard procedures), the current harvest strategy is based on a simple steady state surplus production assessment.
ACTION: The client should continue to provide Faroe Marine Research Institute (Havstovan) with such assistance as is necessary to maintain the annual stock assessment project and to improve the reliability of the parameters upon which it is dependant. The age-based structure of the assessment must be expanded to include individual age groups up to and including age 20, with a 20+ group, within 5 years of certification. Until such times as the assessment is robust enough to support a formal and responsive harvest control rule the client should reach a formal agreement with the Ministry of Fisheries to limit annual catches to no more than that indicated at F0.1 on the stock yield curve (as calculated by Havstovan), or Fmsy when an estimate is made.
TIMESCALE: Evidence on agreement with Havstovan and the Ministry of Fisheries should be presented at 1st surveillance audit along-with monitoring of the agreements and annual assessments at subsequent audits. The expansion of the age based structure of the assessment within 5 years of certification.
Condition 2: FISHERY SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
PI CATEGORY 3
PI : 3.2.1: The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 73 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
SG: 80: Short and long term objectives, which are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery’s management system.
ASSESSMENT TEAM FINDINGS: Both the ship owners and the Faroese Ministry of Fisheries have accepted the scientific advice from Faroe Marine Research Institute (Havstovan) for this fishery and this advice is consistent with MSC principles 1 & 2. At the time of site visits and consultation, however, the advice is not formally adopted as there is no statutory effort limit, TAC or quota allocation (hence the reduced score). Currently catch limits are voluntary although the fishery inspectorate retains the option to close the fishery under the days at sea regulations if Havstovan /size inspections advice prompts such action.
ACTION: Until such times as the assessment is robust enough to support a formal and responsive harvest control rule the client should reach a formal agreement with the Ministry of Fisheries to limit annual catches to an adaptive management plan with 20Kt as an initial value and then implement a HCR based on some metric of biomass (CPUE, survey).
TIMESCALE: Evidence of agreement with the Ministry of Fisheries at 1st surveillance audit and monitoring of the agreement and implementation at subsequent audits
RECOMMENDATION 1.2.3 The client should present the results of genetic comparisons between Faroe-Iceland; Faroe-N Norway; Faroe-Biscay (or south of Porcupine Bank) within 5 years of certification.
RECOMMENDATION 2.3: When the e-log books are introduced there will be a statutory requirement for the presence or absence of any ETP species (birds and marine mammals) in the catch to be recorded. The client should anticipate this change by making it a requirement on the current paper log books with immediate effect.
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 74 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
9 PEER REVIEW
The peer reviewers for this assessment were:
Sten Munch-Petersen Gudmundur Thordarson
The reports from the peer reviewers are given in enclosure 7.
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 75 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
10 STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
No stakeholder comments were received prior to the release of the PCDR.
Comments received on the PCDR were as follows: 1. Marine Stewardship Council received 22.06.2012- comments in enclosure 9
No stakeholder comments were received on the consultation of the Final Report.
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 76 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
OBJECTION PROCESS
No objections were received on the final report and determination.
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 77 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
11 FORMAL CONCLUSION AGREEMENT
11.1 Applicant's Agreement to meet Specified Conditions.
On behalf of the Faroe Island Silver Smelt Fishery for the client Tavan SP/F, I accept Preliminary Draft Report regarding the Faroe Islands Silver Smelt fishery assessment against MSC Fishery standard for sustainable fisheries and confirm that information on the Faroe Islands Silver Smelt fishing activities and scope of certification is up to date and correct.
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 78 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
INFORMATION SOURCES Information used in the main assessment has been obtained from interviews and correspondence with stakeholders in the fisheries, notably: 1. Tavan SP/F 2. Ministry of Fisheries 3. Directorate of Fisheries 4. Institute of Marine Research
REFERENCES Commercial Fishery Act, 10th March 1994. www.logir.fo Forsíða > Vinnuligur fiskiskapur > Løgtingslóg nr. 28 frá 10. mars 1994 um vinnuligan fiskiskap, sum seinast broytt við løgtingslóg nr. 87 frá 18. august 2010
Regulation for Silver Smelt: “Regulation No. 13 of 18. January 1993 Fisheries for Silver Smelt”. www.logir.fo KUNNGERÐ NR. 13 FRÁ 18. JANUAR 1993 UM FISKISKAP EFTIR GULLLAKSI Á YTRU LANDLEIÐINI.
Ministry of Fisheries; www.fisk.fo
Faroe Marine Research Institute: www.frs.fo
The Faroe Islands Fisheries Inspection www.fve.fo
Information on ocean and fisheries management, fish farming and processing of marine resources in the Faroes today www.fishin.fo
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 79 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
ENCLOSURE 1: OVERVIEW OF IDENTIFIED STAKEHOLDERS AND THEIR MAIN INTERESTS IN THE FAROE ISLAND SILVER SMELT FISHERY
Stakeholders Date of Geographical Main interests in regard to Faroe Main tasks in regard to Faroe Homepage establishment Silver Smelt Fishery Silver Smelt Fishery Coverage
Faroese Ministry of Faroe Islands The Ministry provides a www.fisk.fo Fisheries and Natural framework for: Resources -development and growth in the food sector -a responsible stewardship of the natural resources Faroese Fisheries Faroese Fishery -To keep ccommercial herring - Give service to the Ministry of www.fve.fo Inspection fishery balanced, economically Fisheries; healthy and sustainable; - Inspect and control fishing - To maintain recreational activities fishing. - Make statistics on fisheries
WWF 1961 Global Fishery - To promote sustainability of - Promotion of seafood that is www.wwf.dk fisheries certified by the Marine
Stewardship Council (MSC). www.panda.org ICES 1902 North Atlantic - Sustainable use of living - coordinate and promote marine www.ices.dk Fisheries marine resources and protection research in the North Atlantic of marine environment. - serve as a prime source of advice on the marine ecosystem to
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 80 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
governments and international regulatory bodies.
Faroe Marine Research Faroe Islands The main task is to carry out the www.frs.fo Institute research of the marine resources harvested by Faroese fishermen. NSRAC 2004 North Atlantic - To work towards integrated Prepare and provide advice on www.nsrac.org Fisheries and sustainable management the management of the fisheries of fisheries in the wider of the Atlanto-Scandian on context of the sustainability of behalf of stakeholders in order the marine environment. to promote the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy.
NEAFC Conservation and sustainable -maintain the rational exploitation www.neafc.org use of marine biodiversity in the of fish stocks in NE Atlantic. north east Atlantic. NSS 1927 Norwegian economic interest in all first- - through organised first www.sildelaget.no (Fish Auction / Norges Fishery, North- hand sales of pelagic fish in the Hand sales to obtain good prices Sildesalgslag) East northeast Atlantic. and good terms of payment in Atlantic respect of the fish species; Fishery - take part in product and market development, production distribution or export sales when considered appropriate.
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 81 of 165
DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
The Norwegian 1990 Norwegian - rational exploitation of fish - analyses, statistics and advice; www.fiskeridir.no Directorate of Fisheries Fishery stocks in the Atlantic and - regulative work and regulation (Fiskeridirekoratet) Arctic Oceans planning development; - implement political decisions; -process applications and appeals; -conduct monitoring and control.
Report N. 2011-0016 Revision 5 Page 82 of 165
ENCLOSURE 2: LIST OF VESSELS
1. Stjørnan, - owned by P/F JFK Trol 2. Polarhav, - owned by P/F JFK Trol 3. Fram, - owned by JFK 4. Vestmenningur, - owned by JFK 5. Vesturbúgvin (RSW) –owned by Vørðustiggjur and Vesturbúgvin 6. Eysturbúgvin (RSW) –owned by Vørðustiggjur and Vesturbúgvin
Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 83 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
ENCLOSURE 3: CLIENT ACTION PLAN Submitted on 18. mars 2012 by:
Marnar Pattinson Tavan SP/F FO-520 Leirvík, Faroe Islands Tel +298 44 33 55 / Fax +298 44 33 77 e-mail: [email protected]
Condition 1: HARVEST STRATEGY
PI CATEGORY 1
PI 1.2.1: A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery.
SG: 80: The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points.
ASSESSMENT TEAM FINDINGS: Although Faroe Marine Research Institute (Havstovan) continues to work on the development of a structured analytical (XSA) assessment model (consistent with ICES standard procedures), the current harvest strategy is based on a simple steady state surplus production assessment.
ACTION: The client should continue to provide Faroe Marine Research Institute (Havstovan) with such assistance as is necessary to maintain the annual stock assessment project and to improve the reliability of the parameters upon which it is dependant. The age-based structure of the assessment must be expanded to include individual age groups up to and including age 20, with a 20+ group, within 5 years of certification. Until such times as the assessment is robust enough to support a formal and responsive harvest control rule the client should reach a formal agreement with the Ministry of Fisheries to limit annual catches to no more than that indicated at F0.1 on the stock yield curve (as calculated by Havstovan), or Fmsy when an estimate is made.
TIMESCALE: Evidence on agreement with Havstovan and the Ministry of Fisheries should be presented at 1st surveillance audit along-with monitoring of the agreements and annual assessments at subsequent audits. The expansion of the age based structure of the assessment within 5 years of certification.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 84 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT How the conditions and milestones will be The Faroe Marine Reasearch Institute will addressed continue to make annual stock assessments. See email below from Lise Helen Ofstad at Faroe Marine Research Institute dated 16.03- 2012.
Tavan will also continue to provide Faroe Marine Reasearch Institute with catch data etc., which is necessary for making stock assessments. This will also improve the parameters wich good stock assessments are buildt on.
At the moment the Ministry of Fisheries has started a process to develop a new Executive Order to secure a sustainable management of the fishery. “see mail from Ulla Svarrer Wang Senior Adviser Ministry of Fisheries Dated 16.03-2012” This is expected to be ready before the season starts in april.
Who will address the conditions - The Faroe Marine Reasearch Institute - Faroese Ministry of Fisheries and Natural Resources - Tavan SP/F The specified time period within which the April 2012 conditions and milestones will be addressed. How the action(s) is expected to improve These initiatives together should provide a the performance of the fishery healty stock. This will also give us a stable future fishery wich will benefit all parties of the industry.
Condition 2: FISHERY SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
PI CATEGORY 3
PI : 3.2.1: The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.
SG: 80: Short and long term objectives, which are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery’s management system.
ASSESSMENT TEAM FINDINGS: Both the ship owners and the Faroese Ministry of Fisheries have accepted the scientific advice from Faroe Marine Research Institute
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 85 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT (Havstovan) for this fishery and this advice is consistent with MSC principles 1 & 2. At the time of site visits and consultation, however, the advice is not formally adopted as there is no statutory effort limit, TAC or quota allocation (hence the reduced score). Currently catch limits are voluntary although the fishery inspectorate retains the option to close the fishery under the days at sea regulations if Havstovan /size inspections advice prompts such action.
ACTION: Until such times as the assessment is robust enough to support a formal and responsive harvest control rule the client should reach a formal agreement with the Ministry of Fisheries to limit annual catches to an adaptive management plan with 20Kt as an initial value and then implement a HCR based on some metric of biomass (CPUE, survey).
TIMESCALE: Evidence of agreement with the Ministry of Fisheries at 1st surveillance audit and monitoring of the agreement and implementation at subsequent audits
How the conditions and milestones will be The Faroe Marine Reasearch Institute will addressed continue to make annual stock assessments. See mail from Lise Helen Ofstad Faroe Marine Research Institute dated 16.03-2012.
Tavan will also continue to provide Faroe Marine Reasearch Institute with catch data etc., which is necessary for making stock assessments. This will also improve the parameters wich good stock assessments are buildt on.
At the moment the Ministry of Fisheries has started a process to develop a new Executive Order to secure a sustainable management of the fishery. See email below from Ulla Svarrer Wang Senior Adviser Ministry of Fisheries Dated 16.03-2012. This is expected to be ready before the season starts in april.
Who will address the conditions - The Faroe Marine Reasearch Institute - Faroese Ministry of Fisheries and Natural Resources - Tavan SP/F The specified time period within which the April 2012 conditions and milestones will be addressed
How the action(s) is expected to improve These initiatives together should provide a the performance of the fishery healty stock. This will also give us a stable future fishery wich will benefit all parties of Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 86 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT the industry.
RECOMMENDATION 2.3: When the e-log books are introduced there will be a statutory requirement for the presence or absence of any ETP species (birds and marine mammals) in the catch to be recorded. The client should anticipate this change by making it a requirement on the current paper log books with immediate effect.
Email from Eilif Gaard/ Lise Helen Ofstad Faroe Marine Research Institute Dated 16.03-2012
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 87 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 88 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 89 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Email from Ulla Svarrer Wang Senior Adviser Faroese Ministry of Fisheries and Natural Resources Dated 16.03-2012
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 90 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
ENCLOSURE 4: PEER REVIEW COMMENTS
PEER REVIEWER A:
Overall Opinion
Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes/No Conformity Assessment Body appropriate conclusion based on the evidence YES Response presented in the assessment report? Justification:
Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes/No Conformity Assessment Body appropriately written to achieve the SG80 NO Response outcome within the specified timeframe? Justification: A recommendation to the effect that the The issue of stock structure needs to be cleared, i.e. the client should present the results of assumption of separate population does need to be addressed genetic comparisons between Faroe- and to be evaluated by ICES Iceland; Faroe-N Norway; Faroe-Biscay (or south of Porcupine Bank) within 5 years of certification has been added to the report.
If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient Yes/No Conformity Assessment Body to close the conditions raised? Response Justification:
For reports using the Risk-Based Framework please follow the link.
For reports assessing enhanced fisheries please follow the link.
General Comments on the Assessment Report (optional)
The report is clearly written and easy to follow. There are three main concerns in regards to GSS in Vb and all of them are addressed in the report 1. Stock structure. For any analytical assessment, such as XSA, of GSS in Vb to be considered as indicative of biomass in the area the assumption of stock structure has to be addressed. In the past the stocks assessed by WGDEEP were split into management units (MU) more on convenience than data, an example of this in ling (Molva molva), however this approach is no longer acceptable by ICES, the
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 91 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT S.marinus in the Irminger Sea debate is a proof of that. Therefore at least some studies must be undertaken to address this, be they genetic, morphometric or even tagging. An alternative way would be sensitivity modelling, assuming one stock and trying to run an assessment on the whole unit. This, has to date not been attempted.
DNV Assessment team comment: Genetic studies are in hand but results are not yet available. As described in the report, there are prime facie indications that GSS off northern Norway are a separate population unit from those further south and the data relating to Faroe are probably no weaker than those justifying the recognition of an Icelandic MU. A recommendation to the effect that the client should present the results of genetic comparisons between Faroe-Iceland; Faroe-N Norway; Faroe- Biscay (or south of Porcupine Bank) within 5 years of certification has been added to the report.
2. Even if it is accepted that for all purposes GSS in Vb is a separate MU the XSA assessment presented is not convincing. The residual pattern suggests autocorrelation and problems with the estimation in younger age groups (recruitment), but could also indicate immigration/emigration of greater silver smelt in the area. Plus group is sat to 14, that seams rather low given that there are considerable catches from age 14 and older (in weight). Using a CPUE for tuning is as stated in the MSC-report questionable, especially in an expanding fishery (learning phase) but given the lack of a reliable survey series may be the only alternative. The time-frame for the XSA is also to short given the life history of the species, only a few cohorts have gone through the time series and hardly any if the plus-group would be moved to a more sensible number such as age 18-20. In the WGDEEP-2012 a new version of the XSA is presented that shows an even more upward revision of stock size and therefore of sustainable catch levels, according to the latest XSA-run fishing at F0.1 should result in catches of 28.5kt. It is therefore not prudent to build advice on the outcomes of the XSA (which is not done by MSC) and its results should only be used ‘as indicative of trends’ at the best. Alternatively other assessment methods should be tested such as statistical catch-at-age models or even length based methods.
DNV Assessment team comment: The point about the XSA using a 14+ age group and relatively short timescale is valid but not damning. Condition 1 has been amended to include that the age-based structure of the assessment must be expanded to include individual age groups up to and including age 20, with a 20+ group, within 5 years of certification.
3. The effort-management system in the Faroe Islands has not constrained effort in the main species targeted, cod, haddock and saithe, which can be seen by the fact that realized fishing mortality has been considerably higher than those that have been deemed sustainable. It is therefore unlikely that the effort-control system will work on GSS. TAC management should be given serious consideration, specially in light of the fact that in order to participate in the fishery one needs a large trawler and powerful engines, a criteria not met by many vessels in the Faroe Islands.
DNV Assessment team comment: Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 92 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT Whilst the recent history of gadoid fishery management in Faroese waters may be at odds with the ICES approach to stock management and fishery advice, there was nothing that the assessment team saw or were told that indicated that the current effort control system was not working in the GSS fishery. If the certification is successful, the effort management and current status of the stock will be part of the annual audit and it will then, and only then, be that criticism of the effort control system might become relevant.
Given the above mentioned points, and the rationale in the MSC-report the target set by the industry of fishing no more than 20kt a year is not unreasonable as is the conclusion of the report. It might be taken as an initial value of TAC in an adaptive management plan.
(A minor note on page 3: Abbreviations, WKDEEP was an ICES benchmark group on deep sea species. Also WGDEEP should be on that list as it is mentioned often in the report.)
DNV Assessment team comment: WKDEEP corrected on page 3 WGDEEP added to table of abbreviations
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 93 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011
Performance Indicator Review Please complete the table below for each Performance Indicator which are listed in the Conformity Assessment Body’s Public Certification Draft Report.
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where information and/or rationale raised improve possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. available been used to score this the fishery’s used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
1.1.1 YES YES NA
1.1.2 YES YES NA
1.1.3 NA NA NA The stock does not appear to be depleated
1.2.1 YES YES YES
1.2.2 YES NO NA The Faroe Islands effort management Relevant point removed. system has not been successful in limiting effort in other fisheries such as cod and haddock So I would object to the last point on page 96 (Evidence clearly shows….)
1.2.3 YES YES NA The issue of stock structure might be A recommendation to the effect that the upgraded to a ‘condition’ client should present the results of genetic comparisons between Faroe-Iceland; Faroe- N Norway; Faroe-Biscay (or south of Porcupine Bank) within 5 years of certification has been added.
Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 94 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where information and/or rationale raised improve possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. available been used to score this the fishery’s used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
1.2.4 YES NO The XSA assessment is seriously flawed, the Condition 1 has been amended to include CPUE is questionable in the learning phase that the age-based structure of the the fishery is in. assessment must be expanded to include individual age groups up to and including age 20, with a 20+ group, within 5 years of certification.
2.1.1 YES YES NA
2.1.2 YES YES NA
2.1.3 YES YES NA
2.2.1 YES YES NA
2.2.2 YES YES NA
2.2.3 YES YES NA
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 95 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where information and/or rationale raised improve possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. available been used to score this the fishery’s used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.3.1 YES YES NA
2.3.2 YES YES NA
2.3.3 YES YES NA
2.4.1 YES YES NA
2.4.2 YES YES NA
2.4.3 YES YES NA
2.5.1 YES YES NA
2.5.2 YES YES NA
2.5.3 YES YES NA
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 96 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where information and/or rationale raised improve possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. available been used to score this the fishery’s used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
3.1.1 YES NO NA The mackrel dispute should not be used for The assessment team has discussed the lowering the score. It might just as well be issue and found it relevant not to change the argued that Norway and the EU are being score though the opinion expressed here un-flexable given the changed distribution of highy supported by the team. mackrel.
3.1.2 YES YES NA
3.1.3 YES YES NA
3.1.4 YES YES NA
3.2.1 YES YES Maybe The condition might be better if the F0.1 The wording of the condition has been would be ommited as it has changed a lot in changed three successive XSA assessments but rather the condition would be an adaptive management plan with 20Kt as an initial value and then to implement a HCR based on some metric of biomass (CPUE, survey).
3.2.2 YES YES NA
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 97 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where information and/or rationale raised improve possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. available been used to score this the fishery’s used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
3.2.3 YES YES NA
3.2.4 YES YES NA
3.2.5 YES YES NA
Any Other Comments
Comments Conformity Assessment Body Response See ‘General comments’
For reports using the Risk-Based Framework: Performance Does the report Are the RBF risk Justification: Conformity Assessment Body Response: Indicator clearly explain scores well- Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 98 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT how the process referenced? Please support your answers by referring to specific used to Yes/No scoring issues and any relevant documentation where determine risk possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. using the RBF led to the stated outcome? Yes/No 1.1.1 Yes Yes
2.1.1 Yes Yes
2.2.1 Yes Yes
2.4.1 Yes Yes
2.5.1 Yes Yes
For reports assessing enhanced fisheries: Does the report clearly evaluate any additional impacts that might arise Yes/No Conformity Assessment Body Response: from enhancement activities?
Justification:
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 99 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011
PEER REVIEWER B:
Overall Opinion
Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes Certification Body Response appropriate conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? Justification: Principle 1. Based on the available biological data, which are used in the best/most efficient way as well as the observations fishery from this closely monitored fishery, the conclusions are justifiable.
The analytical assessment(s) are still considered exploratory by ICES (calibration problems with XSAs, retrospective patterns recruitment patterns). This gives problems of establishing reference points based on analytical assessments. To me, however, the F0.1 currently used seems a reasonable approach.
Concerning principle 2, the effect on the benthos from this GSS fishery seems to be almost negligible. Also the effect on other species seems to be small.
However, measurement of overall effects on the habitat and ecosystem is still a problem (as for most other fisheries). Whereas usable ecological reference points soon are likely to be available, effective measurements of the ecosystem and habitat conditions will be more difficult.
Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes Certification Body Response appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? Justification: Condition 1 (including the timescale) has Condition 1.2.1: No specific time frame is suggested. been revised However as long as annual assessments are carried out between audits improved harvest strategies considering reference values will be achieved. At present the variation in estimated F0.1 catches used as target is very large.
Condition 3.2.1: This condition depends on especially what is considered to be reliable reference values for Fmsy (and corresponding catches) and is thus linked to 1.2.1.
However, considering the exploitation pressure on the stock, I don’t see a problem here (or only a formal one), when the fishery is so closely monitored
If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient Yes Certification Body Response to close the conditions raised? Justification:
If the client follows the action proposed by the assessment team
Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 100 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
For reports using the Risk-Based Framework please follow the link.
For reports assessing enhanced fisheries please follow the link.
General Comments on the Assessment Report (optional)
Sect. 2.3, pp.16-18 (fleet and fishing). The description lacks a specification of vessel size, the gear (trawls) used in this fishery, type, size and mesh size in the cod-end. (it is mentioned in other sections, that the minimum legal mesh size 80 mm, but is that what is commonly used?
DNV Assessment team comment: Vessel details have been included on page 13 pp. 41- - Fig 5.1d. The text referring to this fig. is inconsistent with the graph. No graphs for 1994 and 1995 is seen. Furthermore, there are no ML values specified in the graph in this MSC report (in the original report the ML values are shown).
DNV Assessment team comment: The text for fig 5.1d has been amended. The assessment team does not find it relevant to specify ML values in this context. p. 46. It is stated that the CPUE figures from the pair trawl logbooks are those where GSS constitute more than 50% of the catch in the trawl hauls. In the description of the fishery (sect. 4.6 on pp. 34-35) you are given the impression of much cleaner catches?!
DNV Assessment team comment: The text on page 46 has been removed p. 47. The estimates of stock size with estimates ranging from 70 kt to 500 kt but with an average of c.145 kt [Fig 5.2a(i)]. In the Fig. the range appears to be from around 70 kt to 230 kt.
DNV Assessment team comment: Text on page 47 amended
The explanatory text on the refinement of the calibration of the commercial CPUE to the survey data is not clear to me.
DNV Assessment team comment: The assessment team is of the opinion that the text is adequately explanatory p. 49 & 51-53, Fig. 5.2c. I agree with the indirect critic of some of the ICES critic/attitude to the FaMRI (tentative) assessment. In general the ICES considerations on stock identification is somewhat inconsistent. While many of the deep-sea species, only because of lack of data, are considered as one single stock in the NE Atlantic, National catch/landings data have
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 101 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT defined “stocks” of various other demersal fish species, even where there are no natural borders in the geographical distribution of the particular species (for instance: Anglerfish in ICES subarea IIa is considered a separate stock, where the “border” is 620 N).
The steady state graph showing F0.1 as 0.24 (catch= 15.5 kt). I assume that this is for 2010 (Assessment performed in 2011). In sect. 6.4 the F0.1 catch is given as 24 kt for 2011. However in the 2012 assessment report it is given as around 29 kt (for 2011)?
The exact values are not that important, but the year to year fluctuations should lead to precaution in the use of F0.1 as management reference point.
DNV Assessment team comment: Section 6.4 corrected.
Mainly in Sect. 4.2 the name of the author O. S. Tendal to the many reference papers on sponges is misspelled ”Tendel”.
DNV Assessment team comment: Name amended.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 102 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT Performance Indicator Review Please complete the table below for each Performance Indicator which are listed in the Certification Body’s Public Certification Draft Report.
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where information and/or rationale raised improve possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. available been used to score this the fishery’s used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
1.1.1 yes Yes/no (yes) See RBF.Scoring appropriate. The justification is defendable when no target reference points have been established yet (see 1.1.2).
1.1.2 yes yes NA Following the arguments and subsequent PSA given in Sect. 6.5, the scoring is justifiable.
1.1.3 Yes yes NA Justification for no scoring is appropriate.
1.2.1 Yes Yes yes Scoring appropriate. See above
1.2.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring appropriate. The justification is defendable.
1.2.3 Yes Yes NA Given the stock identity problem, the scoring of 80 is appropriate.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 103 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where information and/or rationale raised improve possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. available been used to score this the fishery’s used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
1.2.4 yes Yes/no yes See RBF comments for 1.1.1. In my opinion the SG80 and SG100 criteria regarding reference points and biology are confusing. Why is the biology not included in the SG80 ?? The scoring probably OK
2.1.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring appropriate. The catches seem to be without very much by-catch.
2.1.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring appropriate.
2.1.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring appropriate.
2.2.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring appropriate.
2.2.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring appropriate.
2.2.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring appropriate.
2.3.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring appropriate.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 104 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where information and/or rationale raised improve possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. available been used to score this the fishery’s used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.3.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring appropriate.
2.3.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring appropriate.
2.4.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring appropriate.
2.4.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring appropriate.
2.4.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring appropriate.
2.5.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring appropriate.
2.5.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring appropriate.
2.5.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring appropriate.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 105 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where information and/or rationale raised improve possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. available been used to score this the fishery’s used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
3.1.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring appropriate. The justification is defendable
3.1.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring appropriate. The justification is defendable
3.1.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring appropriate. The justification is defendable
3.1.4 Yes Yes NA Scoring appropriate. The justification is defendable
3.2.1 Yes Yes Yes Scoring appropriate within current management. SG 80 likely if biological advice is followed.
3.2.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring appropriate. The justification is defendable
3.2.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring appropriate. The justification is defendable
3.2.4 Yes Yes NA Scoring appropriate. The justification is defendable
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 106 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where information and/or rationale raised improve possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. available been used to score this the fishery’s used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
3.2.5 Yes Yes NA Scoring appropriate. The justification is defendable
Any Other Comments
Comments Certification Body Response
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 107 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
For reports using the Risk-Based Framework: Performance Does the report Are the RBF risk Justification: Certification Body Response: Indicator clearly explain scores well- Please support your answers by referring to specific how the process referenced? scoring issues and any relevant documentation where used to Yes/No possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. determine risk using the RBF led to the stated outcome? Yes/No 1.1.1 Yes Yes Concerning the stock identity problem for GSS, I fully agree with the arguments in the MSC report.
Concerning F0.1 : ICES notes (rightly) that the analytical assessment is not yet stable enough to provide a precise estimate of this reference point. However the approach OK, even if large year to year fluctuations in corresponding F0.1 catches renders is necessary stay on the low side when setting the (annual) harvest strategy.
If you accept the bases (productivity and susceptibility, PSA) for scoring the documentation is OK. 2.1.1
2.2.1
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 108 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
2.4.1
2.5.1
For reports assessing enhanced fisheries: Does the report clearly evaluate any additional impacts that might arise Yes/No Certification Body Response: from enhancement activities?
Justification:
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 109 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
ENCLOSURE 6: SCORING COMMENT TABLE FOR FAROE ISLAND SILVER SMELT FISHERY Principle 1 A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery. 1.1 Component Outcome Summary Score 1.1.1 PI: Stock status (C1) The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of recruitment over-fishing. 80 SG Scoring Issue Met Y/N Comments Ref 60 It is likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment After 15 years of a directed fishery for GSS the commercial catches Ofstad & would be impaired. Y from Faroese waters still comprise more than 90% mature fish ( i.e Steingrund 2011; 35 cm) WKDEEP 2010
80 It is highly likely that the stock is above the point where Y As above recruitment would be impaired. The stock is at or fluctuating around its target reference point. Y No target reference points; RBF PSA score >80
100 There is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point See above; however it is unclear at present whether recent Faroese N where recruitment would be impaired. catches of 19 000 tonnes will affect stock and recruitment
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 110 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Principle 1 A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery. 1.1 Component Outcome Summary Score 1.1.2 PI: Reference points Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock. 80 SG Scoring Issue Met Y/N Comments Ref 60 Generic limit and target reference points are based on justifiable and RBF used for PI 1.1.1 with PSA Score >80 Se section 6.5 of reasonable practice appropriate for the species category. the report for PSA 80 Reference points are appropriate for the stock and can be estimated. scoring.
The limit reference point is set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity. The target reference point is such that the stock is maintained at a level
consistent with Bmsy or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome. For low trophic level species, the target reference point takes into account the ecological role of the stock. 100 The limit reference point is set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity following consideration of relevant precautionary issues. The target reference point is such that the stock is maintained at a level consistent with BMSY or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome, or a higher level, and takes into account relevant precautionary issues such as the ecological role of the stock with a high degree of certainty.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 111 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Principle 1 A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery. 1.1 Component Outcome Summary Score 1.1.3 PI: Stock rebuilding (C2) Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding. SG Scoring Issue Met Y/N Comments Ref
60 Where stocks are depleted rebuilding strategies which have a NOT APPLICABLE reasonable expectation of success are in place. Monitoring is in place to determine whether they are effective in rebuilding the stock within a specified timeframe. 80 Where stocks are depleted rebuilding strategies are in place.
There is evidence that they are rebuilding stocks, or it is highly likely based on simulation modelling or previous performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within a specified timeframe. 100 Where stocks are depleted, strategies are demonstrated to be rebuilding stocks continuously and there is strong evidence that rebuilding will be complete within the shortest practicable timeframe.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 112 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Principle 1 A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery. 1.2 Component Management Summary Score 1.2.1 PI: Harvest strategy There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place 70 SG Scoring Issue Met Y/N Comments Ref 60 The harvest strategy is expected to achieve stock management ICES has recommended that total international catches for non- WGDEEP 2011 objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. Icelandic GSS are maintained at no more than 2007 level ( 38000 (as modified in Y tonnes). Although Faroese catches have increased from 14000 Table 2.2 ) tonnes in 2007 to 19000 + tonnes (2008 – 2010) the total international catch has remained stable over the same period. The harvest strategy is likely to work based on prior experience or The Faroese harvest strategy is to limit annual catches to no more Ofstad 2010 plausible argument. Y than the upper limit of a simple surplus production model developed by Havstovan Monitoring is in place that is expected to determine whether the No discarding is permitted within the fishery; all GSS are landed in Interviews FI & harvest strategy is working. Y the Faroe islands; all catches are recorded in log books and landings client recorded by the fishery inspection services. 80 The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the Although Havstovan continues to work on and develop a structured Ofstad & elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving analytical (XSA) assessment model (consistent with ICES standard Steingrund 2011 N management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference procedures), the current harvest strategy is based on a simple steady points. state surplus production assessment The harvest strategy may not have been fully tested but monitoring is It is implicit in ICES advice with respect to total international in place and evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives. catches ( see above) that stock stability is the immediate objective. Y Landing statistics (both internationally and Faroese) show stability in recent years; and provisional stock assessment undertaken by Havstovan show relative stock stability over the past 15 years 100 The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and is Although Havstovan continues to work on and develop a structured designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in the N analytical (XSA) assessment model (consistent with ICES standard target and limit reference points. procedures), the current harvest strategy is based on a simple steady The performance of the harvest strategy has been fully evaluated and state surplus production assessment. evidence exists to show that it is achieving its objectives including N being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as Y Havstovan updated the assessment annually over the past 3 years necessary.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 113 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Principle 1 A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery. 1.2.2 Component Management Summary Score PI: Harvest control rules There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place 100 and tools SG Scoring Issue Met Y/N Comments Ref 60 Generally understood harvest control rules are in place that are The harvest strategy is to maintain Faroese catches no more than Interviews: FI & consistent with the harvest strategy and which act to reduce the Y 20000 tonnes. The harvest control rules to retain all catches (ie. no client exploitation rate as limit reference points are approached. discarding) record catches and report all landings.
There is some evidence that tools used to implement harvest control The client fleet is complaint with the Faroese strategy and the rules are appropriate and effective in controlling exploitation. Y national technical measures; catch control and monitoring ensure full compliance. 80 Well defined harvest control rules are in place that are consistent with Harvest control rules include minimum catch size (both legal, 28 the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as Y cm., and commercial, 32 cm), minimum mesh size ( 80 mm), log limit reference points are approached. books, VMS, sales notes and FI monitoring at sea and on landing. The selection of the harvest control rules takes into account the main The full suite of control rules are the same as are used in all uncertainties. international fisheries in the north east Atlantic to minimise Y uncertainty with respect to total catches, and to maximise compliance. Available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and The same basic suite of rules and tools are applied throughout the effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest Y NE Atlantic and, generally, are deemed to be an effective means of control rules. achieving objectives. 100 The design of the harvest control rules take into account a wide range The greatest uncertainty in any fishery is the total catch and the rules of uncertainties. and tools are appropriate. Catch monitoring demonstrates that the Y catches are dominated by large, mature fish of many age groups, which buffers the stock against intrannual fluctuations in recruitment and recruitment overfishing. Evidence clearly shows that the tools in use are effective in achieving All indicators of stock abundance and stock structure point towards a the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules. Y stable fishery subject to appropriate and effective control rules and tools.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 114 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Principle 1 A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery. 1.2 Component Management Summary Score 1.2.3 PI: Information and Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy 80 monitoring SG Scoring Issue Met Y/N Comments Ref 60 Some relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity Although stock structure throughout the North East Atlantic WKDEEP 2010; and fleet composition is available to support the harvest strategy. continues to be uncertain (including the status of the Icelandic Ofstad & component) Havstovan has made estimates of a Faroese Steingrund 2011, Y management unit status and productivity which support the harvest FI & client strategy. Fleet composition is limited (3 x pair trawlers) and their activities known and monitored, etc. ( see above) Stock abundance and fishery removals are monitored and at least one Havstovan maintain annual CPUE time research vessel and indicator is available and monitored with sufficient frequency to Y commercial catch time series and have completed age based support the harvest control rule. analytical (XSA) stock assessments for the past 3 years 80 Sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock With the support of the Faroese fishing industry, Havstovan maintain productivity, fleet composition and other data is available to support a biological sampling and monitoring program that gathers the data Y the harvest strategy. necessary to undertake assessment of a Faroese GSS management unit. Stock abundance and fishery removals are regularly monitored at a All fishery removals are monitored and recorded with a high level of level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule, reliability (see above). Havstovan have a CPUE (stock abundance Y and one or more indicators are available and monitored with sufficient index) time series from 1994 and have undertaken XSA of the frequency to support the harvest control rule. Faroese GSS management unit for the past 3 years There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. Discarding is prohibited for all species in all Faroese fisheries; the Y small quantities of GSS taken in other fisheries are recorded, reported and included in stock assessments. 100 A comprehensive range of information (on stock structure, stock There are insufficient data at present to support the proposition that WKDEEP 2010; productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, fishery removals and the Faroese management unit is an independent stock but a Ofstad & other information such as environmental information), including some N comprehensive range of information is available covering the other Steingrund 2011, that may not be directly relevant to the current harvest strategy, is aspects, including the effects of environmental variation on FI & client available. recruitment.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 115 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT All information required by the harvest control rule is monitored with The answer is “yes” with respect to every particular except that the high frequency and a high degree of certainty, and there is a good N reality of a Faroese management unit as an independent stock is far understanding of the inherent uncertainties in the information [data] from certain. and the robustness of assessment and management to this uncertainty.
Principle 1 A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery. 1.2 Component Management Summary Score 1.2.4 PI: Assessment of stock status There is an adequate assessment of the stock status 80 SG Scoring Issue Met Y/N Comments Ref 60 The assessment estimates stock status relative to reference points. RBF for 1.1.1 - automatic
The major sources of uncertainty are identified.
80 The assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule, and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points. The assessment takes uncertainty into account.
The stock assessment is subject to peer review.
100 The assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule and takes into account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the fishery. The assessment takes into account uncertainty and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. The assessment has been internally and externally peer reviewed.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 116 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Principle 2 Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends. 2.1 Component Retained species Summary Score 2.1.1 PI: Outcome Status The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained 80 species. SG Scoring Issue Met Y/N Comments Ref 60 Main retained species are likely to be within biologically based limits Y The principle retained species are saithe (c. 20 t pa) and redfish (c. See text report; or if outside the limits there are measures in place that are expected to 71 t pa). The Faroese saithe stock is currently judged by ICES to be statistics supplied ensure that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding of the above MSY trigger. The dominant redfish species taken is golden by the Ministry of depleted species. redfish (Sebastes marinus) and the recent trend in biomass is Fisheries positive. In both instances, catches are trivial with respect to total catches in directed fisheries and fall below MSC criteria for ‘main retained species’. If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place Y The status of other retained species is less certain [black scabbard (< that are expected to result in the fishery not causing the retained 5t.); blue ling (< 0,1t); halibut (< 0,5t); ling (<0,5t); pollock (c.0,5t); species to be outside biologically based limits or hindering recovery. porbeagle shark (c. 0,5t)] but in every instance the total annual catch is trivial, particularly so where there are directed fisheries for the species. Thus, the directed GSS fishery is a clean fishery that does not pose a threat to the status of any retained species’ stocks. 80 Main retained species are highly likely to be within biologically based Y In fisheries such as this, clean catches always attract a higher price limits, or if outside the limits there is a partial strategy of demonstrably than mixed catches. Thus, the strategy is to avoid other species and effective management measures in place such that the fishery does not the total annual catch levels (above) indicate that this is an effective hinder recovery and rebuilding. strategy. 100 There is a high degree of certainty that retained species are within N Only the saithe stock can be viewed with a high degree of certainty; biologically based limits. other stocks are subject to varying degrees of uncertainty Target reference points are defined and retained species are at or N Target reference points are defined for saithe and it is currently fluctuating around their target reference points. above the minimum acceptable (precautionary) level. The status of other stocks is either uncertain or unknown.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 117 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Principle 2 Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends. 2.1 Component Retained species Summary Score 2.1.2 PI: Management strategy There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or 95 irreversible harm to retained species. SG Scoring Issue Met Y/N Comments Ref 60 There are measures in place, if necessary, that are expected to maintain the Y As higher prices are paid for clean catches, the principal measure is See text report; main retained species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically to avoid capture of non-target species. The typical annual catch of statistics supplied based limits, or to ensure the fishery does not hinder their recovery and non-target species in this fishery (see 2.1.1 above) indicates this by the Ministry of rebuilding. approach is effective and that the fishery will not impinge on the Fisheries management of the respective stocks. The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (eg, Y The typical annual catch of non-target species in this fishery (see general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species). 2.1.1 above) indicates that the fishery will not impinge on the management of the respective stocks. 80 There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary that is expected to maintain the Y As higher prices are paid for clean catches, the principal measure is main retained species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically to avoid capture of non-target species. The typical annual catch of based limits, or to ensure the fishery does not hinder their recovery and non-target species in this fishery (see 2.1.1 above) indicates this rebuilding. approach is effective and that the fishery will not impinge on the management of the respective stocks. There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, Y To varying degrees, there are targeted fisheries elsewhere with based on some information directly about the fishery and/or species involved. significantly higher total landings than are recorded for each of the non-target species in this fishery. It is reasonable to infer, therefore, that this fishery will not have a significant (measurable) effect on stock status. There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented Y The typical annual catch of non-target species in this fishery (see successfully. 2.1.1 above) indicates that the fishery will not impinge on the management of the respective stocks. 100 There is a strategy in place for managing retained species. Y The strategy is to avoid aggregations of non-target species 9e.g. saithe and redfish) and to concentrate effort where clean catches of GSS are most likely to be taken.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 118 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT The strategy is mainly based on information directly about the fishery and/or Y species involved, and testing supports high confidence that the strategy will work. There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully, Y and intended changes are occurring. There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective. Y
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 119 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Principle 2 Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends. 2.1 Component Retained species Summary Score 2.1.3 PI: Information and Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of 100 monitoring the strategy to manage retained species. SG Scoring Issue Met Y/N Comments Ref 60 Qualitative information is available on the amount of main retained species Y All fish caught are retained and recorded, either onboard or during See text report; taken by the fishery. processing ashore. statistics supplied by the Ministry of Information is adequate to qualitatively assess outcome status with respect to Y The quantities caught are trivial with respect to targeted fisheries. biologically based limits. Fisheries Information is adequate to support measures to manage main retained species. Y All species are recorded and, where appropriate, count against a vessel quota for that species. 80 Qualitative information and some quantitative information are available on the Y All fish caught are retained and quantities recorded, either onboard amount of main retained species taken by the fishery. or during processing ashore. Information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically Y The quantities of each species caught s recorded, counted against based limits. quota and contributed to stock assessments. The quantities of non- target species caught are trivial with respect to targeted fisheries. Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main retained Y The data recording and assessment procedures are adequate to support species. a strategy to manage main retained species (but non of the retained species meets the threshold level for MSC ‘main retained species’). Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level (e.g. Y Data collection is consistent, routine and ongoing and fully meets due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery this requirement. or the effectiveness of the strategy). 100 Accurate and verifiable information is available on the catch of all retained Y All fish caught are retained and quantities recorded, either onboard species and the consequences for the status of affected populations. or during processing ashore. Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status with a high Y The quantities of each species caught is recorded and counted degree of certainty. against quota. All these data are forwarded to NEAFC and ICES for inclusion in international (ICES) stock assessments and management plans. The quantities of non-target species caught are trivial with respect to their respective targeted fisheries.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 120 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT Information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage Y The data recording and assessment procedures are adequate to support retained species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the a strategy to manage retained species. Even if all the retained species were strategy is achieving its objective. subject to ‘zero-TAC’ management, it is probable that the small catches taken in this fishery would fall below typical levels of ‘permitted bycatch’. Monitoring of retained species is conducted in sufficient detail to assess Y All fish caught are retained and quantities recorded, either onboard ongoing mortalities to all retained species. or during processing ashore. Such data are submitted to the appropriate international assessment, management and control agencies.
Principle 2 Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends. 2.2 Component By-catch Summary Score 2.2. 1 PI: Outcome status The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the by-catch species or species groups and does not hinder recovery 100 of depleted by-catch species or species groups. SG Scoring Issue Met Y/N Comments Ref 60 Main by-catch species are likely to be within biologically based limits, There is no by-catch in Faroese fisheries. All fish species are National legislation or if outside such limits there are mitigation measures in place that are retained, recorded and landed. i.e. all fish are classified “retained” - 28 from expected to ensure that the fishery does not hinder recovery and Notionally, non-commercial by-catch might include sponges or other 10.03.1994 Y rebuilding. benthic biota but the lightweight trawls are rigged to skim clear of the seabed. Any significant contact would most probably result in trawl damage rather than retaining by-catch. If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place The gear is fished to avoid interactions with seabed biota. that are expected to result in the fishery not causing the by-catch Y species to be outside biologically based limits or hindering recovery. 80 Main by-catch species are highly likely to be within biologically based There are no main by-catch species; there are measures in place to limits or if outside such limits there is a partial strategy of safeguard significant seabed communities and thereby ensure their Y demonstrably effective mitigation measures in place such that the long-term well being. The rig and deployment of the gear minimise, fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. if not eliminate any risk to seabed biota and communities. 100 There is a high degree of certainty that by-catch species are within There are no main by-catch species; there are measures in place to biologically based limits. safeguard significant seabed communities and thereby ensure their long-term well being. The rig and deployment of the gear minimise, Y if not eliminate any risk to seabed biota and communities. Seabed habitat surveys provide evidence that the conservation objectives are being met.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 121 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Principle 2 Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends. 2.2 Component By-catch Summary Score 2.2.2 PI: Management strategy There is a strategy in place for managing by-catch that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible 95 harm to by-catch populations. SG Scoring Issue Met Y/N Comments Ref 60 There are measures in place, if necessary, which are expected to maintain main There is no by-catch in Faroese fisheries. All fish species are National legislation by-catch species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically retained, recorded and landed. i.e. all fish are classified “retained” - 28 from based limits or to ensure that the fishery does not hinder their recovery. Notionally, non-commercial by-catch might include sponges or other 10.03.1994 Y benthic biota but the lightweight trawls are rigged to skim clear of the seabed. Any significant contact would most probably result in trawl damage rather than retaining by-catch. There are some closed areas to protect seabed biota. The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g The gear is fished to avoid interactions with seabed biota and closed Y general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species). areas ensure degree of long-term protection. 80 There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, for managing by-catch that is The strategy is to minimise if not avoid seabed contact with the expected to maintain main by-catch species at levels which are highly likely to Y fishing gear and enforce closed areas where applicable. be within biologically based limits or to ensure that the fishery does not hinder their recovery. There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, Significant seabed contact is likely to result in expensive and time- based on some information directly about the fishery and/or the species Y consuming repairs; closed areas have proven utility. involved. There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented Government fishery and nature conservation agencies are satisfied Y successfully. that the fishery is being conducted in a satisfactory manner. 100 There is a strategy in place for managing and minimising by-catch. The strategy is to rig the gear in a way that minimises seabed contact Y or interaction with seabed biota and to avoid known areas of sponge and coral communities. The strategy is mainly based on information directly about the fishery and/or The implementation of this policy minimises adverse cost (gear species involved, and testing supports high confidence that the strategy will damage, loss of time) to the skippers and this simple imperative Y work. provides high confidence that the strategy will work. Information is limited to that provided by participants, hence reduced score.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 122 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully, Seabed habitat surveys provide evidence that the conservation and intended changes are occurring. There is some evidence that the strategy is objectives are being met. Government fishery and nature Y achieving its objective. conservation agencies are satisfied that the fishery is being conducted in a satisfactory manner.
Principle 2 Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends. 2.2 Component By-catch Summary Score 2.2.3 PI: Information and Information on the nature and amount of by-catch is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the 90 monitoring strategy to manage by-catch. SG Scoring Issue Met Y/N Comments Ref 60 Qualitative information is available on the amount of main by-catch There is no by-catch in Faroese fisheries. All fish species are National legislation species affected by the fishery. retained, recorded and landed. i.e. all fish are classified “retained” - 28 from Notionally, non-commercial by-catch might include sponges or other 10.03.1994 Y benthic biota but the lightweight trawls are rigged to skim clear of the seabed. Any significant contact would most probably result in trawl damage rather than retaining by-catch. Thus, by-catch ≈ zero. Information is adequate to broadly understand outcome status with The avoidance of significant seabed interactions safeguards the long- Y respect to biologically based limits. term well being of seabed biota. Information is adequate to support measures to manage by-catch. Maintaining minimal gear damage is equivalent to managing the by- Y catch. 80 Qualitative information and some quantitative information are By-catch ≈ zero available on the amount of main by-catch species affected by the Y fishery. Information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to By-catch ≈ zero; maintaining minimal gear damage ensures positive Y biologically based limits. status of seabed communities and biota are maintained Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main The avoidance of significant seabed interactions safeguards the long- Y by-catch species. term well being of seabed biota. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to The BIOFAR programme and similar projects monitor seabed main by-catch species (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator Y communities and biota to assess whether or not additional scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the management measures are necessary. strategy). Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 123 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT 100 Accurate and verifiable information is available on the amount of all By-catch ≈ zero, which is equivalent to zero effect on seabed Y by-catch and the consequences for the status of affected populations. communities but there are no explicit data, hence reduced score. Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status with It is not apparent that anyone has ever made a quantitative respect to biologically based limits with a high degree of certainty. assessment of either seabed sponge or cold-water coral communities Y but both are subject to monitoring and safeguards are in place where deemed appropriate. The Faroese agencies are satisfied that this particular fishery does not pose cause for concern.
Information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage There is a comprehensive strategy in terms of maintaining a modus by-catch, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the Y operandi that minimises seabed interaction, ongoing habitat strategy is achieving its objective. monitoring and closing sensitive areas. Monitoring of by-catch data is conducted in sufficient detail to assess By-catch ≈ zero, which is equivalent to zero effect on seabed Y ongoing mortalities to all by-catch species. communities but there are no explicit data, hence reduced score.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 124 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Principle 2 Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends. 2.3 Component ETP species Summary Score 2.3.1 PI: Outcome The fishery meets national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. 80 Status The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species. SG Scoring Issue Met Y/N Comments Ref 60 Known effects of the fishery are likely to be within limits of national Y The sea mammal unit in the department of Zoology at the National NAMMCO 2010; and international requirements for protection of ETP species. Museum of Natural History maintains contact with the fishing WGMME 2011 industry to gather information. It is satisfied that there is no specific cause for concern. SGBYC 2011 Known direct effects are unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to Y As there are no known interactions with ETP species of any Interviews: ETP species. significance, the fishery is unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to Jørmund Olsen, ETP species. skipper 80 The effects of the fishery are known and are highly likely to be within Y Monitoring of fisheries and ETP species by the appropriate Faroese Museum of Natural limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP agencies, and participation in the corresponding international History: Bjarni species. commissions and working groups indicates that the effects of the Mikkelsen (Marine fishery are known and are highly likely to be within limits of mammals) national and international requirements for protection of ETP species Havstovan: Bergur Direct effects are highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to Y Monitoring of the fishery and ETP species by the appropriate Olsen (Birds) ETP species. Faroese agencies indicates that effects, if any, are highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species. Indirect effects have been considered and are thought to be unlikely to Y The target species is too deep for the fishery to pose competition create unacceptable impacts. with bird populations and the sea mammal unit in the department of Zoology at the National Museum of Natural History has not identified any cause for concern with respect to mammals.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 125 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT 100 There is a high degree of certainty that the effects of the fishery are N The sea mammal unit in the department of Zoology at the National within limits of national and international requirements for protection Museum of Natural History maintains contact with the fishing of ETP species. industry to gather information and participate fully within NAMMCO to assess the status of North Atlantic Marine Mammal populations and interactions with fisheries. No evidence has come to light that any trawl fishery in Faroese waters has a negative interaction with marine mammal populations. Similarly, the Havstovan scientist responsible for monitoring bird populations participates in ICES working groups (WGSE). Such bird mortalities a occur in this fishery (60-120 gannets pr. year) are trivial compared to the numbers taken in the annual seabird hunt. Currently, there is no statutory requirement for skippers to record interactions with or capture of marine mammals or birds but this will change with the introduction of electronic log books. There is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant N There is a high degree of certainty that the effects of the fishery are detrimental effects (direct and indirect) of the fishery on ETP species. within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species but there is no documentary evidence to support such a conclusion.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 126 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Principle 2 Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends. 2.3 Component ETP species Summary Score 2.3.2 PI: Management strategy The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: 90 - meet national and international requirements; - ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species; - ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and - minimise mortality of ETP species. SG Scoring Issue Met Y/N Comments Ref 60 There are measures in place that minimise mortality, and are expected Y The effective measures are actively to avoid direct interactions with NAMMCO 2010; to be highly likely to achieve national and international requirements ETP species, as required by international conventions. WGMME 2011 for the protection of ETP species. The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible Y The minimal to non-existent interactions between this fishery and SGBYC 2011 argument (eg general experience, theory or comparison with similar ETP species indicates that the measures are likely to work now and Interviews: fisheries/species). in the future. Jørmund Olsen, 80 There is a strategy in place for managing the fishery’s impact on ETP Y The strategy is to avoid direct interactions with ETP species, as skipper species, including measures to minimise mortality, that is designed to required by international conventions. be highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for Museum of Natural the protection of ETP species. History: Bjarni There is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, Y Discussion with the staff of the Faroese sea mammal and bird Mikkelsen (Marine based on some information directly about the fishery and/or the species research groups, who participate in appropriate NAMMCO and mammals) involved. ICES working groups, is that the strategy is effective and that the Havstovan: Bergur minimal interactions that might occur do not give cause for concern. Olsen (Birds) There is evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. Y The confidence of the Faroese marine mammal and bird scientists, reinforced by the lack of explicit concern expressed in NAMMCO or ICES reports is implicit evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. 100 There is a comprehensive strategy in place for managing the fishery’s Y Faroese fishery and conservation agencies monitor the fishery and impact on ETP species, including measures to minimise mortality, that bird and mammal populations. Hitherto, no adverse interactions have is designed to achieve above national and international requirements been identified; consequently, the ‘comprehensive strategy’ is for the protection of ETP species. informal rather than specifically defined (hence reduced score) and is to maintain the status quo. i.e. Vessels will continue to avoid interactions with ETP species.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 127 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT The strategy is mainly based on information directly about the fishery Y The strategy is to avoid direct interactions with ETP species, as and/or species involved, and a quantitative analysis supports high required by international conventions. National agencies monitor the confidence that the strategy will work. fishery and ETP species and are satisfied that this strategy is effective. Their assessment is quantitative in the sense that near, if not actual, zero interactions provide quantitative evidence that the strategy is working. This view is supported by the absence of adverse references to the fishery in either NAMMCO or ICES reports. There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented N Such evidence as there is circumstantial and implicit rather than successfully, and intended changes are occurring. There is evidence documented and explicit. that the strategy is achieving its objective.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 128 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Principle 2 Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends. 2.3 Component ETP species Summary Score 2.3.3 PI: Information and Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, including: 90 monitoring - information for the development of the management strategy; - information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and - information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. SG Scoring Issue Met Y/N Comments Ref 60 Information is adequate to broadly understand the impact of the fishery Y Monitoring of the fishery and ETP species is adequate to broadly NAMMCO 2010; on ETP species. understand the impact of the fishery on ETP species. WGMME 2011 SGBYC 2011 Information is adequate to support measures to manage the impacts on Y Monitoring of the fishery and ETP species is adequate to support Interviews: ETP species measures to manage the impacts on ETP species Jørmund Olsen, Information is sufficient to qualitatively estimate the fishery related Y Monitoring of the fishery and ETP species is sufficient to skipper mortality of ETP species. qualitatively estimate the fishery related mortality of ETP species. Museum of Natural 80 Information is sufficient to determine whether the fishery may be a Monitoring of the fishery and ETP species is sufficient to determine History: Bjarni threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species, and if so, to that the fishery poses no known threat to protection and recovery of Mikkelsen (Marine measure trends and support a full strategy to manage impacts. Y any ETP species. The Faroese mammal and bird monitoring mammals) programmes do monitor trends and are able support a full strategy to Havstovan: Bergur manage impacts. Olsen (Birds) Sufficient data are available to allow fishery related mortality and the Monitoring of the fishery and ETP species to allow fishery related impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated for ETP species mortality and the impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated for Y ETP species. Hitherto, all data available indicate that interactions are near zero. 100 Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status with Available data and indicators support the probability that the ETP a high degree of certainty. catch is virtually zero and the quantitative estimate of the fisheries Y effects on these populations is negligible. This view is supported by the absence of any specific references to this fishery in either NAMMCO or ICES reports.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 129 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT Information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage The strategy is to maintain the status quo and ensure that there are no impacts, minimize mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate avoidable interactions with ETP species. On the baiss of data and with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its Y evidence available to date, all indications are that this is an effective objectives. strategy to safeguard these species. However, this strategy is implicit rather than explicit, hence the reduced score. Accurate and verifiable information is available on the magnitude of The strategy of the industry, with the support of the appropriate all impacts, mortalities and injuries and the consequences for the status national authorities is to maintain establish practice. Currently there of ETP species. is no statutory requirement for skippers to record any interactions N with marine mammals or seabirds, hence reduced score. Once e- logbooks are introduced, there will be a statutory requirement to record “zero” interactions as well as recording any mortalities.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 130 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Principle 2 Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends. 2.4 Component Habitat Summary Score 2.4.1 PI: Outcome Status The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and 95 function. SG Scoring Issue Met Y/N Comments Ref 60 The fishery is unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a Although the GSS fishing gear is defined as demersal fishing gear it Tendal etal 2005; point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. is rigged and fished to avoid seabed contact. Any such contact can Y Jørmund Olsen, result in significant damage to the fishing gear with consequential skipper costs and loss of fishing time. 80 The fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function Although the GSS fishing gear is defined as demersal fishing gear it to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. is rigged and fished to avoid seabed contact. Any such contact can Y result in significant damage to the fishing gear with consequential costs and loss of fishing time. Consequently this fishery does not have any interaction with seabed habitats. 100 There is evidence that the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat The two critical habitats vulnerable to demersal fishing gear are cold structure and function to a point where there would be serious or water coral reefs (not only, but particularly Lophelia pertusa), which irreversible harm. are distributed at similar depths to the GSS fishery, and widespread sponge communities. Either of these habitats would cause significant (costly) damage to the gear (coral by tearing and the Y deadweight of sponges crushing the catch and bursting the trawl); consequently, skippers do all that they can to avoid seabed contact and it is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Nevertheless, ‘evidence’ is indirect and circumstantial, hence reduced score.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 131 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Principle 2 Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends. 2.4 Component Habitat Summary Score 2.4.2 PI: Management strategy There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types. 95 SG Scoring Issue Met Y/N Comments Ref 60 There are measures in place, if necessary, that are expected to achieve The strategy is to avoid seabed contact; such contact can prove very Interview: Client, Y the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance. expensive in lost time and damage to gear. FI, Havstovan. The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible The commercial imperative of minimising financial risks mean the argument (e.g general experience, theory or comparison with similar Y argument to support this strategy is highly plausible. fisheries/habitats). 80 There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that is expected to The fishing gear is rigged and fished to avoid any seabed contact. achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above. Y Compared to any standard model of demersal trawl the gear is very light and readily damaged if it comes into contact with the seabed. There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy .As seabed contact results in significant damage to the gear and will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or consequential costs the fishery would become uneconomic if the Y habitats involved. strategy were not effective. Thus the strategy has been tried and tested by “trial and error” fishing practice. There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented If the strategy were no effective, the fishermen would either redesign successfully. their trawls, fish even higher in the water column or abandon the Y fishery altogether. They continue to fish with the preferred gear because practice shows that the strategy is effective. 100 There is a strategy in place for managing the impact of the fishery on The strategy is to monitor the fishery, including the type and rig of habitat types. gear used and to ensure that it continues to be conducted with Y lightweight semi-pelagic, bottom skimming trials that avoid bottom contact.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 132 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT The strategy is mainly based on information directly about the fishery In addition to monitoring the fishery, methods and gear, seabed and/or habitats involved, and testing supports high confidence that the habitats are monitored and mapped as (e.g.) part of the BIOFAR Y strategy will work. programme. This work has not identified any habitat concerns with respect to the GSS fishery. There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented There is ‘clear evidence’ but it is all derived by inference from the successfully, and intended changes are occurring. There is some Y established fishing practice, hence the reduced score. evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 133 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Principle 2 Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends. 2.4 Component Habitat Summary Score 2.4.3 PI: Information and Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage 95 monitoring impacts on habitat types. SG Scoring Issue Met Y/N Comments Ref 60 There is a basic understanding of the types and distribution of main Y The BIOFAR programme has developed very detailed maps of Jàkupsstovu 2010 habitats in the area of the fishery. seabed habitats. Information is adequate to broadly understand the main impacts of gear Y The BIOFAR programme is able to identify where fishing has had use on the main habitats, including spatial extent of interaction an effect on the seabed and seabed habitats. 80 The nature, distribution and vulnerability of all main habitat types in Y The BIOFAR programme has developed very detailed maps of the fishery area are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and seabed habitats across all the principal fishing grounds in Faroese intensity of the fishery. waters. Sufficient data are available to allow the nature of the impacts of the Y The BIOFAR programme identified where fishing has had an effect fishery on habitat types to be identified and there is reliable on the seabed and seabed habitats; closed areas have been information on the spatial extent, timing and location of use of the established to protect habitats and communities in critical areas. fishing gear. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to Y The distribution and intensity of fishing activity is monitored in habitat (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the quasi real time; habitat monitoring is ongoing; there is provision for operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). introducing new protection measures if needed. 100 The distribution of habitat types is known over their range, with Y The BIOFAR programme has developed very detailed maps of particular attention to the occurrence of vulnerable habitat types. seabed habitats across all the principal fishing grounds in Faroese waters. Critically sensitive habitats are protected by closed areas Changes in habitat distributions over time are measured. Y There has been limited work carried out which has found sponge Garcia etal 2007 abundance is reduced in areas of sustained long term demersal trawling; but this fishery uses gear that fishes clear of the seabed. The physical impacts of the gear on the habitat types have been Y As the gear if fished clear of the seabed the quantified effect of the quantified fully. gear is zero.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 134 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Principle 2 Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends. 2.5 Component Eco-system Summary Score 2.5.1 PI: Outcome status The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem structure and function. 95 SG Scoring Issue Met Y/N Comments Ref 60 The fishery is unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying This is a clean, single-species fishery with no seabed contact. Thus, www.frs.fo ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a the fishery is unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying Y Gaard etal 2002; serious or irreversible harm. ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a Hansen 2011; serious or irreversible harm. Garcia etal 2007; 80 The fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying This is a clean, single-species fishery with no seabed contact. Thus, Lydersen etal 2006; ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a the fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying Lamhauge etal Y serious or irreversible harm. ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a 2008; Hansen etal serious or irreversible harm. 2010; Hàtùn etal 2007; Debes 2009; 100 There is evidence that the fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key Havstovan has a wide ranging research program that is aimed Eliasen 2004 elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where ultimately at developing an ecosystem model of the Faroe Plateau there would be a serious or irreversible harm. and Bank but this objective has not yet been attained. Nevertheless, they have established that fish stocks, including GSS, are highly responsive to environmental variables such as primary productivity and the strength of the sub polar gyre. As yet these studies have not identified any critical role that GSS may play in the overall stability of the Faroese marine ecosystem. The GSS preys upon a variety of Y planktonic species. In turn GSS are prey to larger species such as toothed and baleen whales. Thus, they have their part to play but there is no evidence that they are a keystone link within the system. It is highly unlikely therefore that the fishery at the current level will disrupt ecosystem structure or function and evidence of this is inferred (but not proven – hence reduced score) from the lack of any major ecosystem disruption since the fishery commenced in the early 1990’s.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 135 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Principle 2 Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends. 2.5 Component Eco-system Summary Score There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and 95 2.5.2 PI: Management strategy function. SG Scoring Issue Met Y/N Comments Ref 60 There are measures in place, if necessary, that take into account Design and use of the fishing gear ensures there are no adverse effects National legislation Y potential impacts of the fishery on key elements of the ecosystem. on the benthic ecosystem. - 28 from 10.03.1994 The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible Catch levels are set to a level that the client, taking advice from argument (eg, general experience, theory or comparison with similar Y Havstovan and official inspectors, believes to be consistent with long fisheries/ ecosystems). term sustainability. 80 There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that takes into Havstovan are maintaining a fishery and biological monitoring account available information and is expected to restrain impacts of program in support of annual stock assessment and review aimed at Y the fishery on the ecosystem so as to achieve the Ecosystem Outcome providing the client with advice on catch levels consistent with long 80 level of performance. term sustainability. The partial strategy is considered likely to work, based on plausible Havstovan’s approach is consistent with the approach generally argument (eg, general experience, theory or comparison with similar adopted by ICES with respect to most (if not all) fishery and stock fisheries/ ecosystems). Y assessments in the North East Atlantic. The most recent Havstovan assessments provide some evidence that this approach has been successful hitherto. There is some evidence that the measures comprising the partial The Faroese enforcement agencies are satisfied that there is a high strategy are being implemented successfully. Y degree of compliance within the fishery and Hastovan is satisfied with the relevant ecosystem data are being collected to assess the strategy. 100 There is a strategy that consists of a plan, containing measures to It is implicit in the Havstovan long term objective of developing a address all main impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem, and at least Faroese ecosystem model that there is a “plan” to manage the fishery some of these measures are in place. The plan and measures are based Y and maintain the stock at levels consistent with the Faroese strategy on well-understood functional relationships between the fishery and for rational utilization of all their marine resources. the Components and elements of the ecosystem. This plan provides for development of a full strategy that restrains The plan has yet been set out in explicit detail (hence reduced score) impacts on the ecosystem to ensure the fishery does not cause serious Y but the overall strategy for rational utilization and ecosystem or irreversible harm. protection is underpinned by national legislation.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 136 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT The measures are considered likely to work based on prior Prior experience from Faroese waters and elsewhere in the north experience, plausible argument or information directly from the Y Atlantic suggests that this is a plausible and acceptable approach to fishery/ecosystems involved. fishery-ecosystem management There is evidence that the measures are being implemented There is evidence that some fish stocks are currently not as robust as successfully. Y they might be (hence reduced score) but there is no evidence that the Faroese Marine ecosystem as a whole is unduly stressed or suffering.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 137 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Principle 2 Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends. 2.5 Component Eco-system Summary Score 2.5.3 PI: Information and There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem. 85 monitoring SG Scoring Issue Met Y/N Comments Ref 60 Information is adequate to identify the key elements of the ecosystem Y The long-established and long-term research programmes have built a www.frs.fo (e.g. trophic structure and function, community composition, database that ensures that the key elements of the ecosystem are Gaard etal 2002; productivity pattern and biodiversity). identified. Hansen 2011; Main impacts of the fishery on these key ecosystem elements can be Y Direct fishery interactions are reasonably well understood and inferred from existing information, but have not been investigated in indirect effects can be inferred. Garcia etal 2007; detail. Lydersen etal 80 Information is adequate to broadly understand the functions of the key Y The long-established and long-term research programmes have built a 2006; elements of the ecosystem. database that ensures that the key elements of the ecosystem are identified and broadly understood. Lamhauge etal 2008; Hansen etal Main impacts of the fishery on these key ecosystem elements can be Y Direct fishery interactions are reasonably well understood and 2010; Hàtùn etal inferred from existing information, but may not have been indirect effects can be inferred, often from direct experience or 2007; Debes 2009; investigated in detail. comparison with similar areas elsewhere. Eliasen 2004 The main functions of the Components (i.e. target, Bycatch, Retained Y The long-established and long-term research programmes have built a and ETP species and Habitats) in the ecosystem are known. database that ensures that the main functions of the components in the ecosystem are known. Sufficient information is available on the impacts of the fishery on Y The long-established and long-term research programmes have built a these Components to allow some of the main consequences for the database that ensures that interactions with fish, bird and mammal ecosystem to be inferred. components can be inferred. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk Y The long-established and long-term research programmes are ongoing level (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the and maintain databases appropriate for monitoring the status of key operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures) components in the ecosystem (fish, birds, mammals).
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 138 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT 100 Information is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the Y The individual components of the Havstovan research and stock ecosystem. assessment programs all contribute to the institution’s long term aim of modelling the marine ecosystem. It has already been established that there are links between the strength of the sub-polar gyre, primary production, recruitment and productivity of fish stocks. It is understood implicitly, if not explicitly, that each of the fish stocks plays a role within the ecosystem and variations in abundance of stocks, such as GSS, can and quite probably do influence the status of both prey and predator populations Whilst not all these interactions have been investigated in detail, they are understood in principle. The research programs and associated monitoring of the marine environment, primary production, fish stocks, birds and marine mammals all contribute towards detecting any risk or adverse environmental effects. Main interactions between the fishery and these ecosystem elements N Ecosystem modelling is an ongoing development but has not yet can be inferred from existing information, and have been investigated. reached the stage where GSS feature explicitly in the models. The impacts of the fishery on target, Bycatch, Retained and ETP N Notwithstanding the total research effort, data collection and analysis species and Habitats are identified and the main functions of these it would be an act of hubris to suggest we understand ecosystems Components in the ecosystem are understood. sufficient to manage them. Sufficient information is available on the impacts of the fishery on the N If one accept that GSS play an ecosystem role in deepwater not Components and elements to allow the main consequences for the dissimilar to pelagic species higher in the water column, then it is ecosystem to be inferred. possible to infer a great deal from the worldwide ecosystem modelling that has examined pelagic stocks and their fisheries. Information is sufficient to support the development of strategies to N The long-established and long-term research programmes and their manage ecosystem impacts. associated databases are undoubtedly sufficient to support the development of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts, even if truly comprehensive strategies are some way off.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 139 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Principle 3 The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable. 3.1 Component Governance and policy Summary Score 3.1.1 PI: Legal and/or The management system exists within an appropriate and effective legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: 90 customary framework - Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2; - Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and - Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. SG Scoring Issue Met Y/N Comments Ref 60 The management system is generally consistent with local, national or Y Fishing is fundamental to Faroese culture and livelihoods that www.fishin.fo international laws or standards that are aimed at achieving sustainable aspects of fishery management and resource allocation have featured Faroese fisheries fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2. in national legislation for many decades, certainly pre-dating the law of 1994 with international management commissions, etc. Legislation has always supporting aimed to ensure the interests of individuals and local communities regulations; are safeguarded equally. The management system is generally consistent with MSC P1 & P2. vessel licences The management system incorporates or is subject by law to a Y Legislation includes transparent systems for identification, mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes arising within the consideration and resolution of any disputes. Although it is not yet system. been necessary to test the GSS fishery through these systems, other fisheries have been tested in the courts and the results found to be fair. Although the management authority or fishery may be subject to Y Hitherto, this fishery has not been subject to any legal challenge but continuing court challenges, it is not indicating a disrespect or defiance this and comparable national fisheries have demonstrated that the of the law by repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary management authority operates within the national legislative for the sustainability for the fishery. framework. The management system has a mechanism to generally respect the Y The national management framework is non-discriminatory and legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people respects the rights of all those engaged in the fishery in a manner dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with that is consistent with MSC P1 & P2. the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. 80 The management system incorporates or is subject by law to a Y The Faroese national management system is based on a framework transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes which is established in Faroese law that is recognised by all relevant and considered to be effective in dealing with most issues and that is interested parties and is accepted as being transparent and effective. appropriate to the context of the fishery.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 140 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT The management system or fishery is attempting to comply in a timely Y Although this fishery has not been subject to legal challenge, past fashion with binding judicial decisions arising from any legal examples affecting other national fisheries have demonstrated that challenges. the management system complies in a timely fashion with binding judicial decisions arising from any legal challenges. The management system has a mechanism to observe the legal rights Y There is a well -established legal procedure that enables any created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on participant in the fishery or other interested party to ensure that fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the managers observe legal rights consistent with MSC P1 & P2 objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2 100 The management system incorporates or is subject by law to a Y The Faroese national management system is based on a framework transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes that is established in Faroese law that is recognised by all relevant and appropriate to the context of the fishery and has been tested and proven interested parties and is accepted as being transparent and effective. to be effective. Although it is not yet been necessary to test the GSS fishery through these systems other Faroese fisheries have been tested in the courts and the results found to be fair. The management system or fishery acts proactively to avoid legal Y Faroe is a small country with short lines of communication between disputes or rapidly implements binding judicial decisions arising from its people and government institutions. Grass-root interests are legal challenges. closely involved in all aspects of management from the earliest stage which minimises risks of legal disputes. The management system has a mechanism to formally commit to the Y There is a well -established legislation and legal procedures that legal rights created explicitly or established by custom on people ensure managers observe legal rights and custom of interest parties dependent on fishing for food and livelihood in a manner consistent in national fisheries consistent with MSC P1 & P2. Internationally, with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. Faroe Islands participates in NEAFC negotiations for the management and allocation of fishery resources in the North East Atlantic. Hitherto it has been compliant with the convention and commissions decisions but currently it is in dispute with respect to the mackerel stock and quota allocations. (hence the reduced score.)
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 141 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Principle 3 The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable. 3.1 Component Governance and policy Summary Score 3.1.2 PI: Consultation, roles The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. 100 and responsibilities The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties. SG Scoring Issue Met Y/N Comments Ref 60 Organisations and individuals involved in the management process Y All roles and functions are fully understood – see below. - Site visit have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are generally interviews with understood. clients and The management system includes consultation processes that obtain Y There are both formal and informal consultation procedures in which Ministry relevant information from the main affected parties, including local all parties can participate – see below National legislation knowledge, to inform the management system. - 28 from 80 Organisations and individuals involved in the management process Y All roles and functions are fully understood – see below. 10.03.1994 have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for key areas of responsibility and interaction. The management system includes consultation processes that regularly Y There are both formal and informal consultation procedures in which seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge. The all parties can participate – see below management system demonstrates consideration of the information obtained. The consultation process provides opportunity for all interested and Y affected parties to be involved.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 142 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT 100 Organisations and individuals involved in the management process Y The legal framework defines explicitly the role of organisations and have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly individuals in the management process. defined and well understood for all areas of responsibility and The FO management system covers the entire fishery and those interaction. participating in it at an appropriate scale and intensity.
The Fishery Ministry (Fiskimálaráðið) is the ministry taking care of the legislation and governing the fisheries. The Fishery ministry is also taking care of all the international negotiations. Havstovan is responsible for advice on marine ecology, fish stocks, oceanography and aspects of marine climate. The Museum of Natural History is responsible for advising the ministry on marine mammals. The inspection belongs to the Ministry as a directorate. The ship-owners are organised in the Ship-owners Association (Føroya Reiðarafelag) Within Ship-owners Association the pair- trawlers in this assessment are organised in a subgroup “ Felagið trolskip”. The ship-owners association is responsible for the communication between the GSS-vessels to the Ministry. The management system includes consultation processes that regularly Y When new legislation is prepared for fishing management, the seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge. The consulting process allows the ship-owners and other stakeholders to management system demonstrates consideration of the information and influence new legislation. It is therefore possible to conclude that the explains how it is used or not used. management system regularly seeks and accepts relevant information, including local knowledge and explains to some extent how it is used or not used.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 143 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT The consultation process provides opportunity and encouragement for Y The consultation process provides an opportunity for all interested all interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their parties to affect new regulation and fishing management legislation. effective engagement. The consultation process is organized by the fishery Ministry and some through the initiative of the Shipowner’s Association. These roles are well understood and respected for all areas of responsibility and interaction. The management system in FO includes a comprehensive consultative process where stakeholders are invited to have their say regarding regulations and the regulatory approach. (Fiskivinnuráðið and Fiskidaganevndin)
Principle 3 The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable. 3.1 Component Governance and policy Summary Score 3.1.3 PI: Long term objectives The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making that are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, 90 and incorporates the precautionary approach. SG Scoring Issue Met Y/N Comments Ref 60 Long-term objectives to guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Y Nationally long term objectives are enshrined in legislation to National legislation Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach, are implicit ensure the rational and sustainable use of all marine resources - 28 from within management policy. in ‘Faroese waters. 10.03.1994 80 Clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with Y National objectives are underpinned by scientific advice provided by www.frs.fo MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach are Havstovan which not only makes individual stock assessments
explicit within management policy. consistent with MSC principles, etc. but has a long term objective to develop ecosystem management models 100 Clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with Y Consistent with national and Havstovan policy, Havstovan has Site visit MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach, are assessed the GSS fishery. On the basis of this assessment, it has interviews explicit within and required by management policy. provided management advice consistent with MSC principles, etc. Although this advice has been accepted both by the Ministry and the GSS shipowners, there are currently no legal constraints on the fishery (hence the reduced score) but the shipowners have agreed to cap catch levels in line with Havstovan advice.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 144 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Principle 3 The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable. 3.1 Component Governance and policy Summary Score 3.1.4 PI: Incentives for The management system provides economic and social incentives for sustainable fishing and does not operate with subsidies that 90 sustainable fishing contribute to unsustainable fishing. SG Scoring Issue Y/N Comments Ref 60 The management system provides for incentives that are consistent Y In common with most other fisheries in the north east Atlantic the National legislation with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2. principle social and economic incentive is to avoid the penalties - 28 from associated with non-compliance with the fishery management 10.03.1994 regime. 80 The management system provides for incentives that are consistent Y Incentives to engage in sustainable exploitation of the GSS stock with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2, include penalties for failing to comply with technical regulations and seeks to ensure that negative incentives do not arise. applied to the gear, failure to recognize and comply with seasonal and area closures, failure to retain and record non-target species. Any one failure in compliance can result in suspension of fishing licences, imposition of fines or both. These penalties are sufficiently severe to incentivise compliance with the regulations that are consistent with MSC principles 1& 2. 100 The management system provides for incentives that are consistent Y The management system regularly reviews it compliance–penalty with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2, performance and assesses the need for changes or improvements to and explicitly considers incentives in a regular review of management ensure that fishing practice or fisheries do not become unsustainable. policy or procedures to ensure that they do not contribute to While this has been and continues to be the case with respect to unsustainable fishing practices. national fisheries, the Faroes Islands are in default of their international agreement for exploiting NE Atlantic mackerel, hence the reduced score.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 145 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Principle 3 The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable. 3.2 Component Fishery- specific management system Summary Score 3.2.1 PI: Fishery-specific The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. 70 objectives SG Scoring Issue Met Y/N Comments Ref 60 Objectives, which are broadly consistent with achieving the outcomes Y The long term Faroese fishery management objective is for the National legislation expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are implicit within the rational and sustainable use of all marine resources. Such an - 28 from fishery’s management system. objective is entirely consistent with the MSC principles. 10.03.1994 80 Short and long term objectives, which are consistent with achieving the N Both the ship-owners and the Ministry have accepted the scientific Site visits. outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within advice from Havstovan for this fishery and this advice is consistent the fishery’s management system. with MSC principles 1 & 2. At the time of site visits and consultation, however, the advice is not formally adopted as there is no statutory effort limit, TAC or quota allocation (hence the reduced score). Currently catch limits are voluntary although the fishery inspectorate retains the option to close the fishery under the days at sea regulations if Havstovan /size inspections advice prompts such action. 100 Well defined and measurable short and long term objectives, which are N See justification for SG 80 above. demonstrably consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery’s management system.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 146 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Principle 3 The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable. 3.2 Component Fishery- specific management system Summary Score 3.2.2 PI: Decision-making The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to 90 processes achieve the objectives. SG Scoring Issue Met Y/N Comments Ref 60 There are informal decision-making processes that result in measures and Y The shipowners are actively in consultation with Havstovan and the Site visit strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. fishery inspectors to agree appropriate catch levels Decision-making processes respond to serious issues identified in relevant Y The current agreement on catch levels is based on dialogue between research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and shipowners, Havstovan and authorities on gathering, collating and adaptive manner and take some account of the wider implications of decisions. analysing data necessary for sustainable exploitation. 80 There are established decision-making processes that result in measures and Y Although the cap on current catch levels is voluntary there are strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. established procedures that enable the fishery Inspectorate to close the fishery at any time that seems necessary consistent with sustainable exploitation. Decision-making processes respond to serious and other important issues Y Hitherto there has not been any serious issue with respect to the GSS identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a fishery but in other Faroese fisheries there have been occasions when transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider managing measures have responded in a timely and transparent implications of decisions. manner to meet changes in circumstances of stock status. Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on Y The current voluntary catch levels are based on Havstovan best available information. assessment advice consistent with long term sustainability. Explanations are provided for any actions or lack of action associated with Y Hitherto there has not been any serious issue with respect to the GSS findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, fishery but in other Faroese fisheries there have been occasions when evaluation and review activity. managing measures have responded in a timely and transparent manner to meet changes in circumstances of stock status. 100 Decision-making processes respond to all issues identified in relevant research, Y Hitherto there has not been any serious issue with respect to the GSS monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive fishery but in other Faroese fisheries there have been occasions when manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. managing measures have responded in a timely and transparent manner to meet changes in circumstances of stock status.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 147 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT Formal reporting to all interested stakeholders describes how the management N As the current arrangements for the GSS fishery are primarily system responded to findings and relevant recommendations emerging from voluntary there are no formal reporting procedures other than those research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. relating to catches and other operational matters.
Principle 3 The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable. 3.2 Component Fishery- specific management system Summary Score 3.2.3 PI: Compliance and Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s management measures are enforced and complied with. 100 enforcement SG Scoring Issue Met Y/N Comments Ref 60 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms exist, are Y The Faroese fishery inspectorate maintains a comprehensive control Site visit – FI & implemented in the fishery under assessment and there is a reasonable and surveillance regime that is highly effective FM and client expectation that they are effective. www.fishin.fo Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and there is some Y Penalties include fines and suspension of licences but to date the evidence that they are applied. inspectorate has not found it necessary to apply such penalties to the GSS fishery. Fishers are generally thought to comply with the management system Y Both the ministry and the fishery inspectorate are satisfied that there for the fishery under assessment, including, when required, providing is a high degree of compliance in the GSS fishery. information of importance to the effective management of the fishery. 80 A monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented Y The fishery inspectorate maintains monitoring control and in the fishery under assessment and has demonstrated an ability to surveillance through sea patrols and boarding at sea, VMS, enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. monitoring of landings and cross checking with log books and unannounced auditing of vessel and marketing organizations’ accounts. Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are consistently applied Y Penalties include fines and suspension of licences but to date the and thought to provide effective deterrence. inspectorate has not found it necessary to apply such penalties to the GSS fishery but the industry is satisfied that such penalties are applied in an equitable and consistent manner. Some evidence exists to demonstrate fishers comply with the Y Inspections at sea, on landing, or at other times enable the fishery management system under assessment, including, when required, inspectorate to ensure that there is full and on-going compliance with providing information of importance to the effective management of the management system. the fishery.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 148 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance. Y The inspectorate is satisfied there is a high degree of compliance.
100 A comprehensive monitoring, control and surveillance system has been Y The Faroese monitoring system applies all the systems and implemented in the fishery under assessment and has demonstrated a technologies for control and surveillance that are accepted as the consistent ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies norm throughout the north Atlantic including: VMS, inspections at and/or rules. sea, log books (soon to be replaced by e-logbooks), monitoring of landings, etc. Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are consistently applied Y The sanctions available are sufficient to deter non-compliance, there and demonstrably provide effective deterrence. has been no example of sanctions being applied within the GSS fishery. There is a high degree of confidence that fishers comply with the Y The inspectorate is satisfied there is a high degree of compliance. A management system under assessment, including, providing very high proportion of the biological data underpinning the information of importance to the effective management of the fishery. assessment of the GSS in Faroese waters originates from commercial landings
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 149 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Principle 3 The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable. 3.2 Component Fishery- specific management system Summary Score 3.2.4 PI: Research plan The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of management. 100 SG Scoring Issue Met Y/N Comments Ref 60 Research is undertaken, as required, to achieve the objectives Y Havstovan collect, collate and analyse the data necessary for WGDEEP 2009, consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. assessing the Faroese GSS fishery consistent with MSC P1 & P2 2010, 2011 Research results are available to interested parties. Y Havstovan assessment has appeared in full on the corresponding WKDEEP 2010 ICES web page for the past 3 years. 80 A research plan provides the management system with a strategic Y GSS research has been part of Havstovan annual research program Ofstad & approach to research and reliable and timely information sufficient to for the past 15 years and a specific stock assessment plan was Steingrund 2011 achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. developed in consultation with ship-owners Research results are disseminated to all interested parties in a timely Y In addition to providing information to the ship owners the WGDEEP 2009, fashion. Havstovan assessment has appeared in full on the corresponding 2010, 2011 ICES web page for the past 3 years. WKDEEP 2010 100 A comprehensive research plan provides the management system with Y The GSS stock assessment is integrated with many other aspects of Site visit: a coherent and strategic approach to research across P1, P2 and P3, and the Havstovan research program (eg. Identifying the co-relation Havstovan reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives between GSS recruitment and the strength of the sub polar gyre) and consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. is part of the institute’s comprehensive research plan aimed at developing an ecosystem approach to marine environmental and fishery management. Research plan and results are disseminated to all interested parties in a Y All GSS research is summarized and made available annually, eg. timely fashion and are widely and publicly available. through the WGDEEP reports, and all Havstovan research publications are listed on the house website, many with pdf links.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 150 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Principle 3 The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable. 3.2 Component Fishery- specific management system Summary Score 3.2.5 PI: Monitoring and There is a system for monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its 95 management performance objectives. There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system. evaluation SG Scoring Issue Met Y/N Comments Ref 60 The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate some parts of the Y The Faroese GSS fishery is subject to annual review and discussion Site visit management system and is subject to occasional internal review. among ship owners, Havstovan and the ministry. 80 The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate key parts of the Y There are formal structures in place that enable the minister to seek management system and is subject to regular internal and occasional advice, both scientific and commercial, and to be given advice and external review. views of the industry with respect to changes in legislation or other matters which the industry consider relevant. 100 The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate all parts of the Y The formal structures that are in place ensure that there is regular management system and is subject to regular internal and external and routine evaluation of the Faroese management system within the review. Faroes. The stock assessment work is subject to external evaluation within ICES; at present WGDEEP is not prepared to support the proposition that GSS in Faroese waters constitutes a separate management unit. Other aspects of the management system may occasionally be discussed, eg. within NEAFC, but this does not constitute a formal external review. Occasionally the Minister may commission an external review of a specific fact of the management system but there is no formal mechanism that requires such action on a regular basis (hence the reduced score)
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 151 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
ENCLOSURE 7 SCORING TABLE.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 152 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
ENCLOSURE 8
Assessment of greater silver smelt in Faroese waters 2011.
Petur Steingrund and Lise H. Ofstad, Faroese Marine Research Institute
An assessment including the year 2010 was performed in order to check whether the perception of stock size and fishing mortality changed when an extra year was added to the data.
As already noted in the previous assessment (terminal year 2009), there was not much contrast in the cpue-data. This made it difficult to capture the level (niveau) of the stock size accurately, and levels of total stock size in the range from 100 thousand to 500 thousand tonnes were obtained when changing settings in the assessment. The final version was somewhat conservative at 100-200 thousand tonnes.
Including the terminal year 2010 apparently reduced these uncertainties, since the stock size, by using various settings in the XSA, “only” varied between 200 and > 300 thousand tonnes over the years from 1995 to 2010. The current assessment lifted stock size by around 100 thousand tonnes, compared to the previous assessment, i.e. from 100-200 thousand tonnes to 200-300 thousand tonnes. The estimates of fishing mortality were reduced from 0.04-0.16 (around the assumed natural mortality of 0.1) to 0.03-0.09 (below M). The fishing mortalities- at-age were quite noisy, which may be one reason why the Fbar has not increased since 2008, despite the decrease in the stock size. The XSA-model also fitted poorly the abundance of young fish (< 9 years old, Figure 1).
The modified yield-per-recruit plot showed that it is possible to increase the catch by increasing the fishing mortality. The Fmax is very poorly defined as the curve is quite flat, but the F0.1 was estimated at F=0.22, corresponding to a catch of 24200 tonnes (Figure 3). This is above the maximum catch of 20000 tonnes, which is adopted as an upper limit of catch by the Faroese fishing industry.
A point to be raised is the recruitment, which seems to have declined since 2007, see Figure 2. The catch-at-age matrix showed that few small fish have been caught since 2008. Since the catch-at-age matrix was used to compile the tuning series (converting kg per hour to numbers- at-age per hour), the current assessment acts as if the small fish were absent in the stock. However, the fishing fleet has recently (since around 2008) introduced a new fishing ground for greater silver smelt on the Wyville-Thompson ridge, where it is deeper than e.g. west of the Faroe Islands. Since small fish are normally found shallower than 350 m, i.e. other places than most commonly fished since 2008, the apparently declined recruitment since 2008 could be an artifact of a shift in fishing ground. According to the August groundfish survey for cod, haddock and saithe, where 200 fixed stations 60-520 m deep are occupied each year, there
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 153 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT seems to have been no abrupt decline in the abundance of small fish since 2008 (Figure 6). One way of resolving this issue is to rerun the XSA, but setting the catchability of the small fish (younger than 9 years) to dependent on stock size. The altered XSA run shows a more stable recruitment, but still a moderate decline in recruitment the last four years. This issue may be elaborated further in the future.
If more years are added to the assessment in the future, which show a stable cpue and a catch of around 20 thousand tonnes, it is expected that the percepted stock size (the level) will increase even further. This is because the stock size is nothing more than an added catch (adjusted by natural mortality) in the XSA model used. Hence, a potential decline in the future cpue may be more serious than the decline in recruitment observed in the XSA model output.
Assessment 1: Same settings, but with year 2010 added to the data
5
6 -0.68 0.22 -0.99 0.38 0.01 -1.09 -0.44 -1.48 3.34 1.59 2.53 -2.01 -2.00
7 0.65 0.35 -0.14 0.37 0.75 -3.50 -1.37 0.90 1.93 0.98 1.12 -0.20 -1.60
8 0.16 -0.05 0.22 0.41 0.67 -1.92 -1.11 0.25 0.34 0.57 0.49 -0.01 0.06
9 0.01 -0.06 -0.04 0.31 -0.01 -0.30 -0.07 -0.13 -0.09 0.14 0.35 -0.14 0.04 Age
10 0.10 0.06 0.19 0.24 -0.11 -0.02 0.48 0.10 0.04 -0.22 -0.31 -0.19 -0.14
11 -0.34 -0.11 -0.1 0.49 -0.15 0.39 0.7 0.1 -0.02 -0.21 -0.12 -0.25 -0.44
12 -0.3 0.14 0.09 0.15 -0.29 0.25 0.42 0.32 0.19 -0.18 0.07 -0.21 -0.11
13 -0.21 0.16 -0.07 -0.09 -0.07 0.13 0.14 -0.37 -0.45 -0.17 0.23 -0.09 0.12
14 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year Figure 1. Faroe greater silver smelt. Log q residuals (from as36.dat)
Table 1. Faroe greater silver smelt. Output from XSA (as36out.dat)
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 154 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT R un title : Argentina S ilus (IC E S Division Vb) AS _IND
At 26/08/2011 10:47
Table 16 S ummary (without SOP correction)
Terminal Fs derived using XS A (With F shrinkage) Age 4 R E C R TOTALBIO UITS TOTSPBIO LANDINGS YIELD/SSB FBAR 6-11 R ecruitmentTotal biomass Landings Fbar (6-11) 1995 100759 324809 254148 12286 0.0483 0.0306 1996 116212 235905 167747 9498 0.0566 0.0388 1997 113724 230199 160967 8433 0.0524 0.042 1998 99726 232531 153921 17570 0.1141 0.0884 1999 104485 192313 121964 8214 0.0673 0.0538 2000 132105 227961 140297 5209 0.0371 0.0305 2001 114890 221925 141480 10081 0.0713 0.0589 2002 143791 212784 133782 7471 0.0558 0.0454 2003 123325 242184 152879 6549 0.0428 0.0409 2004 125685 252243 161552 6451 0.0399 0.044 2005 145399 243757 150859 7009 0.0465 0.0466 2006 153499 281163 174143 12559 0.0721 0.0611 2007 120407 290221 177460 14093 0.0794 0.0719 2008 115470 276390 176334 19249 0.1092 0.0879 2009 94613 270350 178596 19740 0.1105 0.0724 2010 83394 253606 172312 19190 0.1114 0.0753
Arith. Mean 117968 249271 163653 11475 0.0697 0.0555 0 Units (Thousands) (Tonnes) (Tonnes) (Tonnes)
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 155 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
180000 160000 140000 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000
Recruitment Recruitment (age thousands) 4, 0
1995 1996 1997 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2010 1998 1999 2004 2009
350000
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
Total biomass Total Total biomass (tonnes) 50000 Mean
0
1995 1996 1997 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 2008 2010 1998 2000 2005 2007 2009
0.10
0.09 11) - 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 Fbar (6-11) Mean Fishingmortality (Fbar 6 0.01
0.00
1995 1996 1997 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 2008 2010 2000 2005 2007 2009 1998 Figure 2. Faroe greater silver smelt. Output from XSA (as36out.dat)
30000 300000 F0.1 = 4.3*Fbar = 0.22 25000 250000 Catch 20000 Biomass 200000
15000 150000
Catch (tonnes) Catch 10000 100000 Total biomass (tonnes) biomass Total 5000 50000
0 0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75 4.00 4.25 4.50 4.75 5.00 5.25 5.50 5.75 6.00 F multiplier Figure 3. Faroe greater silver smelt. A modified yield-per-recruit plot. The F0.1 catch is 24200 tonnes. NB: The selection pattern was taken from the years 1995-2003. The F-bar was calculated for the years 1996-2007, i.e., so that the XSA F-values were less influenced by recent uncertain estimates.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 156 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Assessment 2: Same as last year- with year 2010 and catchability independent at age 9.
5
6 -0.04 0.08 0.07 0.16 -0.05 -0.04 -0.18 -0.16 0.27 0.03 0.23 -0.15 -0.16
7 0.34 0.15 -0.03 0.24 0.36 -1.37 -0.50 0.24 0.72 0.31 0.34 -0.04 -0.57
8 0.20 0.02 0.13 0.24 0.46 -1.12 -0.70 0.15 0.13 0.33 0.23 -0.06 0.12
9 0.02 -0.07 -0.04 0.31 -0.02 -0.32 -0.09 -0.10 -0.07 0.17 0.36 -0.20 0.04 Age
10 0.11 0.06 0.19 0.24 -0.11 -0.03 0.47 0.08 0.07 -0.20 -0.28 -0.18 -0.21
11 -0.33 -0.1 -0.1 0.48 -0.15 0.39 0.68 0.08 -0.04 -0.18 -0.11 -0.22 -0.43
12 -0.29 0.15 0.09 0.15 -0.3 0.24 0.41 0.3 0.16 -0.21 0.1 -0.2 -0.09
13 -0.21 0.16 -0.07 -0.09 -0.07 0.12 0.13 -0.38 -0.47 -0.2 0.19 -0.06 0.13
14 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year Figure 4. Faroe greater silver smelt. Log q residuals (from as39.dat)
Table 2. Faroe greater silver smelt. Output from XSA (as39out.dat) R un title : Argentina S ilus (IC E S Division Vb) AS _IND
At 26/08/2011 13:44
Table 16 S ummary (without SOP correction)
Terminal Fs derived using XS A (With F shrinkage) Age 4 R E C R TOTALBIO UITS TOTSPBIO LANDINGS YIELD/SSB FBAR 6-11 R ecruitmentTotal biomass Landings Fbar (6-11) 1995 104014 332188 259567 12286 0.0473 0.0299 1996 119874 241835 171619 9498 0.0553 0.0379 1997 118075 236531 165026 8433 0.0511 0.0409 1998 103684 239623 158227 17570 0.111 0.0859 1999 108911 198899 125846 8214 0.0653 0.0521 2000 132478 235339 145065 5209 0.0359 0.0294 2001 116570 228868 146544 10081 0.0688 0.0566 2002 144163 219011 138752 7471 0.0538 0.0437 2003 125407 248994 158539 6549 0.0413 0.0392 2004 135385 260220 166982 6451 0.0386 0.0422 2005 149278 251263 155491 7009 0.0451 0.0451 2006 135484 285651 179450 12559 0.07 0.0596 2007 121524 293243 182060 14093 0.0774 0.0702 2008 120239 279428 180239 19249 0.1068 0.0866 2009 100466 272584 180366 19740 0.1094 0.071 2010 93349 258366 174097 19190 0.1102 0.0737
Arith. Mean 120556 255128 167992 11475 0.068 0.054 0 Units (Thousands) (Tonnes) (Tonnes) (Tonnes)
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 157 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
160000 140000 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000
Recruitment Recruitment (age thousands) 4, 0
1995 1996 1997 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2010 1998 1999 2004 2009
350000
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
Total biomass Total Total biomass (tonnes) 50000 Mean
0
1995 1996 1997 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 2008 2010 1998 2000 2005 2007 2009
0.10
0.09 11) - 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 Fbar (6-11) Mean Fishingmortality (Fbar 6 0.01
0.00
1995 1996 1997 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 2008 2010 2000 2005 2007 2009 1998 Figure 5. Faroe greater silver smelt. Output from XSA (as39out.dat)
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 158 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
10 20 30 40 50 10 20 30 40 50 1996 2004
3000 2000 1000 1997 2005
3000 2000 1000 1998 2006
3000 2000 1000 1999 2007 3000 2000 1000 2000 2008
Number 3000 2000 1000 2001 2009 3000 2000 1000 2002 2010 3000 2000 1000 2003 3000 2000 1000
10 20 30 40 50 Length (cm) Figure 6. Faroe greater silver smelt. Length distribution of greater silver smelt from summer survey for cod, haddock and saithe.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 159 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
ENCLOSURE 9: STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS TO PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT REPORT Submitted by Dan Hoggarth/ MSC Fisheries Oversight Director on 26 June 2012 on behalf of Marine Stewardship Council Ref Type Page Requirement Reference Details PI DNV response TO.484 Major 71 CR-V1.1- The CAB shall determine if the It is not clear if any Text changed to: There is no processing like 27.12.1.4 systems of tracking and tracing processing like heading, heading, gutting, mincing, etc. on board of in the fishery are sufficient to gutting, mincing… takes the vessel. Chilled, whole fish is delivered to make sure all fish and fish place on board of the the landing points. products identified and sold as vessel certified by the fishery originate from the certified fishery. The CAB shall consider the following points and their associated risk for the integrity of certified products: At-sea processing activities. TO.494 Guidance 71 CR-V1.2- The CAB shall determine if the It is not specified that there The client has confirmed that there is no 27.12.1.5 systems of tracking and tracing is or is no trans-shipment transshipment at sea activities involved in in the fishery are sufficient to taking place, and any risk/ Faroe Island silver smelt fisheries. By make sure all fish and fish risk mitigation if so. transshipment at sea we mean that Faroese products identified and sold as vessels do not transfer silver smelt catches certified by the fishery originate onto transport ships, while still at sea. All from the certified fishery. The catches are landed and go through the Port CAB shall consider the state control. following points and their associated risk for the integrity of certified products: Any trans- shipment activities taking place. TO.495 Guidance 71 CR-V1.2- The CAB shall determine if the The report does not list Only the three landing sites are and have 27.12.1.6 systems of tracking and tracing which other points of been used. Text changed to: The three in the fishery are sufficient to landing may be used to present points of landing make sure all fish and fish land instead of the 3 sites products identified and sold as listed as the "main" points, certified by the fishery originate under what conditions
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 160 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT from the certified fishery. The these other sites are used, CAB shall consider the and if there are any following points and their traceability concerns due associated risk for the integrity to this. of certified products: The number and/or location of points of landing. TO.499 Major CR-V1.1-CF1.2 Fisheries assessment reports The report has no name for Text added on page 8: The RBF was used shall conform with the template which team member has for the first time by this team but the Lead "MSC Full Assessment previous experience with Auditor/Team leader has had RBF training Reporting Template" found at RBF. Even though this at Marine Stewardship council in October http://www.msc.org/documents/ assessment is not subject 2010 & November 2011. schemedocuments. to the full reporting
template requirement, it should include items required within it that were previously required by the FCM. TO.500 Major GCR-V1.2- If the RBF is used to score PI No details are provided on STAKEHOLDER CONSULTANCY for CC3.1.2.1 1.1.1, the team shall: … the application of the SICA is described on page 51 and the Conduct both the SICA and SICA methodology in this PSA methodologies. fishery. Scoring against the SICA is also needed to apply e.g. requirement CC3.1.3. TO.501 Major 114 CR-V1.1- Rationale shall be presented to The rationale does not 1.2.2 Scoring comment table has been revised and 27.10.6.1 support the team's conclusion. support the score given. all scoring issues have rationales.scoring as For the first scoring issue well as participants is in enclosure 10. at SG60 the rationale does not stated how management acts to "reduce the exploitation rate as limit reference points are approached". TO.502 Major 114 CR-V1.1- The rationale shall make direct The rationales do not 1.2.2 Scoring comment table has been revised 27.10.6.2 reference to every scoring issue provides comments on with direct reference to each scoring issue. and whether or not it is fully individual scoring issues in met. this and other Pis Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 161 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT TO.504 Major 118 GCR-V1.2- If a team determines that a No rationale is provided 2.1.2 PI 2.1.1 & 2.1.3. Text included. CB3.3.2 fishery has impact on a for this PI or for PI2.1.3. particular component and has therefore scored 100 under the Outcome PI, the Management Strategy PI shall still be scored. TO.485 Major 72 CR-V1.2-27.6.1.2 Any date prior to the The target eligibility date The target eligibility date is changed to 22 certification of the fishery exceeds 6 months November 2011 up to a maximum of six months prior to the publication of the most recent Public Comment Draft Report. TO.486 Major 72 CR-V1.1-27.6.3 The CAB shall document the There is no rationale in the Text added: The main fishing season for this rationale for the target eligibility report to determine the fishery is from April to September but there date and include an assessment target eligibility date is fishing activity outside this period too. In regarding how the assessed risks 2011 silver smelt catches were landed as late to the traceability system in the as November. The target eligibility date is fishery are adequately addressed 22nd November 2011. by the applicant to give confidence in this date. TO.487 Guidance 71 CR-V1.1- Chain of custody certification It would be beneficial to In the case of these fisheries the landing sites 27.12.2.1a shall always be required further specify the point of maybe owned by the same company as the following a change of landing and to write that vessels; so though there is no change of ownership of the product to any COC is needed following ownership CoC would be required at point party not covered by the fishery change of ownership of landing. All 3 landing sites are already certificate. specified on page 72. Text on P 71changed to: The GSS caught by the client fleet will be able to enter Chain of Custody at any of the 3 points of landing in the Faroe Islands.
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 162 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
ENCLOSURE 10: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTANCY RBF
SICA SCORING TABLE
Faroe Island Silver Smelt Fishery Table B1.1. Principle 1 SICA Scoring Template (Target Species). Only one subcomponent representing the worst plausible case is selected and scored. Performance Indicator Risk-causing activities Spatial scale of activity Temporal scale of activity Intensity of activity Relevant subcomponents Consequence score MSC Score Target species outcome Fishing activities from Population size all fisheries including: 3 - Direct capture 4 4 2
- Unobserved mortality Reproductive capacity (e.g. gear loss) 100 1 - Capture as bycatch Age/size/sex structure in other fisheries 1 100 - Other identified risk- Geographic range causing activites 100 (please specify) 1 Rational: There are three pairs of vessels targetting GSS in Faroese waters during the second and third quarter of the year only (April-September). The vessels use semi-pelagic (bottom skimming) pair trawls (i.e. no trawl doors) that avoid all bottom contact. They target the mature fish population on the shelf slope, while the juvenile part of the population is more widespread in the shallower water of the Faroe Plateau and top of the banks. Thus, although Fishing activity may occur around c. 75% of Faroese shelf-slope waters but this represents less than 50% of the area occupied by the entire Faroese population of GSS; juveniles tend to be <200m depth, mature fish >200 m depth. With just three licensed pair trawls, the likelihood of detecting a vessel in any one location, or a vessel fishing in a particular location in any one year is slight. Thus, the intensity of fishing across the fishing grounds and population as a whole is 'minor'. The stock is assessed and TACs are set annually to ensure that the stock is not over exploited. As the mature and juvenile populations are fairly well separated there is minimal risk of recuritment overfishing. All indicators point to the maintenance of full reproductive capacity without risk to recruitment or long-term stock stability. The size and age structure of the population (and catches) has been relativelystable over many years; there are 10-15 age groups in the exploited population, the majority of which are fully mature. The extensive age structure of catches buffers the stock against risks that can occur when there is over dependence on a few age groups. The stock continues to be found throughout its natural geographic range in Faroese waters (and elsewhere).
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 163 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 164 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 DET NORSKE VERITAS
MSC FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT
ENCLOSURE 11. SURVEILLANCE FREQUENCY
Surveillance Criteria Score 1. Default Assessment tree used? Yes No 2* 2. Number of conditions Zero conditions Between 1-5 conditions 1 More than 5 3. Principle Level Scores ≥85 <85 2 4. Conditions on outcome PIs? Yes 2 No
* RBF used
Fishery Surveillance Plan Score Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 from Category CR Table C3
On-site On-site On-site On-site Standard 7 surveillance surveillance surveillance surveillance audit & re- Surveillance audit audit audit certification site visit
Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 165 of 165 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011