Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Reassessment Announcement Comment Draft Report

Home , Gersemia

Scapêche, Euronor and Compagnie des Pêches Saint Malo saithe fishery

On Behalf of

Scapêche, Euronor and Compagnie des Pêches Saint Malo

Prepared by

Control Union (UK) Limited

May 2021

Authors: Dr. Lisa Borges Chrissie Sieben Dr. Sophie des Clers Henry Ernst

Control Union (UK) Limited. 56 High Street, Lymington, Hampshire, SO41 9AH United Kingdom Tel: 01590 613007 Fax: 01590 671573 Email: [email protected]

Website: http://uk.controlunion.com

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C

CONTENTS QA ...... 8

GLOSSARY ...... 9

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 10

2 REPORT DETAILS ...... 13 2.1 Authorship and Peer Reviewers ...... 13 2.2 Version details ...... 13

3 UNIT(S) OF ASSESSMENT AND CERTIFICATION ...... 14 3.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) ...... 14 3.2 Unit(s) of Certification (UoC) ...... 15

4 ASSESSMENT RESULTS OVERVIEW ...... 17 4.1 Determination, formal conclusion and agreement ...... 17 4.2 Principle level scores ...... 17 4.3 Summary of conditions ...... 17 4.4 Recommendations ...... 18

5 SCORING ...... 19 5.1 Summary of Performance Indicator level scores ...... 19 5.2 Fishery overview ...... 21 5.2.1 The Client fishery ...... 21 5.2.2 Gear and operation of the fishery ...... 21 5.2.3 Fishing areas and seasons ...... 23 5.2.4 Catch profiles and data availability...... 25

6 TRACEABILITY AND ELIGIBILITY ...... 36 6.1 Eligibility date ...... 36 6.2 Traceability within the fishery ...... 36 6.3 Eligibility to enter further chains of custody ...... 37 6.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to enter further chains of custody ...... 38 6.5 Principle 1...... 39 6.6 Biology and ecology ...... 39 6.7 Saithe in subareas 4 (north Sea) and 6 (Rockall and West of Scotland), and in Division 3.a (Skagerrak and Kattegat) ...... 39 6.7.1 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data ...... 39 6.7.2 Catch and landings ...... 40 6.7.3 Stock Status and Assessment ...... 40 6.7.4 Stock management ...... 41 6.8 Saithe in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Artic) ...... 42 6.8.1 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data ...... 42

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 5

6.8.2 Catch and landings ...... 42 6.8.3 Stock Status and Assessment ...... 43 6.8.4 Stock management ...... 44 6.8.5 Principle 1 Performance Indicator scores and rationales ...... 45 6.9 Principle 2...... 73 6.9.1 Designation of species under Principle 2 ...... 73 6.9.2 Primary and Secondary species ...... 74 6.9.3 ETP species ...... 76 6.9.4 Habitats ...... 80 6.9.5 Ecosystem ...... 95 6.9.6 Scoring elements ...... 99 6.9.7 Cumulative impacts ...... 100 6.9.8 Principle 2 Performance Indicator scores and rationales ...... 102 6.10 Principle 3...... 182 6.10.1 Jurisdictions and customary framework ...... 182 6.10.2 Consultation, roles and responsibilities ...... 192 6.10.3 Long term objectives ...... 192 6.10.4 Fishery specific objectives ...... 193 6.10.5 Decision making processes ...... 194 6.10.6 Compliance and enforcement ...... 194 6.10.7 Management performance evaluation ...... 195 6.10.8 Principle 3 Performance Indicator scores and rationales ...... 198

7 REFERENCES ...... 218

8 APPENDICES ...... 226

APPENDIX 1 ASSESSMENT INFORMATION ...... 227 Appendix 1.1 Previous assessments ...... 227 Appendix 1.2 Small-scale fisheries ...... 228

APPENDIX 2 EVALUATION PROCESSES AND TECHNIQUES ...... 229 Appendix 2.1 Site visits ...... 229 Appendix 2.2 Stakeholder participation ...... 229 Appendix 2.3 Evaluation techniques ...... 229

APPENDIX 3 SCAPÊCHE ANALYSIS – COMMON SKATE BYCATCH RATE ...... 231

APPENDIX 4 PEER REVIEW REPORTS ...... 233

APPENDIX 5 STAKEHOLDER INPUT – DELETE IF NOT APPLICABLE ...... 234

APPENDIX 6 CONDITIONS ...... 235 Appendix 6.1 Summary of Conditions closed under Previous Certification ...... 235 Appendix 6.2 Open Conditions at reassessment announcement ...... 235 Appendix 6.3 New Conditions ...... 236

APPENDIX 7 CLIENT ACTION PLAN ...... 238

APPENDIX 8 SURVEILLANCE ...... 239

APPENDIX 10 HARMONISED FISHERY ASSESSMENTS ...... 240

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 6

APPENDIX 11 OBJECTION PROCEDURE ...... 244

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 7

QA ACDR

Role Signature and date Date Originator: H Ernst 21st April 2021 Reviewer: B O’Kane 28th April 2021 Approver: T Tsuzaki 15th June 2021

PCDR

Role Signature and date Date Originator: Reviewer: Approver:

PCR

Role Signature and date Date Originator: Reviewer: Approver:

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 8

Glossary

Acronym Definition AC Advisory Council CFP Common Fisheries Policy CoC Chain of Custody CPUE Catch Per Unit Effort EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone ETP Endangered, Threatened or Protected (species) EU European Union F Fishing Mortality HCR Harvest Control Rule HS Harvest Strategy IUU Illegal, Unreported, Unregulated (fishing) JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committee LRP Limit Reference Point LTL Low Trophic Level (species) MCS Monitoring, Control and Surveillance MEC ME Certification Ltd. MEP MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd MSFD Marine Strategy Framework Directive MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield NEA Northeast Arctic NEZ Norwegian Economic Zone nm Nautical mile PI Performance Indicator R Recruitment RFMO Regional Fisheries Management Organisation SAM State–space Assessment Model SFPZ Svalbard Fisheries Protection Zone SG Scoring Guidepost SSB Spawning Stock Biomass TAC Total Allowable Catch TRP Target Reference Point UoA Unit of Assessment UoC Unit of Certification VME Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem VMS Vessel Monitoring System

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 9

1 Executive Summary

This report is the Announcement Comment Draft Report (ACDR) for the MSC Full reassessment of the Euronor, Compagnie des Pêches Saint Malo and Scapêche saithe fishery. The Control Union UK assessment team consists of Henry Ernst (Team Leader), Dr. Lisa Borges (Principle 1), Chrissie Sieben (Principle 2), and Dr. Sophie des Clers (Principle 3).

In line with the September 2020 MSC COVID-19 Pandemic Derogation (https://www.msc.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/for-business/program- documents/chain-of-custody-supporting-documents/msc-covid-19-guidance-for-cabs-september- 2020.pdf), the reassessment audit meetings will be held remotely.

The assessment is being undertaken in accordance with the MSC Fisheries Certification Procedure (FCP) v2.2 and the MSC Standard 2.01 using the default assessment tree throughout the assessment.

The fishery under assessment is the Euronor, Compagnie des Pêches Saint Malo and Scapêche saithe (Pollachius virens) fishery taking place in ICES areas 2, 4, 5 and 6a. The Euronor UoA has been certified since March of 2010, and the Scapêche and Compagnie des Pêches Saint Malo UoAs were certified in January of 2011. There have been no major operational changes to the fishery since the previous reassessment.

In relation to Principle 1, the management of one of the target stocks (North Sea / West of Scotland saithe) is undergoing change as a result of Brexit, and the full implementation of the Landing Obligation. The other stock (Northeast Arctic Saithe) has undergone little change since the previous reassessment, both in terms of stock status and management. Ahead of the site visit, there was sufficient information readily available to the team to score all Scoring Indicators of Principle 1. In relation to Principle 2, the most recent available landings data and observer reports were analysed by the team to determine the MSC designation of non-target species. These two sources of data were also utilised to ascertain interactions between the UoA and Endangered, Threatened, and Protected (ETP) species and Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs) for the UoAs operating in the North Sea. Given that the client group has been unable to take on observers on the vessel fishing in the Northeast Arctic (L’Emeraude – a vessel jointly owned by Euronor, Compagnie des Pêches Saint Malo) ETP species interactions have yet to be addressed for this UoA. The framework for habitat and ecosystem protection and information collection continues to improve for the areas in which the fishery operates. Several significant information gaps remain to be covered for Principle 2. In relation to Principle 3, the main management framework is clearly identifiable, and while it is undergoing change, the assessment team believes that the national and international legal system provides an effective network of cooperation to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. There are several question marks at the time of writing concerning the effectiveness of the management system in place for UoAs 1 and 3 (operating in the North Sea), namely the responsiveness of the decision making processes to important issues, but the above is particularly true for UoA 2 (operating in the Northeast Arctic).

The main information gaps to address at the site visit are as follows:

Principle 2:

• The latest catch figures for certain non-target species (for example Greenland halibut); • ETP interactions and analysis for Northeast Arctic fishing effort (UoA 2); • Updated information on training provided to captains for ETP identification

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 10

• Further information on the ETP-related projects and studies that the POs are involved with; • A more detailed map of fishing effort for UoA 3 (to determine overlap with habitats); • Further details on observer coverage of UoA 3, and on the activities carried out by obsmer observers (across all UoAs); • The implementation of ̶ and compliance with ̶ various management strategies (such as gear restrictions and spatio-temporal measures for primary species, ETP species, and habitats); • Validation for the self reporting data for UoA 2, and data availability on discards for Northeast Arctic operations; • Gear loss; • An estimate of observer coverage (as a % of total trips); • Implementation of best practice release techniques on board the vessels; and • More information on the Fisheries’ compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’ measures to protect VMEs. Principle 3:

• The latest details of the bilateral and trilateral management arrangements between Scotland (UK), Norway, and the EU;

• Further information on the decision-making processes to address the continuing decrease in Stock Biomass for the NS saithe (UoAs 1 and 3); • Further details from the fishery’s managers, the competent MCS authorities, and stakeholders to ascertain compliance with the LO for UoA1 and UoA3; • Further information sought to ascertain the Scottish monitoring and evaluation mechanisms for UoA1 and UoA3

This fishery is to be harmonised with the following fisheries (conversations with other CABs have begun, and the Principle 1 scores for this fishery have been aligned with those of overlapping Control Union UK saithe fisheries):

Performance Indicators Fishery Name Sub Area(s) to harmonise Norway North Sea demersal 3a, 4 P1

UK Fisheries/DFFU/Doggerbank Group saithe 2a, 3a, 4, 5b, 6 P1, P3

Germany North Sea saithe trawl 4, 3a P1, P3

Joint demersal fisheries in the North Sea and adjacent waters 3a, 4, 6 P1, P3

SFSAG Northern Demersal Stocks 3.a, 6, 4 P1, P3

Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe 1 and 2 P1

Faroe Islands North East Arctic cod haddock and saithe 1 and 2 P1, P3

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 11

Performance Indicators Fishery Name Sub Area(s) to harmonise Greenland cod, haddock and saithe trawl fishery in the Barents 1 and 2 P1, P3 Sea Norway North East Arctic saithe 1 and 2 P1, P3 UK Fisheries/DFFU/Doggerbank Group Northeast Arctic cod 1 and 2 P1, P3 haddock and saithe This Fishery : Scapêche, Euronor and Compagnie des Pêches 3a, 4, 6, 7, and

St Malo saithe 1 and 2

Draft determination to be completed at Public Comment Draft Report stage

The executive summary shall include:

- Date and location of site visit. - The main strengths and weaknesses of the client’s operation. - From Public Comment Draft Report reporting stage only - the draft determination / determination reached with supporting justification.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section(s) 7.12, 7.18, 7.21

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 12

2 Report Details

2.1 Authorship and Peer Reviewers

Peer Reviewers:

The MSC Peer Review College compiled a shortlist of potential peer reviewers to undertake the peer review for this fishery. Two peer reviewers were selected from the following list:

Peer reviewer information to be completed at Public Comment Draft Report stage

A summary of their experience and qualifications is available via this link: Enter link

The report shall contain:

- Names of team members. - Specification of which person is the team leader. - Names of the peer reviewers. - Statement that peer reviewers can be viewed on the assessment downloads page on the MSC website.

If the Risk-Based Framework (RBF) has been used in assessing the fishery the report shall state which team member(s) has had training in the use of the RBF.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section(s) 7.6, 7.14, Annex PC

2.2 Version details

The report shall include a statement on the versions of the fisheries program documents used for this assessment.

Table 1. Fisheries programme documents versions

Document Version number MSC Fisheries Certification Process Version 2.2 MSC Fisheries Standard Version 2.01 MSC General Certification Requirements Version 2.4.1 MSC Reporting Template Version 1.2

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 13

3 Unit(s) of Assessment and Certification

3.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA)

To be drafted at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage

CU UK confirms that the fishery under assessment is within the scope of the MSC Fisheries Standard (7.4 and 7.5 of the MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.2):

• The target species is not an amphibian, reptile, bird or mammal (FCP v2.2. 7.4.2.1); • The fishery does not use poisons or explosives (FCP v2.2 7.4.2.2); • The fishery is not conducted under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement (FCP v2.2 7.4.2.3); • The client or client group does not include an entity that has been convicted for a forced or child labour violation in the last 2 years (FCP v2.2. 7.4.2.4); • Has the client or client group been convicted for shark finning in the last 2 years (FCP v2.2 7.4.2.10); • The fishery has in place a mechanism for resolving disputes, and disputes do not overwhelm the fishery (FCP v2.2 7.4.2.11 and 7.4.2.11iii); • The fishery is not an enhanced fishery (MSC FCP v2.2 7.4.2.12); and • The fishery is not an introduced species-based fishery (ISBF) (MSC FCP v2.2 7.4.2.13).

CU UK confirms that the client group has submitted the completed ‘Certificate Holder Forced and Child Labour Policies, Practices and Measures Template’ prior to the start of this assessment.

The proposed Unit of Assessment (UoA) is given in Table 2.

Table 2. Unit of Assessment 1 (UoA1)

Species Saithe (Pollachius virens)

Stock FAO area 27 ICES Subareas 4 and 6 and Division 3a (North Sea, Rockall, and West of Scotland, Skagerrak and Kattegat)

Geographical range of Northeast Atlantic fishery

Fishing Gear Type and, if Bottom trawl (demersal otter trawl) relevant, vessel type(s)

Client group Euronor vessels fishing for saithe from ICES Subareas 4 and 6 and Division 3a, and Euronor and Compagnie des Pêches St Malo co- owned vessel fishing for saithe from ICES Subareas 4, 6 and Divisions 2a (North of Scotland) and 3a.

Other eligible fishers None

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 14

Table 3. Unit of Assessment 2 (UoA2)

Species Saithe (Pollachius virens)

Stock FAO area 27 ICES Subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic)

Geographical range of Northeast Arctic fishery

Fishing Gear Type and, if Bottom trawl (demersal otter trawl) relevant, vessel type(s)

Client group Euronor vessels, and Euronor Compagnie des Pêches St Malo co- owned vessel fishing for saithe from ICES Subareas 1 and 2

Other eligible fishers None

Table 4. Unit of Assessment 3 (UoA3)

Species Saithe (Pollachius virens)

Stock FAO area 27 ICES Subareas 4 and 6 and Division 3a (North Sea, Rockall, and West of Scotland, Skagerrak and Kattegat)

Geographical range of Northeast Atlantic fishery

Fishing Gear Type and, if Bottom trawl (demersal otter trawl) relevant, vessel type(s)

Client group Scapêche member vessels fishing for saithe from ICES Subareas 4, and 6, and Division 3a.

Other eligible fishers None

3.2 Unit(s) of Certification (UoC)

If there are changes to the proposed Unit(s) of Certification (UoC), the CAB shall include in the report a justification.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.5

Table 5. Unit(s) of Certification (UoC)

Species

Stock

Geographical range of fishery

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 15

Fishing gear type(s) and, if relevant, vessel type(s)

Client group

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 16

4 Assessment results overview

4.1 Determination, formal conclusion and agreement

To be drafted at Public Comment Draft Report stage

The report shall include a formal statement as to the certification determination recommendation reached by the assessment team on whether the fishery should be certified.

The report shall include a formal statement as to the certification action taken by the CAB’s official decision maker in response to the determination recommendation.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 7.20.3 h and 7.21

4.2 Principle level scores

To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report

The report shall include scores for each of the three MSC principles in the table below.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.17

Table 6. Principle level scores

Principle Score UoA 1 UoA 2 Principle 1 – Target Species Principle 2 – Ecosystem Impacts Principle 3 – Management System

4.3 Summary of conditions

To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage

The report shall include a table summarising conditions raised in this assessment. Details of the conditions shall be provided in the appendices. If no conditions are required, the report shall include a statement confirming this.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.18

Table 7. Summary of conditions

Related to Deadline Exceptional Carried over previous Condition Performance Condition Circumstances? from condition? number Indicator (PI) Pervious Certificate? Yes/No Yes / No / NA Yes / No / NA

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 17

Related to Deadline Exceptional Carried over previous Condition Performance Condition Circumstances? from condition? number Indicator (PI) Pervious Certificate? Yes/No Yes / No / NA Yes / No / NA Yes/No Yes / No / NA Yes / No / NA

4.4 Recommendations

To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage

If the CAB or assessment team wishes to include any recommendations to the client or notes for future assessments, these may be included in this section.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 18

5 Scoring

5.1 Summary of Performance Indicator level scores

The following scores are preliminary scores derived from the information made available prior to the site visit. In accordance with MSC FCPv2.2 G7.10.2.e, where limited information was available to provide a draft scoring range for a Performance Indicator, a more precautionary score was awarded, in some cases resulting in a score of < 60. It is expected that, with the provision of information during the site visit, some scores will change.

The report shall include a completed copy of the Fishery Assessment Scoring Worksheet.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.17

Table 8. Performance Indicator scores

Princi Component Wt Performance Indicator (PI) Wt UoA 1 UoA 2 UoA 3 -ple

1.1.1 Stock status 0.5 60-79 ≥80 60-79 Outcome 0.33 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding 0.5 ≥80 N/a ≥80 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 0.25 60-79 ≥80 60-79 One 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 0.25 60-79 ≥80 60-79 Management 0.67 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 0.25 60-79 ≥80 60-79 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 0.25 ≥80 ≥80 ≥80 2.1.1 Outcome 0.33 60-79 ≥80 60-79 Primary 0.2 2.1.2 Management strategy 0.33 60-79 <60 60-79 species 2.1.3 Information/Monitoring 0.33 ≥80 <60 ≥80 2.2.1 Outcome 0.33 ≥80 ≥80 ≥80 Secondary 0.2 2.2.2 Management strategy 0.33 ≥80 ≥80 ≥80 species 2.2.3 Information/Monitoring 0.33 ≥80 <60 ≥80 2.3.1 Outcome 0.33 <60 <60 60-79 Two ETP species 0.2 2.3.2 Management strategy 0.33 <60 <60 <60 2.3.3 Information strategy 0.33 60-79 <60 60-79 2.4.1 Outcome 0.33 60 -79 ≥80 <60 Habitats 0.2 2.4.2 Management strategy 0.33 <60 <60 <60 2.4.3 Information 0.33 ≥80 ≥80 ≥80 2.5.1 Outcome 0.33 ≥80 ≥80 ≥80 Ecosystem 0.2 2.5.2 Management 0.33 ≥80 ≥80 ≥80 2.5.3 Information 0.33 ≥80 ≥80 ≥80 Three 0.5 3.1.1 Legal &/or customary framework 0.33 ≥80 ≥80 ≥80

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 19

Princi Component Wt Performance Indicator (PI) Wt UoA 1 UoA 2 UoA 3 -ple

Consultation, roles & 3.1.2 0.33 60-79 60-79 60-79 Governance responsibilities and policy 3.1.3 Long term objectives 0.33 ≥80 ≥80 ≥80 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 0.25 ≥80 ≥80 ≥80 Fishery 3.2.2 Decision making processes 0.25 60-79 ≥80 60-79 specific 0.5 management 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 0.25 60-79 ≥80 60-79 system Monitoring & management 3.2.4 0.25 60-79 ≥80 60-79 performance evaluation

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 20

5.2 Fishery overview

The fishery has continued to operate largely the same way as at the time of the latest full assessment. The main difference is that purely Compagnie des Pêches Saint Malo-owned vessels have ceased fishing in the North Sea, resulting in the suppression of the Compagnie des Pêches Saint Malo North Sea UoA from this full reassessment. Indeed, the Grande Hermine was replaced by the Emeraude, a joint venture between Compagnie des Pêches Saint Malo and Euronor. The UoAs have been modified to reflect this change in operations. Another minor change relates to the gear layout in the Euronor fleet. While pair trawling continues to be the main method of fishing, two trawls are towed behind the pair of vessels rather than one (the number of panels is still two).

5.2.1 The Client fishery

The clients for this fishery are Euronor, Compagnie des Pêches Saint Malo, and Scapêche.

Table 9. Vessels making up the UoAs of this re-assessment

Length Company Vessel Type UoA1 UoA2 UoA3 (m) André Leduc Fresh 44 X Bressay Bank Fresh 44 X Cap Nord Freezer 54.55 X X Euronor Cap Saint Georges Fresh 44 X Halten Bank II Fresh 54 X Klondyke Freezer 54.55 X X Compagnie des Pêches X X Emeraude* Freezer 80 de St. Malo/Euronor Corail Fresh 35 X Fastnet Fresh 28 X Jean Claude Coulon II Fresh 46 X Jean Pierre Le Roch Fresh 42 X Scapêche Julien Coleou Fresh 30 X Mariette Le Roch II Fresh 46 X Roselend Fresh 35 X Rossoren Fresh 28 X * the Emeraude is co-owned by Compagnie des Pêches de St. Malo and Euronor

5.2.2 Gear and operation of the fishery

The gear used by the UoAs’ vessels to fish for saithe is a standard demersal rockhopper otter trawl (either single trawls or twin trawls).

5.2.2.1 Single-rig otter trawl:

In an otter trawl, the mouth of the net is held open by otter boards that are towed in such a way that they create hydrodynamic pressure forcing the otter board outwards, thus creating the opening of the

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 21

net. The optimum distance between the otter boards (spread) is controlled by the skipper either by measuring the angle between the towing warps or, in the case of larger newer vessels, information relayed to the bridge via remote electronic sensors. The opening of the net is determined by the interaction between the size of otter boards, the length of sweep (or spreaders) between the otter board and the net, and the speed of the vessel. The shape of the net is retained through the use of floats and/or kites. The body of the net is cone-shaped, tapering toward the back of the net where the cod end is situated; this is the area where the fish are held through the duration of the tow. It is the mesh size in the cod end that largely determines the selectivity of the net once fish are captured. The trawl mesh size must be at least 100 mm in waters of ICES Subarea 6, 110 mm in waters of ICES Subarea 4 and 120 mm in Norwegian waters. The Jean Claude Coulon II, the Jean-Pierre Le Roch and the Mariette Le Roch II all use 120 mm square mesh panels in the net.

Nets can be rigged to travel on rough rocky bottom through the use of large rubber discs called hoppers or rockhoppers. The standard whitefish trawl can stand to a height of around eight metres. The efficiency of a net is determined by the size of opening at the front or mouth of the net, although there is some herding effect as a result of the sand cloud created by the otter boards and spreaders.

Demersal finfish trawls are normally towed for around four hours before hauling. The distance between the net and the vessel can vary although the standard length of warp is calculated as two and a half times the depth. The average towing speed is around three knots.

5.2.2.2 Twin-rig otter trawl:

Twin rig is an adaptation of traditional single trawl, the same principles are applied with regard to the use of otter boards; however, a third warp running from the vessel mid-way between those connected to the otter boards allows two nets to be used rather than one. This mid-warp is held down through the use of a weight, or clump, so that it mirrors the behaviour of the otter board without the hydrodynamic characteristics; the weight of the clump is by and large the same weight as that of a single otter board. The mid warp and clump acts as the anchor for the inside spreader of each of the nets, maintaining symmetry is achieved by altering the tension in the middle warp. Twin rig trawls tend to be smaller than single trawls but can be larger in terms of swept area in total, thus giving a higher CPUE.

5.2.2.3 Pair trawl:

Pair trawling uses a similar approach to that of trawling but without otter boards. Instead, the net is towed between two partner vessels, and the distance between the vessels determines the width of opening. Pair trawl nets are usually larger than those used in single trawl. A pair trawl ‘team’ takes turn-about at shooting, hauling and retaining the fish caught; it is normal for pair teams to carry nets rigged for both sandy and rocky bottom. Modern pair vessels are now very much tailored for this specific method; they use shorter, heavier warps with the benefit that they can use modern electronic net monitoring devices similar to those used by single vessel trawls. The length of warp used is determined by the harshness of the terrain; a pair team may use a combination of wire and wire rope that extends to around 600 m to 800 m. The pair method of fishing is used to target demersal finfish.

The otter board specifications have remained the same since the initial assessment (weight range between 1500 and 2300 kg). The mean trawling depth for saithe is approximately 200-250 meters, and tows last between 4 and 6 hours. Vessels land in Boulogne-sur-Mer, Hanstholm, Peterhead, Lorient, Lochinver, Castletownbere, and Killybegs.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 22

5.2.3 Fishing areas and seasons

There is no specific “fishing season” for the UoAs, the fleets activity is generally governed by quota availability. For UoA1, fishing takes place within UK, Norwegian, and European Waters of ICES areas 4, 5, and 6a (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Aggregated VMS data for Euronor vessels in 2018 and 2019 (Source: Client)

UoA 2 operates in the Northeast Arctic (fishing activity in the Northern North Sea is assessed in UoA 1) in Norwegian waters, and in International waters (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Aggregated VMS data for the Emeraude in 2018 and 2019 (Source: Client)

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 23

The Scapêche vessels fish mostly in ICES subarea 6a, targeting anglerfish, deepwater species and saithe in the same trip. At the time of writing the ACDR, a clear map of fishing effort has not yet been provided (a VMS map of all positions at sea has been sent to the team, but this does not allow the identification of fishing areas).

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 24

5.2.4 Catch profiles and data availability.

5.2.4.1 Logbook data

Logbook data for the UoA fleet were supplied by the client for 2015-2019.

Table 10. Euronor and Compagnie des Pêches logbook data for 2015 – 2019 in the Northeast Atlantic (ICES subareas 4, 6 and Division 3a) showing landed catch (tonnes) and average % contribution to total catch. The designation of each species under P2 is also shown. Main species are shown in bold. Source: Client logbook data

Tonnes Average Species P2 designation 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 – 19 % Pollachius virens Saithe(=Pollock) 12,279 11,262 11,674 12,938 10,843 84.54 N/a P1 species Merluccius merluccius European hake 952 1,364 1,149 1,185 1,024 8.13 Primary Primary (North Sea, eastern English Channel Gadus morhua Atlantic cod 219 287 348 500 369 2.47 and Skagerrak stock: main; West of Scotland: minor – see Table 19) Molva molva Ling 127.35 202.80 270.64 523.71 475.98 2.29 Primary Melanogrammus aeglefinus Haddock 85.40 109.62 127.68 160.85 133.05 0.88 Primary Lophiidae Anglerfishes nei 10.16 12.31 44.37 116.60 129.52 0.59 Primary Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis Megrim 5.42 10.76 28.86 50.09 92.94 0.32 Primary Merlangius merlangus Whiting 41.72 27.77 11.14 17.76 24.12 0.18 Primary Aphanopus carbo Black scabbardfish 27.77 87.88 0.00 2.34 0.00 0.17 Primary Reinhardtius hippoglossoides Greenland halibut 6.03 14.68 32.06 16.74 28.62 0.11 Primary Molva dypterygia Blue ling 16.44 33.03 11.58 3.44 14.17 0.10 Primary Brosme brosme Tusk(=Cusk) 23.11 41.12 0.23 2.18 0.74 0.07 Primary Pollachius pollachius Pollack 7.40 10.85 4.21 5.01 22.22 0.06 Secondary Sebastes spp. Atlantic redfishes nei 1.82 2.09 21.52 4.38 13.80 0.03 Secondary Conger conger European conger 2.82 2.82 8.64 18.33 1.66 0.01 Secondary Phycis blennoides Greater forkbeard 9.52 6.10 3.59 1.65 0.86 0.01 Secondary Coryphaenoides rupestris Roundnose grenadier 3.67 1.12 1.58 1.72 1.04 0.01 Primary

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 25

Tonnes Average Species P2 designation 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 – 19 % Dicentrarchus labrax European seabass 1.74 5.03 0.15 0.63 0.97 0.01 Primary Chimaera monstrosa Rabbit fish 0.76 5.00 0.03 0.09 0.08 0.00 Secondary Hippoglossus hippoglossus Atlantic halibut 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.57 2.26 0.00 Secondary Loliginidae, Ommastrephidae Various squids nei 1.99 0.89 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 Secondary Osteichthyes Marine fishes nei 0.33 0.00 0.20 0.84 0.66 0.00 Secondary Hippoglossoides platessoides Amer. plaice(=Long rough dab) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.02 0.00 Secondary Loligo vulgaris European squid 0.66 0.39 0.25 0.19 0.21 0.00 Secondary Phycis phycis Forkbeard 1.19 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Secondary Argentina silus Greater argentine 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.41 0.00 0.00 Secondary Anarhichas lupus Atlantic wolffish 0.75 0.06 0.00 0.12 0.18 0.00 Secondary Gymnothorax spp. 0.12 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 Secondary Gaidropsarus spp. Rocklings nei 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.35 0.00 Secondary Eutrigla gurnardus Grey gurnard 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 Secondary Sorsogona prionota Halfspined flathead 0.06 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Secondary Limanda limanda Common dab 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Secondary Pleuronectes platessa European plaice 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 Primary Total 13,826 13,488 13,737 15,554 13,182 100.00

Table 11. Euronor and Compagnie des Pêches logbook data for 2015 – 2018 in the Northeast Arctic (ICES subareas 1 and 2) showing landed catch (tonnes) and average % contribution to total catch. The designation of each species under P2 is also shown. Note that P2 designations may vary from those in Table 10 as management for species differs between UoA areas. Main species are shown in bold. Source: Client logbook data. NOTE: this table is to be finalized after the site visit discussions

Tonnes Average P2 designation Species 2015 2016 2017 2018 2015-18 % Gadus morhua Atlantic cod 4,104 3,901 4,713 445 80.52 Primary Pollachius virens Saithe (=Pollock) 326 255 324 605 9.24 N/a P1 species Reinhardtius hippoglossoides Greenland halibut 255.79 242.82 184.34 9.59 4.24 Primary Sebastes spp. Atlantic redfishes nei 114.14 160.42 78.90 31.95 2.36 S. mentella: primary

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 26

Tonnes Average P2 designation Species 2015 2016 2017 2018 2015-18 % S. norvegicus: ETP Melanogrammus aeglefinus Haddock 81.26 162.23 55.66 37.02 2.06 Primary Anarhichas lupus Atlantic wolffish 37.76 27.07 53.41 13.70 0.81 Secondary Hippoglossoides platessoides Amer. plaice(=Long rough dab) 11.83 7.36 11.14 0.00 0.19 Secondary Merluccius merluccius European hake 7.32 5.13 12.58 0.36 0.16 Primary Molva dypterygia Blue ling 7.03 6.62 6.61 2.99 0.14 Secondary Molva molva Ling 3.93 4.39 10.90 2.32 0.13 Primary Brosme brosme Tusk(=Cusk) 5.81 2.67 4.46 1.10 0.09 Secondary Lophiidae Anglerfishes nei 1.75 0.48 1.42 0.58 0.04 Primary Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis Megrim 0.15 0.41 0.95 0.59 0.02 Primary Pollachius pollachius Pollack 0.00 0.07 1.68 0.00 0.01 Primary Phycis blennoides Greater forkbeard 0.11 0.34 1.31 0.00 0.01 Secondary Hippoglossus hippoglossus Atlantic halibut 0.29 0.11 1.06 0.00 0.01 Secondary Limanda limanda Common dab 0.00 0.32 0.82 0.00 0.00 Secondary Sebastes norvegicus Golden redfish 0.07 0.24 0.34 0.24 0.00 ETP Coryphaenoides rupestris Roundnose grenadier 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 Secondary Pseudopleuronectes americanus Winter flounder 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 Secondary Chimaera monstrosa Rabbit fish 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 Secondary Osteichthyes Marine fishes nei 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 N/a Conger conger European conger 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 Secondary Gaidropsarus spp. Rocklings nei 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 Secondary Total 4,957 4,777 5,464 1,150

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 27

Table 12. Scapêche logbook data for 2016 – 2020 in the Northeast Atlantic (ICES subareas 4, 6 and Division 3a) showing landed catch (tonnes) and average % contribution to total catch. The designation of each species under P2 is also shown. Data were filtered to include only those trips with saithe in the landings. Main species are shown in bold. Source: Client logbook data

Tonnes Average Species P2 designation 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2016-20 % Pollachius virens Saithe(=Pollock) 1,791 2,811 2,765 1,433 1,092 35.13 N/a P1 species Merluccius merluccius European hake 1,720 839 345 826 166 13.84 Primary Lophiidae Anglerfishes nei 1,588 768 230 980 176 13.29 Primary Aphanopus carbo Black scabbardfish 2,196 361 29 1,058 2 12.95 Primary Primary (Celtic Seas and Faroes grounds stock: Molva dypterygia Blue ling 533 198 12 1,000 13 6.24 main; Northeast Atlantic stock: minor – see Table 20) Molva molva Ling 591 344 159 323 110 5.42 Primary Gadus morhua Atlantic cod 85.78 137.81 121.99 102.87 93.05 1.92 Primary Phycis blennoides Greater forkbeard 198.81 66.99 13.85 234.86 7.56 1.85 Secondary Coryphaenoides rupestris Roundnose grenadier 366.92 11.23 1.05 105.15 0.05 1.72 Secondary Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis Megrim 172.30 70.68 34.58 104.55 10.97 1.52 Primary Melanogrammus aeglefinus Haddock 59.98 59.17 50.36 55.97 61.01 1.02 Primary Chimaera monstrosa Rabbit fish 104.23 45.55 7.57 111.55 0.84 0.96 Secondary Brosme brosme Tusk(=Cusk) 94.12 30.98 5.30 106.41 2.79 0.85 Primary Reinhardtius hippoglossoides Greenland halibut 38.99 25.36 4.34 79.72 3.52 0.54 Primary Sebastes spp. Atlantic redfishes nei 7.33 16.32 1.35 80.83 0.31 0.38 Secondary Loliginidae Inshore squids nei 9.52 27.02 24.57 35.19 7.89 0.37 Secondary Helicolenus dactylopterus Blackbelly rosefish 30.66 20.20 6.27 40.00 4.05 0.36 Secondary 36.75 15.11 7.47 16.78 4.27 Secondary (note ETP in 3a Raja clavata Thornback ray 0.29 but not fished there) Mora moro Common mora 33.28 4.57 0.56 39.86 0.23 0.28 Secondary Raja naevus Cuckoo ray 22.11 12.55 5.54 10.26 3.68 0.19 Secondary Raja radiata Starry ray 4.79 9.48 0.49 23.35 1.45 0.14 ICES areas 3a and 4: ETP

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 28

Tonnes Average Species P2 designation 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2016-20 % ICES area 6: Secondary Raja montagui Spotted ray 21.21 15.74 0.00 0.15 0.03 0.13 Secondary Hydrolagus spp. Ratfishes nei 0.10 0.09 0.00 7.68 27.25 0.08 Secondary Raja hyperborea Arctic skate 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.83 7.72 0.07 Secondary Bathyraja spp. Bathyraja rays nei 9.72 7.97 1.12 1.72 0.06 0.06 Secondary Epigonus telescopus Black cardinal fish 3.18 4.12 0.05 9.52 0.76 0.06 Secondary Merlangius merlangus Whiting 7.01 5.96 0.27 4.34 0.03 0.06 Primary Conger conger European conger 4.28 1.16 0.69 5.50 3.93 0.06 Secondary Raja fullonica Shagreen ray 7.32 3.18 1.13 2.97 0.95 0.04 Secondary Glyptocephalus cynoglossus Witch flounder 0.90 1.97 3.32 3.90 1.37 0.03 Secondary Microstomus kitt Lemon sole 2.98 1.38 0.26 4.14 0.30 0.02 Secondary Trachyscorpia cristulata Atlantic thornyhead 3.77 0.91 0.49 0.74 0.42 0.02 Secondary Raja oxyrinchus Longnosed skate 4.59 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 Secondary Raja brachyura Blonde ray 3.07 1.07 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.01 Secondary Cristatogobius nonatoae 2.17 0.35 0.26 0.54 0.31 0.01 Secondary Aspitrigla cuculus Red gurnard 3.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Secondary Macrourus berglax Roughhead grenadier 0.31 0.16 0.21 1.28 1.03 0.01 Secondary Limanda limanda Common dab 0.19 0.37 0.07 2.15 0.14 0.01 Secondary Zeus faber John dory 2.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Secondary Pollachius pollachius Pollack 0.66 0.31 0.43 0.76 0.07 0.01 Secondary Psetta maxima Turbot 0.22 0.08 0.04 1.77 0.05 0.01 Primary Galeorhinus galeus Tope shark 0.97 0.16 0.05 0.08 0.22 0.01 Secondary Hippoglossus hippoglossus Atlantic halibut 0.41 0.52 0.19 0.15 0.17 0.00 Secondary Mustelus spp. Smooth-hounds nei 0.21 0.18 0.12 0.60 0.13 0.00 Secondary Raja circularis Sandy ray 0.01 0.25 0.08 0.33 0.41 0.00 Secondary Scyliorhinus spp Catsharks, nursehounds nei 0.13 0.01 0.02 0.51 0.15 0.00 Secondary Triglidae Gurnards, searobins nei 0.76 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 Secondary Scomber scombrus Atlantic mackerel 0.25 0.16 0.15 0.08 0.04 0.00 Primary

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 29

Tonnes Average Species P2 designation 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2016-20 % Eutrigla gurnardus Grey gurnard 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.00 Secondary Chelidonichthys lucerna Tub gurnard 0.01 0.13 0.15 0.21 0.13 0.00 Secondary Bathyraja spinicauda Spinetail ray 0.27 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Secondary Beryx spp. Alfonsinos nei 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Secondary Illex spp. Shortfin squids nei 0.16 0.03 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 Secondary Anarhichas lupus Atlantic wolffish 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 Secondary Spectrunculus grandis 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 Secondary Osteichthyes Marine fishes nei 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 N/a Loligo vulgaris European squid 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 Secondary Chimaeriformes Chimaeras, etc. nei 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Secondary Isurus spp. Mako sharks 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Primary Mullus surmuletus Surmullet 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Secondary Trisopterus luscus Pouting(=Bib) 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Secondary Solea solea Common sole 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 Primary Total 9,765 5,921 3,835 6,832 1,807 100.00

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 30

5.2.4.2 Observer data

For each trip, the Obsmer reports provide details on the proportion of retained species (as a % of retained catch), the proportion of discarded species (as a % of discarded catch) and the proportion of discarded/retained catch overall. The data are too complex to represent here but are available upon request. A list of the species recorded in the 62 2016 – 2020 Obsmer observer reports for UoA 1 is given in Table 13, together with their designation under Principle 2 (in line with the explanations given in Section 5.2.4). Note that other than the species/stocks already identified in the UoA logbook data, no additional species were identified as ‘main’, on the basis that their average contribution to total catch did not exceed 5% (or 2% for less resilient species), and that discard rates in this fishery are generally low, averaging at 3% of the total catch.

A similar analysis was carried out for the Scapêche observer data (UoA 3), of which the list of species recorded in the 56 2016 – 2020 Obsmer observer reports is given in Table 14 together with their designation under Principle 2. It is worth noting that some of the species recorded as main in the logbook data (Table 12) did not appear as main here. This was the case for black scabbard fish and blue ling, both of which are deep-sea species, not targeted in the saithe fishery. However, Scapêche vessels target different groups of species within the same trip and often the same day. Generally, they will start a trip by targeting deep-water species, then move up the depth contour to target first monkfish and then saithe and hake as the trip proceeds. The retained and bycatch species associated with, for example, the deep-sea fishery are not the same as those taken alongside saithe. Although the logbook data do not permit a haul-by-haul analysis (they were analysed by trip instead), the observer data do provide the detail on different fishing operations, hence the difference in main species. On a precautionary basis, however, all species that appeared as ‘main’ in the logbook data were considered as such by the assessment team.

Table 13. Species recorded during 2016-2020 by Obsmer observers for UoA 1 with fate (retained (R), discarded (D)) and P2 designation also shown (as per explanation given in Section 5.2.4). For ETP species, the total number discarded during observed trips over the 2016-20 period is given (all observed individuals were discarded). Main species are shown in bold. Data extracted by CU UK from UoA observer reports.

Species Fate P2 designation Amblyraja radiata Starry ray 1,068 discarded ETP

Anarhichas lupus Atlantic wolffish Discarded Secondary

Argentina silus Greater argentine Discarded Primary

Argentina sphyraena Argentine Discarded Secondary

Arnoglossus laterna Mediterranean scaldfish Discarded Secondary

Aspitrigla cuculus Red gurnard Discarded Secondary

Beryx decadactylus Alfonsino Discarded Secondary

Brosme brosme Tusk(=Cusk) R, D Primary

Cancer pagurus Edible crab Discarded Secondary

Capros aper Boarfish Discarded Secondary

Cetorhinus maximus Basking shark 1 discarded ETP

Chimaera monstrosa Rabbit fish Discarded Secondary

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 31

Species Fate P2 designation

Clupea harengus Atlantic herring Discarded Primary

Conger conger European conger R, D Secondary

Ctenolabrus rupestris Goldsinny-wrasse Discarded Secondary

Cyclopterus lumpus Lumpfish(=Lumpsucker) Discarded Secondary

Dipturus batis Common skate 88 discarded ETP

Dipturus cf. intermedia Flapper skate (common skate complex) 77 discarded ETP

Dipturus linteus Pale ray (common skate complex) 4 discarded ETP

Echiodon drummondii Pearlfish Discarded Secondary

Eledone cirrhosa Horned octopus Discarded Secondary

Etmopterus spinax Velvet belly lanternshark Discarded Secondary

Eutrigla gurnardus Grey gurnard Discarded Secondary

Gadus morhua Atlantic cod R, D Primary

Galeorhinus galeus Tope shark Discarded Secondary

Galeus atlanticus Atlantic sawtail catshark Discarded Secondary

Galeus melastomus Blackmouth catshark Discarded Secondary

Glyptocephalus cynoglossus Witch flounder R, D Primary

Helicolenus dactylopterus Blackbelly rosefish Discarded Secondary

Hexanchus griseus Bluntnose sixgill shark Discarded Secondary

Hippoglossoides platessoides Amer. plaice(=Long rough dab) Discarded Secondary

Hippoglossus hippoglossus Atlantic halibut R, D Secondary

Lepidorhombus boscii Four-spot megrim R, D Secondary

Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis Megrim R, D Primary

Leucoraja circularis Sandy ray Discarded Secondary

Leucoraja fullonica Shagreen ray Discarded Secondary

Leucoraja naevus Cuckoo ray Discarded Secondary

Limanda limanda Common dab R, D Secondary

Loligo vulgaris European squid Discarded Secondary

Lophius budegassa Blackbellied angler R, D Primary

Lophius piscatorius Angler(=Monk) R, D Primary

Maja squinado Spinous spider crab Discarded Secondary

Melanogrammus aeglefinus Haddock R, D Primary

Merlangius merlangus Whiting R, D Primary

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 32

Species Fate P2 designation Merluccius merluccius European hake R, D Primary

Micromesistius poutassou Blue whiting(=Poutassou) R, D Primary

Microstomus kitt Lemon sole R, D Primary

Molva molva Ling R, D Primary

Mustelus asterias Starry smooth-hound Discarded Secondary

Nephrops norvegicus Norway lobster Discarded Primary

Octopus vulgaris Common octopus Discarded Secondary

Osmerus eperlanus European smelt Discarded Secondary

Paromola cuvieri Paramola crab Discarded Secondary

Phycis blennoides Greater forkbeard R, D Secondary

Pleuronectes platessa European plaice R, D Primary

Pollachius pollachius Pollack R, D Secondary

Pollachius virens Saithe(=Pollock) R, D P1

Psetta maxima Turbot Retained Primary

Raja brachyura Blonde ray Discarded Secondary

Raja clavata Thornback ray Discarded Secondary

Raja montagui Spotted ray Discarded Secondary

Raja oxyrinchus Longnosed skate Discarded Secondary

Rajella fyllae Round ray Discarded Secondary

Rostroraja alba White skate Discarded Secondary

Sardina pilchardus European pilchard(=Sardine) Discarded Secondary

Scomber japonicus Chub mackerel Discarded Secondary

Scomber scombrus Atlantic mackerel Discarded Primary

Scorpaena scrofa Red scorpionfish R, D Secondary

Scyliorhinus canicula Small-spotted catshark Discarded Secondary

Scyliorhinus stellaris Nursehound Discarded Secondary

Sebastes mentella Beaked redfish R, D Secondary

Sebastes norvegicus Golden redfish R, D Primary

Sebastes viviparus Norway redfish Discarded Secondary

Squalus acanthias Picked dogfish 112 discarded ETP

Trachurus trachurus Atlantic horse mackerel Discarded Primary

Trisopterus minutus Poor cod Discarded Secondary

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 33

Species Fate P2 designation

Zeus faber John dory Retained Secondary

Table 14. Species recorded during 2016-2020 by Obsmer observers for UoA 3 with fate (retained (R), discarded (D)) and P2 designation also shown (as per explanation given in Section 5.2.4). For ETP species, the total number discarded during observed trips over the 2016-20 period is given (all observed individuals were discarded). Main species are shown in bold. Data extracted by CU UK from UoA observer reports.

Species Fate P2 designation

Argentina silus Greater argentine Discarded Primary

Argentina sphyraena Argentine Discarded Secondary

Aspitrigla cuculus Red gurnard Discarded Secondary

Cancer pagurus Edible crab Discarded Secondary

Capros aper Boarfish Discarded Secondary

Chimaera monstrosa Rabbit fish R, D Secondary

Chlamydoselachus anguineus Frilled shark 1 discarded Secondary

Clupea harengus Atlantic herring Discarded Primary

Conger conger European conger R, D Secondary

Dipturus batis Common skate 121 discarded ETP

Dipturus cf. intermedia Flapper skate (common skate complex) 71 discarded ETP

Eutrigla gurnardus Grey gurnard Discarded Secondary

Gadiculus argenteus Silvery pout Discarded Secondary

Gadus morhua Atlantic cod R, D Primary

Galeus melastomus Blackmouth catshark Discarded Secondary

Glyptocephalus cynoglossus Witch flounder R, D Primary

Helicolenus dactylopterus Blackbelly rosefish R, D Secondary

Lepidorhombus boscii Four-spot megrim Discarded Secondary

Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis Megrim R, D Primary

Leucoraja fullonica Shagreen ray R, D Secondary

Leucoraja naevus Cuckoo ray R, D Secondary

Loligo vulgaris European squid Discarded Secondary

Lophius budegassa Blackbellied angler Retained Primary

Lophius piscatorius Angler(=Monk) R, D Primary

Maja squinado Spinous spider crab Discarded Secondary

Melanogrammus aeglefinus Haddock R, D Primary

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 34

Species Fate P2 designation

Merlangius merlangus Whiting Retained Primary

Merluccius merluccius European hake R, D Primary

Micromesistius poutassou Blue whiting(=Poutassou) Discarded Primary

Microstomus kitt Lemon sole R, D Primary

Molva dypterygia Blue ling Retained Primary

Molva molva Ling R, D Primary

Mustelus asterias Starry smooth-hound Discarded Secondary

Octopus vulgaris Common octopus Discarded Secondary

Pagellus bogaraveo Blackspot(=red) seabream Discarded Secondary

Phycis blennoides Greater forkbeard R, D Secondary

Pleuronectes platessa European plaice Discarded Primary

Pollachius pollachius Pollack R, D Secondary

Pollachius virens Saithe(=Pollock) R, D P1

Raja clavata Thornback ray R, D Secondary

Raja oxyrinchus Longnosed skate Discarded Secondary

Scomber scombrus Atlantic mackerel Discarded Primary

Scyliorhinus canicula Small-spotted catshark Discarded Secondary

Sebastes mentella Beaked redfish Retained Secondary

Sebastes viviparus Norway redfish Retained Secondary

Sprattus sprattus European sprat Discarded Primary

Squalus acanthias Picked dogfish 26 discarded ETP

Todaropsis eblanae Lesser flying squid Discarded Secondary

Trachurus trachurus Atlantic horse mackerel Discarded Primary

Trisopterus esmarkii Norway pout Discarded Secondary

Trisopterus minutus Poor cod Discarded Secondary

Zeus faber John dory Retained Secondary

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 35

6 Traceability and eligibility

To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Comment Draft Report stage

6.1 Eligibility date

The report shall include the eligibility date and the justification for selecting this date, including consideration of whether the traceability and segregation systems in the fishery are appropriately implemented.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.8

6.2 Traceability within the fishery

The report shall include a description of the tracking, tracing and segregation systems within the fishery and how these systems will allow any products sold as MSC certified to be traced back to the Unit of Certification.

The report shall include an evaluation of the robustness of the management systems related to traceability.

The report shall include any traceability references, including hyperlinks to publicly-available documents.

The report shall include a description of the factors that may lead to risks of non-certified seafood being mixed with certified seafood prior to entering Chain of Custody using the table below. For each risk factor, there shall be a description of whether the risk factor is relevant for the fishery and, if so, a description of the relevant mitigation measures or traceability systems in place.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.5.7, 7.9, 7.10, and 7.20.3

Table 15. Traceability within the fishery

Factor Description Please state whether this occurs within the Will the fishery use gears that are not part of the Unit of fishery (e.g. regularly, rarely, never). If so, Certification (UoC)? please describe how this potential traceability risk is addressed or mitigated. If Yes, please describe: If this may occur on the same trip, on the same vessels, or If this is covered by relevant regulatory during the same season; frameworks, you may link to the relevant How any risks are mitigated. section in Section 5 MSC Fisheries Standard – Principle 3 – Effective management. Please state whether this occurs within the Will vessels in the UoC also fish outside the UoC geographic fishery (e.g. regularly, seasonally, never). If area? so, please describe how this potential

traceability risk is addressed or mitigated. If Yes, please describe:

If this may occur on the same trip; If this is covered by relevant regulatory How any risks are mitigated. frameworks, you may link to the relevant

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 36

Factor Description section in Section 5 MSC Fisheries Standard – Principle 3 – Effective management. Do the fishery client members ever handle certified and non-certified products during any of the activities covered Please state whether any of these activities by the fishery certificate? This refers to both at-sea occur within the fishery and a description of activities and on-land activities. this activity including how this potential

traceability risk is addressed or mitigated. Transport

Storage If this is covered by relevant regulatory Processing frameworks, you may link to the relevant Landing section in Section 5 MSC Fisheries Standard Auction – Principle 3 – Effective management.

If Yes, please describe how any risks are mitigated. Please state whether this occurs within the Does transhipment occur within the fishery? fishery (e.g. regularly, rarely, never). If so, please describe how this potential If Yes, please describe: traceability risk is addressed or mitigated. If transhipment takes place at-sea, in port, or both; If the transhipment vessel may handle product from If this is covered by relevant regulatory outside the UoC; frameworks, you may link to the relevant How any risks are mitigated. section in Section 5 MSC Fisheries Standard – Principle 3 – Effective management. Are there any other risks of mixing or substitution between Please state whether this occurs within the certified and non-certified fish? fishery. If so, please describe how this potential traceability risk is addressed or If Yes, please describe how any risks are mitigated. mitigated.

6.3 Eligibility to enter further chains of custody

To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Comment Draft Report stage

The report shall include a determination of whether the seafood product will be eligible to enter certified chains of custody, and whether the seafood product is eligible to be sold as MSC certified or carry the MSC ecolabel.

The report shall include a list of parties, or category of parties, eligible to use the fishery certificate, and sell product as MSC certified.

The report shall include the point of intended change of ownership of product, a list of eligible landing points, and the point from which subsequent Chain of Custody certification is required.

If the CAB makes a negative determination under FCP v2.2 Section 7.9, the CAB shall state that fish and fish products from the fishery are not eligible to be sold as MSC certified or carry the MSC ecolabel. If the client group includes other entities such as agents, unloaders, or other parties involved with landing or sale of certified fish, this needs to be clearly stated in the report including the point from which Chain of Custody is required.

Should the fishery be certified the CAB inform the client that they sell or label non-eligible (nonconforming) product as MSC certified, they must:

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 37

a. Notify any affected customers and the CAB of the issue within 4 days of detection.

b. Immediately cease to sell any non-conforming products in stock as MSC certified until their certified status has been verified by the CAB.

c. Cooperate with the CAB to determine the cause of the issue and to implement any corrective actions required.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.9

6.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to enter further chains of custody

Where IPI stock(s) are present, the report shall include an evaluation of the species, stock, proportion and weight of the catch of IPI stock(s) and their eligibility to enter further chains of custody. The report shall include a justification of how requirements in FCP Annex PA are met for any catches of IPI stock(s).

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.5

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 38

6.5 Principle 1

6.6 Biology and ecology

Saithe (Pollachius virens) are widely distributed in the North Atlantic. Adults occur mainly around the 200 m depth contour. In late summer and autumn young saithe are found in large numbers within Scottish and Norwegian coastal waters, usually on grounds which are unsuitable for commercial fishing. The adult stock can occur in dense shoals which move around the water column and are often caught in mid-water.

Saithe reach maturity between the ages of four and six years. A medium sized adult female of around 75 cm can produce about 2.9 million eggs during a spawning season. Spawning takes place in late winter and spring near to the edge of the continental shelf to the north and west of the Outer Hebrides. Initially the young fish live near to the surface but by mid-summer they can be found close inshore, in bays and harbours. In their second year they live along the shoreline before eventually moving to deeper water. This offshore migration usually occurs in springtime. Saithe grow quickly reaching 100 cm by the time they are 11 years old.

Saithe are active predators, feeding on the bottom and in mid-water. By weight, fish prey dominate their diet at all times of the year. Herring, Norway pout and sandeel are the main fish species eaten (Sieben et al., 2019).

6.7 Saithe in subareas 4 (north Sea) and 6 (Rockall and West of Scotland), and in Division 3.a (Skagerrak and Kattegat)

6.7.1 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data

The report shall include a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data table using the table below. If possible, a separate table should be provided for each species or gear.

The TAC and catch data for saithe in Subareas 4 and 6, and Division 3a are shown in Table 16 and Table 17.

Table 16. TAC and Catch Data for saithe in Subarea 4 and Division 3a

TAC Year 2020 Amount 79813 tonnes UoA share of TAC Year 2020 Amount [n, unit] UoC share of total TAC Year 2020 Amount [n, unit] Total green weight catch by UoC Year (most 2020 Amount [n, unit] recent) Year (second 2019 Amount [n, unit] most recent)

Table 17. TAC and Catch Data for saithe in Subarea 6

TAC Year 2020 Amount 8290 tonnes UoA share of TAC Year 2020 Amount [n, unit] UoC share of total TAC Year 2020 Amount [n, unit]

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 39

Total green weight catch by UoC Year (most 2020 Amount [n, unit] recent) Year (second 2019 Amount [n, unit] most recent)

6.7.2 Catch and landings

Saithe are predominantly taken in trawl fisheries by Norway, Germany, and France. German and Norwegian fleets operate mainly along the shelf edge in Subarea 4 and Division 3a, while French fleets fish along the northern shelf and west of Scotland (Subareas 4 and 6). There is also a Scottish fishery operating inshore in subarea 6. The fisheries in the first quarter of the year are directed towards mature fish in spawning aggregations, while concentrations of immature fish (age 3–4) often are targeted during the rest of the year (ICES, 2020a). The Scottish fleets that operate in Subareas 4 and 6 are often quota limited resulting in discarding. Overall, however, total discards represent a small fraction of the total catch at stock level, between 5 and 10% (based on data from (ICES, 2020b).

Catches have peaked above 300 thousand tonnes in the mid-70s, and again in mid 80s to 274 thousand tonnes, but have since been constant around 100 thousand tonnes since 1989. Catches have reached their lowest value in 2016 to 78 thousand tonnes, but have since increased to 97 thousand tonnes in 2019 (Figure 1, left upper graph; (ICES, 2020b)).

6.7.3 Stock Status and Assessment

Saithe is assessed quantitatively by ICES annually using the SAM, an age-based analytical stochastic assessment model (State–space Assessment Model - SAM). The SAM accounts for variable selectivity by age, achieved by assuming that the F vector follows a multivariate random walk with a simple covariance structure described by only one parameter (ρ) (Berg and Nielsen, 2016). Time series smoothing of F allows the fishery selection pattern to evolve over time and therefore will more realistically reflect gradual changes to fishing fleets than models which assume a fixed time invariant selection pattern. The state-space approach means that both observation error and process error can be estimated (Sieben et al., 2019).

The 2020 assessment shows a different stock perception relative to recent year’s assessments, with

biomass decreasing in recent years and fishing mortality above FMSY. The stock assessment continues to show however a strong retrospective bias, where biomass is overestimated and fishing mortality underestimated. Conflicting signals between the survey and CPUE index contributes to the assessment uncertainty. Factors such as vessel experience and fishing behavior likely contribute to the variability in CPUE for all fleets, but these are not accounted for in the CPUE standardization. The survey index is uncertain because it is influenced by occasional large catches and does not cover the whole stock distribution; however, it is considered generally representative of the stock (ICES, 2020b).

Stock biomass has been variable above MSYBtrigger (Bpa= 149 098 tonnes) since 1996, but has been

reducing since 2017 reaching 166,726 tonnes in 2020. Fishing mortality has been above FMSY (0.363) since 1971, and only at FMSY between 2014-2016 , increasing to be 0.46 in 2019. ICES advises that when the MSY approach is applied, catches in 2021 should be no more than 65 687 tonnes (ICES, 2020b).

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 40

Figure 3 - Saithe in subareas 4 and 6, and in division 3.a. Summary of the stock assessment. Assumed recruitment value is unshaded. Shaded areas (F, SSB) and error bars (R) indicate 95% confidence intervals. Landings and discards are for ages 3–10+ only, as used in the assessment. Landings below minimum conservation reference size (BMS) are those officially reported (ICES, 2020b).

Figure 4 - Saithe in subareas 4 and 6, and in division 3.a. Historical assessment results (final-year recruitment included for each line, corresponding to the forecast recruitment in the interim year, (ICES, 2020b)).

6.7.4 Stock management

Saithe in subareas 4 and 6, and in division 3.a is a jointly managed stock between the EU, UK and Norway, where the TACs are set in the context of annual negotiations. Saithe in subareas 4 and 6, and in division 3.a assessment unit continues to be managed through two TACs: one that covers subarea 4 & division 3.a and EU waters of 2a, 3b, 3c and Subdivisions 22-32; and another TAC in subarea 6 & EU and international of 5b, 12 and 14.

The EU and Norway have agreed on a management strategy (with an explicit harvest control rule) to set saithe TACs in 2009. This Harvest Control Rule (HCR) was applied until 2016, when changes to the stock assessment and reference points resulted in the F used in the strategy being no longer optimal(EU-Norway, 2017). In 2018 the EU agreed on its North Sea Multiannual Plan (NSMAP;(EU, 2018a) that also has explicit HCR to set the TACs for saithe, namely using fishing mortality ranges

around FMSY, but these rules have not been agreed by Norway. Following the departure of the UK from the EU, the EU and UK reached a trade agreement at the end of 2020 that includes fisheries, namely

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 41

MSY objectives in line with the EU CFP, quota shares and access (TCA, 2020). TAC negotiations are set to be made annually bilaterally EU-UK, and trilaterally EU-UK-Norway, but the quota shares are not envisaged to change. Until a re-evaluation of the EU–Norway management strategy is conducted, and/or a revision of the HCRs is agreed between EU, UK and Norway, ICES advice will continue to be based on the MSY approach.

The TACs set for this stock however, did not follow ICES advice in accordance with the MSY Advisory Rule in 2019 being above total catches (landings + discards), but the 2020 TAC did follow total catch advice. The TAC for 2021 has been set provisionally to 25% of the 2020 TAC for the first quarter of the year, and negotiations for the remaining of the year are ongoing. Some of the fisheries exploiting this stock are under the Landing Obligation since 2016 in subarea 4 and division 3a, and since 2018 in subarea 6; and the TACs has been adjusted to include discards of the selected fisheries. However, although landings have been generally below the set TAC with the exception of 2015 and 2016, landings and reporting of undersized saithe have been minimal. Discards are still estimated to be 5.9% of total catch of this stock in 2020 (ICES, 2020b).

Additional control measures in operation include a minimum size of 35 cm (EC, 1998), a minimum mesh size of 120 mm for Norwegian trawlers and 110 mm for EU trawlers (ICES, 2016).

6.8 Saithe in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Artic)

6.8.1 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data

The report shall include a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data table using the table below. If possible, a separate table should be provided for each species or gear.

The TAC and catch data for saithe in subareas 1 and 2 are shown in Table 18.

Table 18. TAC and Catch Data for saithe in Subareas 1 and 2.

TAC Year 2020 Amount 171,982 tonnes UoA share of TAC Year 2020 Amount [n, unit] UoC share of total TAC Year 2020 Amount [n, unit] Total green weight catch by UoC Year (most 2020 Amount [n, unit] recent) Year (second 2019 Amount [n, unit] most recent)

6.8.2 Catch and landings

Saithe are predominantly taken by Norwegian fisheries, accounting for 87% of total catches. Over the last ten years, about 38% of the Norwegian catch originates from bottom trawl, 27% from purse seine, 20% from gill net and 14% from other conventional gears (long line, Danish seine and hand line). The gillnet fishery is most intense during winter, purse seine in the summer months while the trawl fishery takes place more evenly all year around. Discarding is considered negligible (ICES, 2018a).

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 42

Catches peaked above 200 thousand tonnes in the mid-70s, reached their lowest value in 1986 to 67 thousand tonnes, but have since increased and have been variable around 150 thousand tonnes (Figure 3, left upper graph; (ICES, 2020c)).

6.8.3 Stock Status and Assessment

Saithe in subareas 1 and 2 is assessed quantitatively by ICES annually using the SAM, an age-based analytical stochastic assessment model (State–space Assessment Model - SAM). The SAM accounts for variable selectivity by age, achieved by assuming that the F vector follows a multivariate random walk with a simple covariance structure described by only one parameter (ρ)(Berg and Nielsen, 2016). Time series smoothing of F allows the fishery selection pattern to evolve over time and therefore will more realistically reflect gradual changes to fishing fleets than models which assume a fixed time invariant selection pattern. The state-space approach means that both observation error and process error can be estimated(Sieben et al., 2019). The stock assessment is considerably consistent showing little retrospective bias (Figure 4).

below FMP (0.32) since 1997, and only being above FMP between 2008-2012, decreasing since to 0.23 in 2019. ICES advises that when the Norwegian management plan is applied, catches in 2021 should be no more than 197,779 tonnes (ICES, 2020c).

Figure 5 - Saithe in subareas 1 and 2. Historical development of the stock from the summary of stock assessment (weights in thousand tonnes). Uncertainty bounds (95%) for recruitment (R), fishing mortality (F), and spawning-stock biomass (SSB) are indicated in the plots. Assumed recruitment is unshaded (ICES, 2020c)

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 43

Figure 6 - Saithe in subareas 1 and 2. Historical assessment results (final-year recruitment estimates included, (ICES, 2020c)

6.8.4 Stock management

Saithe in subareas 1 and 2 is managed by Norway, where the TAC is set in the context of a management plan with an explicit HCR: “Estimate the average TAC level for the coming 3 years based on FMP = 0.32. TAC for the next year will be set to this level as a starting value for the 3-year period. The year after, the TAC calculation for the next 3 years is repeated based on the updated information about the stock development. However, the TAC should not be changed by more than +/− 15% compared with the previous year’s TAC. If the spawning-stock biomass (SSB) in the beginning of the year for which the

quota is set (first year of prediction), is below Bpa, the procedure for establishing TAC should be based

on a fishing mortality that is linearly reduced from FMP at SSB = Bpa to 0 at SSB equal to zero. At SSB

levels below Bpa in any of the operational years (current year and 3 years of prediction) there should be no limitations on the year-to year variations in TAC” (ICES, 2019a).

Additional control measures in operation include a minimum size of 45 cm for trawl and conventional gears, 42 cm (north of Lofoten) and 40 cm (between 62°N and Lofoten) for purse seine, with an exception for the first 3000 t purse seine catch between 62°N and 66°33’ 30 N, where the minimum size still is 35 cm (ICES, 2018a).

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 44

6.8.5 Principle 1 Performance Indicator scores and rationales

Scoring table 1. PI 1.1.1 – Stock status for saithe in Subareas 4 and 6 and Division 3a

PI 1.1.1 The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of recruitment overfishing

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Stock status relative to recruitment impairment

Guide It is likely that the stock is above the point It is highly likely that the stock is above the PRI. There is a high degree of certainty that the stock is post where recruitment would be impaired above the PRI. (PRI).

Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

Saithe in subareas 4 and 6, and division 3a stock biomass is assessed to be in 2020 at 166,726 (between 121,412 and 226,155 tonnes), which is 1.5 above the estimated Blim (between 1.13 and 2.11) and 1.12 above Bpa. As the biomass 95% CI does not include Blim, while considering that by definition Bpa is where there is less than 5% chance of biomass being below Blim, then there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above PRI and SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met.

b Stock status in relation to achievement of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY)

Guide The stock is at or fluctuating around a level There is a high degree of certainty that the stock has post consistent with MSY. been fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years.

Met? No No

Rationale

Sock biomass has been variable above MSYBtrigger since 1996, but has been reducing since 2017 reaching 166,726 tonnes in 2020. Fishing mortality has been above FMSY (0.363) since 1971, and only at FMSY between 2014-2016, increasing again to 0.46 in 2019. In addition, MSYBtrigger estimate (which for this stock is set at Bpa) is likely to be considerably lower than the value of BMSY, considering the distance between the value of FMSY and Fpa and the high stock levels observed in the 70s. Assuming BMSY is around

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 45

the double of MSYBtrigger (at around 300,000 tonnes) then the 95% CI of the 2020 stock biomass is below BMSY. For all these reasons the stock is not at or fluctuating at a level consistent with MSY and neither SG80 nor SG100 are reached.

References

(ICES, 2020b)

Stock status relative to reference points

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

Reference point Blim 107,297 tonnes B2020/Blim = 1.55 (between 1.13 and 2.11 95% CI) used in scoring stock relative to PRI (SIa)

Reference point MSYBtrigger = Bpa 149,098 tonnes B2020/MSYBtrigger = 1.12 (between 0.81 and 1.52 95% CI) used in scoring FMSY 0.363 F2019/FMSY = 1.27 (between 0.96 and 1.68) stock relative to MSY (SIb) Fpa 0.446 Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 46

Scoring table 2. PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding for saithe in Subareas 4 and 6 and Division 3a

PI 1.1.2 Where the stock is reduced, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified timeframe

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Rebuilding timeframes

Guide A rebuilding timeframe is specified for the The shortest practicable rebuilding timeframe is specified stock that is the shorter of 20 years or 2 which does not exceed one generation time for the stock. post times its generation time. For cases where 2

generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years.

Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

The EU-UK, EU-Norway management strategy and ICES MSY Approach have the objective of reaching FMSY levels in one year, while assuring that the stock does not reach Blim. Furthermore, the stock has been fluctuating above MSYBtrigger for several years, and biomass is predicted to increase in 2022. Considering that saithe in the North Sea reproduces on average at 5 years of age, and considering a natural mortality of around 0.2 yr-1, an approximated generation time of 10 years is estimated. Stock biomass is predicted to increase in the coming years, likely reaching MSY levels in 10 years if F is maintained below FMSY and considering present recruitment levels. Therefore SG 60 and 100 are both met.

b Rebuilding evaluation

Guide Monitoring is in place to determine whether There is evidence that the rebuilding There is strong evidence that the rebuilding strategies the rebuilding strategies are effective in strategies are rebuilding stocks, or it is are rebuilding stocks, or it is highly likely based on post rebuilding the stock within the specified likely based on simulation modelling, simulation modelling, exploitation rates or previous timeframe. exploitation rates or previous performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock performance that they will be able to within the specified timeframe.

rebuild the stock within the specified timeframe.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 47

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

There is a monitoring scheme in place for the stock and the fisheries. There are several sampling programmes and a fishery-independent survey under the EU Data Collection Framework, UK and Norway. There is a port sampling scheme in all countries involved, at-sea observers programmes on EU vessels to collect biological information on catches (length, sex, maturity and otoliths). Thus, SG60 is reached. Stock biomass is predicted to increase in the coming years and continue to be above MSYBtrigger, likely reaching MSY levels in 10 years if F is maintained below FMSY and considering present recruitment levels – SG80 is met. However, considering the uncertainties in the stock assessments and its strong retrospective bias, is not highly likely that the rebuilding strategy will be able to rebuild the stock within the specified timeframe and SG100 is not met.

References

(EU, 2018a; EU-Norway, 2017; ICES, 2020a, 2020b; TCA, 2020)

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

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 48

Scoring table 3. PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy for saithe in Subareas 4 and 6 and Division 3a

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Harvest strategy design

Guide The harvest strategy is expected to achieve The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of stock management objectives reflected in stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work the stock and is designed to achieve stock post PI 1.1.1 SG80. together towards achieving stock management management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. SG80.

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Saithe in subareas 4 and 6, and division 3a is managed between the EU, UK and Norway. There are precautionary and MSY objectives specified, a licensing scheme exists, and where a set of specific management measures can be adopted (including TACs, minimum size and gear specifications) and monitoring minimum requirements need to be reached. Therefore, the assessment team concludes that the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 and SG60 and SG80 are reached. However, as the management strategy has not been applied to set the TACs for saithe in subareas 4 and 6, and division 3.a due to a revision of the stock reference points, while there is uncertainty due to Brexit, the strategy is not designed to achieve stock management objectives. For this reason, SG100 is not met.

b Harvest strategy evaluation

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

Met? Yes No No

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 49

Rationale

The harvest strategy is likely to have decreased F historically from its peak in the 80s to FMSY in recent years, although it was not able to maintain it a FMSY. Biomass has yet to be at MSY levels, but has likely been in mid-2000. So evidence exists that the harvest strategy has worked in the past and SG60 has been reached. However, since stock biomass and fishing mortality are not at MSY levels, the strategy is not reaching its objectives and SG80 and SG100 are not met.

c Harvest strategy monitoring

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

Met? Yes

Rationale

There is a monitoring scheme in place for the stock and the fisheries. There are several sampling programmes and fishery-independent surveys under the EU Data Collection Framework, UK and Norway. There is a port sampling scheme in all countries involved, at-sea observers programmes on EU vessels to collect biological information on catches (length, sex, maturity and otoliths), but discards are not routinely sampled in Norwegian vessels. Nevertheless, all these data collected are used to inform the stock assessment on stock status, which allows for an evaluation of the harvest strategy and therefore SG60 is reached. d Harvest strategy review

Guide The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. post Met? Yes

Rationale

The UK-EU-Norway measures are agreed annually and its HCRs evaluated by ICES. The CFP is reviewed periodically every 10 years and improvements are made if deemed necessary, which has always been the case. The EU Data Collection Framework is also periodically reviewed, as well as each Member States’ sampling programmes, and also the Norwegian data collection system. Finally ICES stock assessments are also reviewed bi-annually and benchmarked regularly. Therefore, all components of the harvest strategy, namely the management system and its ability to control fishing mortality and respond to stock status, the stock assessment and monitoring systems are periodically reviewed so SG100 is met. e Shark finning

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 50

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

Rationale

The target species is not a shark – not applicable. f Review of alternative measures

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

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Discard rates of saithe subareas 4 and 6 and division 3.a are between 5-10% mainly due to fisheries that have no quota. The UoAs all target saithe and have sufficient available quota, while using large mesh sizes, so discards are likely to be low. Discards, and exemptions, are reviewed regularly under the annual requirements to report on the implementation of the Landings Obligation. Thus SG80 is reached. However, there is no specific biannual procedure in place and thus SG100 is not attained.

References

(EU, 2018a; EU-Norway, 2017; ICES, 2020a, 2020b; TCA, 2020)

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

Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 51

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

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 52

Scoring table 4. PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools for saithe in Subareas 4 and 6 and Division 3a

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a HCRs design and application

Guide Generally understood HCRs are in place or Well defined HCRs are in place that ensure that The HCRs are expected to keep the stock available that are expected to reduce the the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is fluctuating at or above a target level consistent post exploitation rate as the point of recruitment approached, are expected to keep the stock with MSY, or another more appropriate level impairment (PRI) is approached. fluctuating around a target level consistent with taking into account the ecological role of the (or above) MSY, or for key LTL species a level stock, most of the time. consistent with ecosystem needs. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Generally understood HCRs are available in the UK-EU while the EU-Norway agreement has well defined HCRs and thus SG60 is reached. The TACs have however followed ICES scientific advice and its MSY Advisory Rule in 2020, and thus intrinsically follow the ICES MSY approach for fishing opportunities. Therefore, there are well defined HCRs in place and are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around MSY and SG80 is met. However, as ICES MSY Btrigger is in fact Bpa, the HCR is not expected to keep the stock fluctuating at or above MSY and SG100 is not met.

b HCRs robustness to uncertainty

Guide The HCRs are likely to be robust to the main The HCRs take account of a wide range of uncertainties. uncertainties including the ecological role of the post stock, and there is evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties. Met? Yes No

Rationale

ICES’ MSY approach to provide advice on fishing opportunities has been tested and is robust to the main uncertainties. ICES provides stock projections and catch options assuming a number of uncertainties in the data but also on the stock dynamics (catch data, age readings, stock-recruit relationships, etc.). So, considering the ICES advisory rule

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 53

under the MSY approach as a HCR, since the TAC have followed advice in recent years, there is evidence that the HCR are robust to main uncertainties. However, the HCRs do not take account of the ecological role of the stocks and for this reason. SG80 is met but SG100 is not met.

c HCRs evaluation

Guide There is some evidence that tools used or Available evidence indicates that the tools in Evidence clearly shows that the tools in use are available to implement HCRs are appropriate and use are appropriate and effective in achieving effective in achieving the exploitation levels post effective in controlling exploitation. the exploitation levels required under the required under the HCRs. HCRs.

Met? Yes No No

Rationale

The HCR is likely to have decreased F historically from its peak in the 80s to FMSY in recent years and thus there is some past evidence that the tools used were effective in controlling exploitation and SG60 is reached. However, as F has increased and is above FMSY in recent years the available evidence shows that the tools in use are appropriate but not effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs and SG80 and SG100 have not been reached.

References

(EU-Norway, 2017; ICES, 2020b; TCA, 2020)

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

Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 54

Scoring table 5. PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring for saithe in Subareas 4 and 6 and Division 3a

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Range of information

Guide Some relevant information related to stock Sufficient relevant information related to stock A comprehensive range of information (on structure, stock productivity and fleet structure, stock productivity, fleet composition stock structure, stock productivity, fleet post composition is available to support the harvest and other data are available to support the composition, stock abundance, UoA strategy. harvest strategy. removals and other information such as environmental information), including some

that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Information on catch, including discards and effort, length and age structure, growth, maturity, abundance and fleet composition are all available for the stock. The majority of catches and area of occurrence and where the fishery operates are sampled on a regular basis and are sufficient to support the harvest strategy and SG60 and SG80 are reached. As environmental information is lacking and stock structure has been identified as an area for more detailed research in the future, a comprehensive range of information is not available to support the harvest strategy and SG100 is not met.

b Monitoring

Guide Stock abundance and UoA removals are monitored Stock abundance and UoA removals are All information required by the harvest and at least one indicator is available and regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and control rule is monitored with high post monitored with sufficient frequency to support the coverage consistent with the harvest control frequency and a high degree of certainty, harvest control rule. rule, and one or more indicators are available and there is a good understanding of and monitored with sufficient frequency to inherent uncertainties in the information support the harvest control rule. [data] and the robustness of assessment and management to this uncertainty. Met? Yes Yes No

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 55

Rationale

Stock abundance is monitored annually by one survey, although it does not cover the whole stock distribution. Catch per unit of effort is available from all fisheries, covering the majority of landings. UoAs are sampled quarterly through the national sampling programmes under the EU DCF for biological data, including landings and discard estimates, age and maturity estimates and so all information required by a harvest control rule is regularly monitored with high frequency and thus SG60 and SG80 are met. The assessment model was tested in the 2017 benchmark exercise to uncertainties, but there are conflicting signals between the survey and the CPUEs resulting in strong retrospective bias in the assessment results and for this reason SG100 is not met.

c Comprehensiveness of information

Guide There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. post Met? No

Rationale

As there is a lack of discard sampling from the Norwegian fleets that are responsible for half of all catches from the saithe in subareas 4 and 6 and division 3.a stock, while discarding may occur, SG80 is not reached.

References

(ICES, 2020a, 2020b)

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

Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 56

Scoring table 6. PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration Guide The assessment is appropriate for the stock and for The assessment takes into account the major the harvest control rule. features relevant to the biology of the post species and the nature of the UoA. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

Saithe in subareas 4 and 6, and division 3a is assessed by ICES based on an age-based analytical stochastic assessment model (State–space Assessment Model – SAM) that uses catches in the model and in the forecast and one survey. The model considers the stock age composition, maturity, growth and natural mortality. Therefore, major features of the biology of saithe are taken into account in the assessments and SG80 and SG100 reached.

b Assessment approach Guide The assessment estimates stock status relative to The assessment estimates stock status relative generic reference points appropriate to the species to reference points that are appropriate to the post category. stock and can be estimated.

Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

The assessment is carried out by ICES using SAM model estimates stock status relative to reference points, namely Bpa, Blim, FMSY, FMP, Fpa and therefore SG60 and SG80 are reached. As the stock has not been fished at FMSY during a significant time, ICES is not yet able to estimate BMSY.

c Uncertainty in the assessment

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 57

Guide The assessment identifies major sources of The assessment takes uncertainty into The assessment takes into account uncertainty. account. uncertainty and is evaluating stock status post relative to reference points in a probabilistic way.

Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The assessment takes uncertainty into account in the catch data and in measurement error and it does estimate stock status in a probabilistic way relative to reference points. Biomass and fishing mortality are estimated with 95% CI. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are therefore reached.

d Evaluation of assessment Guide The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative post hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored.

Met? No

Rationale

The 2017 ICES benchmark exercise tested the SAM model sensitivity to different assumptions. However, the 2020 assessment continues to show a strong retrospective bias where biomass is overestimated and fishing mortality underestimated. SG100 is therefore not met.

e Peer review of assessment Guide The assessment of stock status is subject to peer The assessment has been internally and review. externally peer reviewed. post Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 58

The stock assessment is reviewed internally through the normal advisory process of ICES by-annually, in benchmarks exercises, and in specific methodological working groups (e.g. WKLIFE) SG80 is met. The assessments are also externally peer reviewed with the participation of invited expert at ICES working groups and benchmark exercises that review, among other issues, the assessment data, models and assumptions used. Therefore, SG100 is met.

References

(ICES, 2020a, 2020b)

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

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 59

Scoring table 7. PI 1.1.1 – Stock status for saithe in subareas 1 and 2

PI 1.1.1 The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of recruitment overfishing

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Stock status relative to recruitment impairment

Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

Saithe in subareas 1 and 2 stock biomass is assessed to be in 2020 at 555,359 (between 417,153 and 739,352 tonnes), which is 4 times above the estimated Blim (between 3.07 and 5.44) and 2.52 times above Bpa. Considering that by definition Bpa is where there is less than 5% chance of biomass being below Blim, then there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above PRI and SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met.

b Stock status in relation to achievement of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY)

Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

Stock biomass has been variable above BMGT (Bpa= 136,000 tonnes) since 1994, showing a peak in 2005 (603,514 tonnes) and has been increasing since 2011 reaching 555,359 tonnes in 2019. Assuming BMSY around the double of Bpa (at around 440,000 tonnes) stock biomass is still above 1.26. The 95% CI of the 2020 stock biomass lower boundary (417,153 tonnes) is just below twice Bpa. For all these there is a high degree of certainty that the stock has been fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY over recent years and both SG80 and SG100 are reached.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 60

References

(ICES, 2020c)

Stock status relative to reference points

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

Reference point Blim 136,000 tonnes B2020/Blim = 4.08 (between 3.07 and 5.44 95% CI) used in scoring stock relative to PRI (SIa)

Reference point BMGT= Bpa 220,000 tonnes B2019/BMGT = 2.52 (between 1.90 and 3.36 95% CI) used in scoring FMP 0.32 F2019/FMP = 0.72 (between 0.49 and 1.0) stock relative to MSY (SIb) Fpa 0.35 Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Scoring table 8. PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding for saithe in subareas 1 and 2 – Not Applicable

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 61

Scoring table 9. PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy for saithe in subareas 1 and 2

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Harvest strategy design

Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

Saithe is subareas 1 and 2 is managed solely by Norway. There are precautionary and MSY objectives, a licensing scheme exists, a set of specific management measures can be adopted (including TACs, minimum size and gear specifications) and minimum monitoring requirements need to be reached. There is also a management plan with a specific HCR and management limit and target reference points, that have been assessed to be precautionary and are used to set TACs for this stock. Therefore, the assessment team concludes that the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and is also designed to achieve stock management objectives and all SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met.

b Harvest strategy evaluation

Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 62

Saithe in subareas 1 and 2 is fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY, while the performance of the harvest strategy has been fully evaluated by ICES in 2011 and 2014 and considered to be precautionary and thus SG60, SG80 and SG100 are reached.

c Harvest strategy monitoring

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

Met? Yes

Rationale

There is a monitoring scheme in place for the stock and the fisheries. There is a self-sampling programme based on a reference fleet and fishery-independent survey (Norwegian acoustic survey). There is a port sampling scheme but discards are not routinely sampled in Norwegian vessels. Nevertheless, all these data collected are used to inform the stock assessment on stock status, which allows for an evaluation of the harvest strategy and therefore SG60 is reached d Harvest strategy review

Guide The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. post Met? Yes

Rationale

The Norwegian fisheries management is reviewed periodically, for example the management plan target was reduced in 2013 and subsequently evaluated by ICES. The Norwegian data collection system is also periodically reviewed, the latest in 2000 when the self-sampling scheme with the use of a reference fleet started. Finally, ICES stock assessments are also reviewed bi-annually and benchmarked regularly (for this stock in 2005, 2011, 2014). Therefore, all components of the harvest strategy, namely the management system and its ability to control fishing mortality and respond to stock status, the stock assessment and monitoring systems are periodically reviewed so SG100 is met. e Shark finning

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

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 63

Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

The target species is not a shark – not applicable. f Review of alternative measures

Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

Saithe in subareas 1 and 2 discards is negligible and therefore the scoring is not applicable.

References

(Clegg and Williams, 2020; ICES, 2020c, 2018a, 2014, 2011)

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

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 64

Scoring table 10. PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools for saithe in subareas 1 and 2

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a HCRs design and application

Rationale

The Norwegian management strategy has an explicit HCR for saithe in subareas 1 and 2, namely that the TAC is set according to the average TAC level for the coming 3 years based on FMP = 0.32 within a +-15% annual TAC variation if the stock is above Bpa. The HCR has been applied to set TACs and the stock is fluctuating around MSY levels and thus SG60, SG80 and SG100 are all met.

b HCRs robustness to uncertainty

Rationale

The HCR has been evaluated by ICES in 2011 and has been considered precautionary, but also after the inter-benchmark assessment in 2014. So SG80 is reached. However, the HCRs do not take account of the ecological role of the stock and for this reason SG100 is not met.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 65

c HCRs evaluation

Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

For saithe in subareas 1 and 2 fishing mortality is below the management target and the stock is fluctuating around MSY levels. Thus SG60, SG80, and SG100 are met.

References

(ICES, 2020c, 2019a, 2014, 2011)

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

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 66

Scoring table 11. PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring for saithe in subareas 1 and 2

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Range of information

that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Information on catch, including discards and effort, length and age structure, growth, maturity, abundance and fleet composition are all available for the stock in ICES databases (https://www.ices.dk/data/dataset-collections/Pages/default.aspx). The majority of catches, area of occurrence, and area of operation of the fishery are sampled on a regular basis and data are sufficient to support the harvest strategy – both SG60 and SG80 are reached. As environmental information is lacking and stock structure has been identified as an area for more detailed research in the future, a comprehensive range of information is not available to support the harvest strategy and SG100 is not met.

b Monitoring

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 67

Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

Catch per unit of effort is available from all fisheries, covering the majority of landings. UoAs are sampled quarterly through the national sampling programmes under the EU DCF for biological data, including landings and discard estimates, age and maturity estimates and so all information required by a harvest control rule is regularly monitored with high frequency and thus SG60 and SG80 are met. The stock assessment inter-benchmark did show significant changes in stock perception, while the assessment is consistent and does not have a retrospective bias. Thus, SG100 is also reached.

c Comprehensiveness of information

Guide There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. post Met? Yes

Rationale

Discards are negligible and recreational fisheries, which may not be sampled in as frequently as commercial catches, are less than 10% of total catches and thus SG 80 is reached.

References

(ICES, 2020c, 2018a)

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

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Overall Performance Indicator score

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 68

Condition number (if relevant)

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 69

Scoring table 12. PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status for saithe in subareas 1 and 2

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Rationale

Saithe in subareas 1 and 2 is assessed by ICES based on an age-based analytical stochastic assessment model (State–space Assessment Model – SAM) that uses catches in the model and in the forecast and one survey. The model considers the stock age composition, maturity, growth and natural mortality. Therefore, major features of the biology of saithe are taken into account in the assessments – SG80 and SG100 are reached.

Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

The assessment carried out by ICES using SAM model estimates stock status relative to reference points, namely Bpa, Blim, FMP, Fpa and therefore SG60 and SG80 are reached. MSY reference points have not been defined for this stock.

c Uncertainty in the assessment

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 70

Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The assessment takes uncertainty into account in the catch data and in measurement error and it does estimate stock status in a probabilistic way relative to reference points As biomass and fishing mortality are estimated with 95% CI. Therefore SG60, SG80 and SG100 are all reached.

d Evaluation of assessment Guide The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative post hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored.

Met? Yes

Rationale

The stock assessment for saithe in subareas 1 and 2 was re-evaluated in the 2014 inter-benchmark and did not show significant differences, and the stock assessment continues to be consistent between years, not showing a retrospective bias. Thus SG100 is reached.

e Peer review of assessment Guide The assessment of stock status is subject to peer The assessment has been internally and review. externally peer reviewed. post Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 71

The stock assessment is reviewed internally through the normal advisory process of ICES by-annually, in benchmarks exercises, and in specific methodological working groups (e.g. WKLIFE). The assessments are also externally peer reviewed with the participation of invited experts at ICES working groups and benchmark exercises that review, among other issues, the assessment data, models and assumptions used. SG80 and SG100 are met.

References

(ICES, 2020c, 2018a)

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

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 72

6.9 Principle 2

6.9.1 Designation of species under Principle 2

Primary species (MSC Component 2.1) are defined as follows:

• Species in the catch that are not covered under P1; • Species that are within scope of the MSC program, i.e. no amphibians, reptiles, birds or mammals; • Species where management tools and measures are in place, intended to achieve stock management objectives reflected in either limit (LRP) or target reference points (TRP). Primary species can therefore also be referred to as ‘managed species’.

Secondary species (MSC Component 2.2) are defined as follows:

• Species in the catch that are not covered under P1; • Species that are not managed in accordance with limit or target reference points, i.e. do not meet the primary species criteria; • Species that are out of scope of the programme, but where the definition of ETP species is not applicable (see below)

ETP (Endangered, Threatened or Protected) species (MSC Component 2.3) are assigned as follows:

• Species that are recognised by national ETP legislation • Species listed in binding international agreements (e.g. CITES, Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), ACAP, etc.) • Species classified as ‘out-of scope’ (amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) that are listed in the IUCN Redlist as vulnerable (VU), endangered (EN) or critically endangered (CE).

Both primary and secondary species are defined as ‘main’ if they meet the following criteria:

• The catch comprises 5% or more by weight of the total catch of all species by the UoC; • The species is classified as ‘Less resilient’ and comprises 2% or more by weight of the total catch of all species by the UoC. Less resilient is defined here as having low to medium productivity, or species for which resilience has been lowered due to anthropogenic or natural changes to its life-history • The species is out of scope but is not considered an ETP species (secondary species only) • Exceptions to the rule may apply in the case of exceptionally large catches of bycatch species

Habitats (MSC Component 2.4): Habitats impacted by the fishery, considered on the basis of the area covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates, including any commonly encountered habitats, Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs) or minor habitats.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 73

Ecosystem (MSC Component 2.5): Those key ecosystem elements considered most crucial to giving the ecosystem its characteristic nature and dynamics, to maintaining the integrity of its structure and functions, and the key determinants of the ecosystem resilience and productivity. The key ecosystem elements are considered relative to the scale and intensity of the UoA.

6.9.2 Primary and Secondary species

UoA 1

According to Table 10, other than saithe (the P1 species), only hake made up more than 5% of the total retained catch for Euronor and Compagnie des Pêches St Malo in the Northeast Atlantic UoA (ICES subareas 4, 6 and Division 3a). This species was therefore considered as ‘main’. Although cod catches did not reach this threshold, they did exceed 2% of the retained catch for most years. Table 19 below shows that it is mostly the North Sea cod stock that is caught (formally the North Sea, eastern English Channel and Skagerrak stock) which is currently below the point of recruitment impairment

(Blim) with a high degree of certainty (ICES, 2020d). The team therefore considered this stock as ‘vulnerable’ and also included it as ‘main’ in this assessment. The 6a cod stock (West of Scotland) was considered as minor. No additional ‘main’ species were identified from the observer data in Table 13. An overview of the ‘main’ species for UoA 1 and their reason for primary/secondary designation is shown in Table 21.

Table 19. Proportion (%) of annual cod catches by fishing area (ICES Division) for UoA 1.

Year 4a 4b 6a

2015 96.40 0.01 3.59

2016 99.26 0.00 0.74

2017 97.37 0.00 2.63

2018 99.11 0.00 0.89

2019 99.29 0.00 0.71

UoA 2

According to

Table 11, cod is the dominant species in the catch for Euronor and Compagnie des Pêches St Malo in the Northeast Arctic (ICES subareas 1 and 2), exceeding 80% of the retained catch for 2015-2017, although this dropped to about 40% in 2018, while saithe catches increased significantly. The reason for this should be discussed further at the site visit. Landings for Greenland halibut were ca. 5% of the total catch in 2015/16, although this decreased in subsequent years to only 0.83% in 2018, averaging at 4% over the five-year period. This species was therefore not considered as main.

For the Northeast Arctic UoAs, the Emeraude is not subject to any observer coverage (this is to be discussed further at the site visit) although it is required to record any discards in the electronic logbook. For Euronor, 7 observed trips also covered the Norwegian zone (2a) between 2016 and 2020 although it should be discussed to what extent these data are representative of Northeast Arctic fishing activities, given that these trips also included activities in 4a, 6a, 5a and 5b. On the basis of the data provided at this ACDR stage, no additional main species have been identified.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 74

An overview of the ‘main’ species for UoA 2 and their reason for primary/secondary designation is shown in Table 21. Minor primary and secondary species are shown in Table 11.

UoA 3

Retained catch data for the Scapêche saithe fishery in the Northeast Atlantic (ICES subareas 4, 6 and Division 3a) for 2016 – 2020 are shown in Table 12. Species that meet the criteria for ‘main’ species (at over 5% of the retained catch) include hake, anglerfish, black scabbardfish, blue ling, ling and cod. Cod only exceeded the 5% threshold for the final year (2020); however, because of the vulnerable status of the North Sea cod stock (as discussed above) and because catches exceeded 2% for three out of five years, it was considered as ‘main’. For blue ling, it is noted that there are two ICES stocks which may overlap with the Scapêche fishery; these are the Northeast Atlantic stock (ICES Subareas 1, 2, 8, 9, and 12, and in Divisions 3.a and 4.a), and the Celtic Seas and Faroes grounds stock (Subareas 6–7 and Division 5.b). A more in-depth analysis of the retained catch data, as summarized in Table 20, indicates that the majority of catches (>99%) stem from the latter. This stock was therefore assessed as ‘main’ while the other was assessed as minor. No additional ‘main’ species were identified from the observer data in Table 14. An overview of the ‘main’ species for UoA 3 and their reason for primary/secondary designation is shown in Table 21. Minor primary and secondary species are shown in Table 12 and Table 14.

Table 20. Proportion (%) of annual blue ling catches by fishing area (ICES Division) for UoA 3.

Year 4a 6a 3a 2016 0.03 99.87 0.11

2017 0.09 99.90 0.01

2018 0.04 99.96 0.00

2019 0.00 100.00 0.00

2020 0.05 99.95 0.00

Overview of main Primary and Secondary species

Table 21. Overview of main Primary and Secondary species by UoA and their reason for designation

Species Stock P2 Reason for designation UoA designation Hake Northern stock Primary ICES Category 1 stock (quantitative 1, 3 (Merluccius (Greater North assessment and reference points). merluccius) Sea, Celtic Seas, Managed via TACs set in line with ICES and the advice which follows the MSY approach. northern Bay of Biscay) Cod (Gadus North Sea, Primary As for hake 1, 3 morhua) eastern English Channel, Skagerrak Northeast Arctic Primary ICES Category 1 stock (quantitative 2 assessment and reference points).

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 75

Species Stock P2 Reason for designation UoA designation Managed via TACs set in line with Joint Russian–Norwegian Fisheries Commission management plan, as the average catch predicted for the coming 3 years, using the target level of exploitation (Ftr) (ICES, 2020e). Anglerfish North Sea, Primary ICES Category 3 stock (survey-based 3 (Lophius Rockall and assessments or exploratory assessments budegassa, West of indicate trends). Managed via TAC set in L. Scotland, line with ICES precautionary approach, piscatorius) Skagerrak and based on the ratio of the mean of the last Kattegat two index values (Index A) and the mean of the three preceding values (Index B), multiplied by the recent advised catch (ICES, 2020f) Black Northeast Primary ICES Category 3 stock (survey-based 3 scabbardfish Atlantic and assessments or exploratory assessments (Aphanopus Arctic Ocean indicate trends). Managed via TAC set in carbo) line with ICES precautionary approach, based on stock trends by area estimated by the slope from a linear regression of the abundance estimate in a given year (Y) versus the abundance estimate in the previous year (Y−1), calculated for the most recent five years (ICES, 2020g). Blue ling Celtic Seas and Primary ICES Category 1 stock (quantitative 3 (Molva Faroes grounds assessment and reference points). EU TAC dypterygia) set in line with ICES advice which follows the MSY approach. Ling Northeast Primary ICES Category 3 stock (survey-based 3 Atlantic and assessments or exploratory assessments Arctic Ocean indicate trends). Managed via TAC set in line with ICES precautionary approach, based on the ratio of the mean of the last two index values (Index A) and the mean of the three preceding values (Index B), multiplied by the recent advised catch (ICES, 2019b)

6.9.3 ETP species

ETP species for this fishery are defined as follows:

• Species protected under national (France, Norway) legislation; • Species protected under the following EU legislation:

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 76

o (EU, 2019a): Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on the conservation of fisheries resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures; o (EU, 2021a): Regulation (EU) 2021/92 of 28 January 2021 fixing for 2021 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters; o (EU, 1992): Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (the Habitats Directive); and o (EU, 2009): Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (the Birds Directive). • Species protected under other legally binding instruments such as CITES Appendix I.

ETP species interactions in these fisheries may be recorded in UoA logbooks, although observer data were considered the most reliable source, providing an exhaustive list of ETP species encountered with details on fate and quantity (see Table 13 and Table 14 for UoAs 1 and 3, respectively). Based on the data received at this ACDR stage, the following ETP species were identified for UoAs 1 and 3:

Table 22. Overview of ETP species encountered by UoAs 1 and 3 according to logbook and observer data.

Species Reason for ETP status UoA Comment ETP in Division 3a and See Section 6.9.3.1 for Raja radiata Starry ray subarea 4 only (EU, UoA 1, 3 detail 2021a) Discussed further in Cetorhinus maximus Basking shark (EU, 2019a) UoA 1 scoring tables Dipturus cf. flossada Common skate See Section 6.9.3.2 for and Dipturus cf. (EU, 2021a) UoA 1, 3 complex detail intermedia Discussed further in Squalus acanthias Spurdog (EU, 2021a) UoA 1, 3 scoring tables

For UoA 2, Norwegian regulations prohibit vessels from targeting and landing basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus), piked dogfish (Squalus acanthias), porbeagle (Lamna nasus) and silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) (Norwegian Fisheridirektoratet regulation J-250-2013). These are therefore all ETP species. An additional regulation forbids vessels to fish for redfish in the fish protection zone off Svalbard – SFPA (although it is permitted to have up to 20% in weight of redfish when fishing for other species in the SFPA (Norwegian Fisheridirektoratet regulation J-273-2013). On that basis, the team considered redfish also as ETP in for this UoA. As noted in the previous reassessment, the NEA UoA vessels have not yet had the opportunity to take observers on board because of the duration of the trips, and because the fishery is considered low risk because of the rigid and rigorously enforced Norwegian regulatory framework that among other things forbids discarding. Despite this discard ban and although Norwegian enforcement of foreign vessels is perceived to be strict, it is acknowledged that there may be small amounts of discarding (e.g. (IMR, 2011)). During the 2016 reassessment, the team relied on the Norwegian ‘reference fleet’ and information from Russian observers given in other MSC reports from overlapping Russian fisheries. At this ACDR stage, it is not clear whether an updated reference fleet dataset is available. No detailed analysis of ETP interactions was therefore carried out for this ACDR and this will be discussed with stakeholders at the site visit and the report updated accordingly.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 77

6.9.3.1 Starry ray

UoA 1

Conditions were raised on starry ray bycatch for both Euronor and Cie des Peches St Malo (now both included in UoA 1) during the initial reassessment for all ETP species performance indicators (Conditions 1, 2 and 3). The following actions have taken place since:

- FROM Nord, Euronor’s Producer Organisation, is the lead partner in the European project INTERREG 2 Seas SUMARiS (Sustainable Management of Rays and Skates) which aims to put together the necessary knowledge and evidence in order to implement a species-specific cross-border management strategy for rays and skates fishery in the English Channel and the North Sea. The project is being conducted by different EU member states (the UK, Netherlands, Belgium and France) in partnership with producer organisations (FROM Nord, Rederscentrale), scientific organisations (IFREMER and ILVO), Nausicaa, the French National Sea Centre and associated partners (VisNed, the AQUIMER Hub and CEFAS) (see https://www.interreg2seas.eu/nl/sumaris). The project was launched in October 2017. Through FROM Nord, the captains and crew of both UoA companies have been attending SUMARiS training sessions over 2018 (on species identification, handling and release practices and reporting - http://www.fromnord.fr/le-from-nord/projets/nos-projets-en-cours-de- realisation/sumaris), in addition to the annual training sessions organized by the companies themselves, and have been provided the SUMARiS guide on ray handling and release practices to improve identification and increase post-release survival. The vessels have also been equipped with a separate skates and ray ID guide and summary of regulations by Euronor and Cie des Pêches. As of 2019, the IKTUS reporting tool became functional, facilitating the self-reporting on ETP species interactions. According to the self-reporting data for both fleets, 366kg of starry ray were discarded in 2020. According to the observer data for the same year, 161 starry rays were discarded (observer coverage to be discussed at the site visit).

To demonstrate progress against this condition, the Client group have carried out an analysis of UoA fishing footprint (based on saithe catches) vs starry ray distribution data, according to 2015-2019 International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) data. The analysis indicates that the fishery does not overlap with the area of greatest starry ray abundance according to the IBTS. While there may be some hotspots in the north of Division 4a where the UoA does operate, the extent of spatial overlap appears to be limited.

The UoA level impact on this species is discussed further in the ETP species scoring tables.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 78

Figure 7. Overlap UoA 1 saithe catches (kg) with starry ray catch (kg) from 2015-19 International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS). Source: Client. UoA 3

For Scapêche, no records of starry ray were found in the Obsmer observer data which are specific to the saithe fishery, as discussed in Section 5.2.4. According to the logbook data, 99.6% of starry ray catches were made in ICES Division 6a where this species is not considered ETP and is permitted to be landed (EU, 2021a). For UoA 3, starry ray was therefore assessed as minor secondary species and not ETP.

6.9.3.2 Common skate complex

UoA 1

According to the Obsmer observer data, 165 individuals of Dipturus batis or D. cf. intermedia were caught by the UoA between 2016 and 2020. All of the individuals were discarded. As mentioned for starry ray above, the captains and crew of both UoA companies have been attending SUMARiS training sessions over 2018 (to be updated) (on species identification, handling and release practices and reporting - http://www.fromnord.fr/le-from-nord/projets/nos-projets-en-cours-de- realisation/sumaris), in addition to the annual training sessions organized by the companies themselves, and have been provided the SUMARiS guide on ray handling and release practices to improve identification and increase post-release survival. The vessels have also been equipped with a separate skates and ray ID guide and summary of regulations by Euronor and Cie des Pêches. As of 2019, the IKTUS reporting tool became functional, facilitating the self-reporting on ETP species interactions. According to the self-reporting data for both fleets, no common skate were discarded in 2020. The UoA level impact on this species is discussed further in the ETP species scoring tables.

UoA 3

Conditions were raised on common skate bycatch for Scapêche during the initial reassessment for all ETP species performance indicators (Conditions 1, 2 and 3). The following actions have taken place since:

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 79

- Although Scapêche is not a formal participant of the aforementioned SUMARiS project, the company also regularly discusses ray identification and proper handling techniques with the fishermen before vessels leave port, and has distributed the SUMARiS ID and handling/release guide to its vessels and crew. Although a self-reporting system is in place as well, no discards of common skate were recorded by the fleet over 2016-2020.

- The Scapêche UoA vessels have continued to regularly take observers on board, ensuring enough coverage on hauls targeting saithe (because the saithe fishery takes place during trips when other, more deep-sea species such as anglerfish and blue ling are also targeted). According to the Obsmer observer data, 192 individuals of common skate were recorded during the 2016 – 2020 period.

- Over the course of the previous certification cycle, Scapêche commissioned an analysis of common skate bycatch based on observer data over 2016 – 18. The analysis (in French) is shown in Appendix 4, indicating an average annual fleet-level bycatch of 284 common skate per year (average 2016- 2018). For 2018, this is based on all operations that include saithe in the retained catch; for the preceding years, only operations with over 200kg saithe were considered (to be discussed at the site visit).

- During the Year 3 surveillance, Scapêche mentioned their participation from 2020 in the project ‘POPOC’ which aims to improve knowledge on the common skate species complex; although the study area currently does not include the west of Scotland, Scapêche would aim to expand the scope to also include this zone. No information was available on this project at the time and this will therefore be discussed further at the site visit.

6.9.4 Habitats

The MSC Principles and Criteria require that fisheries do not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function. When assessing the status of habitats and the impacts of fishing, teams are required to consider the full area managed by the local, regional, national, or international governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates (the “managed area” for short) (SA3.13.5, MSC FCRv2.01). The MSC also specifies that the team shall use all available information (e.g. bioregional information) to determine the range and distribution of the habitat under consideration, and whether this distribution is entirely within the ‘managed area’ or extends beyond the ‘managed area’ (SA3.13.5.1, MSC FCRv2.01).

6.9.4.1 Fishing footprint

All UoA vessels are legally required to carry VMS and aggregated VMS data were provided to the team, as shown in Figure 8 to Figure 10 below. From the maps, the following conclusions can be drawn:

UoA 1: Fishing footprint is concentrated in ICES Division 4a, with a smaller extent of fishing taking place in Division 6a along the continental shelf edge. The fishery dips to a minimal extent into the Norwegian zone (Division 2a), just north of 62oN, which was assessed under UoA2.

UoA 2: The Northeast Arctic fishery is prosecuted by a single vessel, the Emeraude. Fishing takes place to a small extent to the South of Norway but mainly to the North within the Norwegian EEZ (ICES Division 2a) and to the south of the Svalbard Archipelago, in the Svalbard Fishery Protection Area (SFPA - Division 2b). During 2019, fishing also took place in international waters (Division 2a). Note that the activities in Division 4a are covered by UoA 1.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 80

UoA 3: At this ACDR stage, a more detailed VMS map is requested from the client. At present, the map provided to the team includes non-fishing VMS data, as well as data for operations that are not saithe- specific (because a single trip may also include operations that target more deep-sea species such as anglerfish and blue ling).

Figure 8. Aggregated 2018 (left) and 2019 (right) VMS data for the Euronor/Cie des Pêches St Malo fleet (UoA 1). Based on VMS data for speeds registered at between 2.5 and 4.5 knots. Maps produced by FROM Nord.

Figure 9. Aggregated 2018 (left) and 2019 (right) VMS data for the Emeraude (UoA 2). Based on VMS data for speeds registered at between 2.5 and 4.5 knots. Maps produced by FROM Nord.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 81

Figure 10. Aggregated 2016-20 VMS data for the Scapêche fleet (UoA 2). Map produced by Scapêche.

6.9.4.2 Identified habitats - General

The MSC FCR v2.01 requires habitats interacting with the fishery to be defined as ‘commonly- encountered’, ‘VME’ or ‘minor’, with definitions as given in Table 23.

Table 23. Habitat definitions as per the MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements v2.01.

FCR reference Definition

A commonly encountered habitat shall be defined as a habitat that regularly comes into contact with a gear used by the UoA, considering the spatial (geographical) overlap of SA3.13.3.1 fishing effort with the habitat’s range within the management area(s) covered by the governance body(s) relevant to the UoA. A Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem (VME) shall be defined as is done in paragraph 42 SA3.13.3.2 subparagraphs (i)-(v) of the FAO Guidelines (definition provided in GSA3.13.3.2). This definition shall be applied both inside and outside EEZs and irrespective of depth. VMEs have one or more of the following characteristic, as defined in paragraph 42 of the FAO Guidelines: Uniqueness or rarity – an area or ecosystem that is unique or that contains rare species whose loss could not be compensated for by similar areas or ecosystems Functional significance of the habitat – discrete areas or habitats that are necessary for survival, function, spawning/ reproduction, or recovery of fish stocks; for particular life- history stages (e.g., nursery grounds, rearing areas); or for ETP species GSA3.13.3.2 Fragility – an ecosystem that is highly susceptible to degradation by anthropogenic activities Life-history traits of component species that make recovery difficult – ecosystems that are characterised by populations or assemblages of species that are slow growing, are slow maturing, have low or unpredictable recruitment, and/or are long lived Structural complexity – an ecosystem that is characterised by complex physical structures created by significant concentrations of biotic and abiotic features

N/a Minor habitats are those that do not meet the above definitions.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 82

Note, it is not the responsibility of an assessment team to identify habitats as VME within the fished area. Instead, VMEs need to be identified by a local, regional, national, or international management authority/governance body.

6.9.4.3 Identified habitats - Northeast Arctic (UoA 2)

UoA 2 overlaps with the Barents Sea, the Norwegian coastal shelf area, and the International Waters in ICES Division 2a (see VMS data in Figure 9 – activities in 2a are not part of the UoA, they are activities targeting Sebastes spp.). Benthic habitat research in the Barents Sea is undertaken by both the Russian Polar Research Institute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanography (PINRO) and the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research (IMR). Since 2003, both institutions participate in an annual Joint Russian- Norwegian ecosystem survey using five research vessels and bottom trawlers, with the most recent one completed in 2019 (Protozorkevich and van den Meeren, 2020). The MAREANO programme is a comprehensive research programme, which aims to map the Norwegian EEZ seafloor. The program was first launched in 2005 and since then has increased the area covered year by year (see sampling stations here: http://mareano.no/kart/mareano.html#maps/4050). The identification of certain vulnerable habitats such as coral reefs in the mainland coastline has led to the designation of new marine protected areas in the Norwegian coastal zone.

Barents Sea: A map of the surface sediment distribution in the Barents Sea is shown in Figure 11. Comparison with the 2018/19 VMS data (Figure 9) shows that the fishery predominantly overlaps with the following sediment types: muddy sandy gravel, sandy mud, gravelly sandy mud and gravelly muddy sand.

Figure 11. Surface sediment distribution in the Barents Sea. From Barents Portal1. A baseline survey (2011) of epibenthos using bottom-trawl surveys found that the Barents Sea has at least 354 benthic taxa. Depth, temperature, salinity, and number of ice days determine four main megafaunal regions. The southwestern region is dominated by filter-feeders (sponges) in the inflow area of warm Atlantic water while the deeper trenches have detritivorous fauna (echinoderms). On

1 http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/index.php/en/maps/105-oceanography/554-surface-sediment- distribution-in-the-barents-sea (last visited 14 March 2021).

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 83

the banks/slopes in the southeast and west regions, predators (sea stars, anemones, and snow crabs) prevail together with filtrating species (sea cucumber and bivalves) within a mosaic of banks and slopes. Plankton-feeding brittle stars are common in the northwestern and northeastern regions, with an increasing snow crab population in the northeast (ICES, 2019c). Increasing snow and red king crab populations and potentially expanding trawling activity (e.g. for scallops and demersal fish) are the main impacts to the benthic community. Species including Geodia sponges (e.g. G. barretti and G. macandrewii) in the southwestern, basket stars Gorgonocephalus spp. in the northern areas, sea pen Umbellula encrinus on the shelf facing the Arctic Ocean, and sea cucumber Cucumaria frondosa in shallow southern areas are particularly vulnerable to being impacted by trawling activities(ICES, 2019c). The greatest taxonomic diversity was observed around of the Spitsbergen archipelago, with a general reduction of taxonomic diversity occurring in an easterly direction (Figure 12; (Protozorkevich and van den Meeren, 2020)).

Figure 12. Biomass distribution of main taxonomic groups per station in the Barents Sea (excluding Pandalus borealis), August-October 2018-2019. From (Protozorkevich and van den Meeren, 2020). A biotope map, covering the entire Barents Sea, has been compiled in collaboration between the Geological Survey of Norway, IMR and PINRO under the framework of the Norwegian-Russian Environmental Commission Workplan for 2011-2013 and 2013-2015, and builds on the biological sampling carried out annually by IMR and PINRO on the joint Norwegian-Russian Ecosystem Survey (Dolan et al., 2015). Benthic fauna biomass data from bottom-trawl samples were arranged into faunal groups and a set of these groups was used as the basis for the biotope classes used here in predictive modelling. The relationship of these biotope classes to the physical environment was analysed and selected full coverage physical data (sediment grain size, bathymetry and oceanographic parameters) were used to create a model and to predict the distribution of biotopes across the entire study area (Figure 13).

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 84

Figure 13. Modelled biotopes for the Barents Sea (area relevant to the UoA). Source: (Dolan et al., 2015). Norwegian coastal zone: The substrates within the coastal Norwegian Sea have been mapped by the MAREANO project. This mapping is confined mostly to the Norwegian continental shelf and slope. An overview of the surface sediment distribution along the Norwegian coastal zone is given in Figure 14. Comparison with the VMS data in Figure 9 suggests that the fishery overlaps predominantly with the following sediment types: muddy sandy gravel; sandy gravel; and sand.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 85

Figure 14. Surface sediment distribution along the Norwegian coastal zone, based on MAREANO mapping. From www.mareano.no (last visited 14 March 2021). MAREANO has located several vulnerable habitat locations, as shown in Figure 15. Comparison with the VMS data in Figure 9 suggests the fishery may overlap with soft bottom coral gardens, seapen and burrowing megafauna communities, Umbellula stands and coral reefs.

Figure 15. Overview of vulnerable habitats identified in the Norwegian coastal zone based on MAREANO mapping. From www.mareano.no (last visited 14 March 2021). OSPAR: The OSPAR Commission has a mandate to protect and conserve the diversity of the North East Atlantic and in doing so has advanced much of the work on defining which marine (particularly benthic) ecosystems are of international importance. MAREANO scientists have largely built on the knowledge gathered by OSPAR in their work to find identify areas where vulnerable biotopes occur,

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 86

and which may therefore be in need of protection within Norwegian waters. These are (Gonzalez- Mirelis and Buhl-Mortensen, 2015):

• Soft-bottom sponge aggregations • Hard-bottom sponge aggregations • Deep arctic sponge aggregations • Sublittoral seapen communities • Bathyal seapen communities (e.g. Umbellula stands) • Soft bottom coral gardens • Hard-bottom coral gardens • Cold-water coral reefs (e.g. Lophelia pertusa) According to (ICES, 2019c), the following OSPAR threatened and declining habitats have been identified in the Barents Sea:

• Coral gardens • Cymodocea meadows • Deep-sea sponge aggregations • Intertidal mudflats • Lophelia pertusa reefs • Modiolus modiolus beds • Ostrea edulis beds • Seamounts • Zostera beds

Overview: Based on the information presented on benthic habitat distribution in the Barents Sea and the Norwegian coastal zone, and the UoA fishing footprint, the following habitats were considered further in this assessment:

Table 24. Summary of commonly encountered habitats identified for UoA 2 in this assessment. SGB: Substratum/Geomorphology/Biota (see Table GSA6 in MSC Standard v2.01).

Commonly encountered habitat SGB habitat nomenclature Fine sediment: Sandy mud, sand • Fine (mud, sand) • Flat • Small erect/ encrusting/ burrowing Coarse sediment: Sandy gravel, muddy sandy gravel, • Medium - Gravel/pebble (4-60 mm) gravelly sandy mud, gravelly muddy sand • Flat / low relief • Small erect/ encrusting/ burrowing

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 87

Table 25. Summary of VME habitats identified for UoA 2 in this assessment.

VME Description (from (Gonzalez-Mirelis and Buhl-Mortensen, 2015)) Soft and hard-bottom Soft-bottom sponge aggregations are characterized by the concentration of a variety sponge aggregations of large sponge species including Geodia spp., Aplysilla sulfurea, Stryphnus ponderosus and Steletta sp. MAREANO has found that these sponges are able to modify their environment by creating a thick mat that is a mixture of mud and sponge spicules.

Hard-bottom sponge aggregations are dominated by erect, medium-sized sponges, typically fan-shaped or branching such as Phakellia spp., Axinella infundibulum, and Antho dichotoma. They occur on different hard seabed substrates (coarse gravel, cobbles, boulders and bedrock). This biotope is generally home to more species, but usually has a lower density of sponges than soft-bottom sponge aggregations. The habitat definition has been refined from the definition provided by OSPAR of “deep- sea sponge aggregations”, which are also listed as a type of VME.

Aggregations of sponges, mainly Geodia, Thenea, Tetilla, Phakellia, Rhadiella, and Polymastia are characteristic of substantial areas of the Barents Sea shelf as determined in surveys early in the 20th century. These sponges form mass settlements in areas with active sea bottom hydrodynamics, notably on deepwater banks and slopes. The richest communities of sponges are found along the edge of the Barents Sea shelf and at the upper parts of the continental slope. Larger settlements of Geodia sponges are found in the most south-western parts of the shelf and the Tromsø Bank (Tromsøflaket) where the Norwegian current encounters the Barents Sea shelf. A rich fauna of hydroids and bryozoans is usually found in association with these sponges. Coral reef (including Lophelia pertusa is a stony coral which, over a long period of time, can build coral Lophelia pertusa reefs. The Norwegian reefs that have been dated have been found to be 3000 to 9000 reefs) years old. L. pertusa can form individual reefs or reef areas where the reefs are so close together that it is sometimes hard to distinguish them. For example, at Hola, MAREANO has mapped a reef area consisting of around 400 individual reefs. MAREANO has also found previously undiscovered individual reefs at Malangsryggen and in the outer part of Malangsdypet. Other stony corals such as zigzag coral (Madrepora oculata), and sea fans such as bubblegum coral and red tree coral increase the spatial habitat complexity and the biodiversity of the reefs. The coral reefs are habitat to a variety of other small and large species, ranging from fish to smaller invertebrates among which some only occur in the reefs. Soft-bottom coral OSPAR refers to all coral communities with relatively high densities of corals as coral gardens gardens and they are collectively considered a type of VME. In Norway there are two species of gorgonians that may form dense stands: Radicipes gracilis, and Isidella lofotensis. The sea whip species Radicipes gracilis, also known as pig-tail coral, can form dense stands on sandy muddy (i.e. soft) bottoms. R. gracilis had not been observed in Norway until MAREANO found relatively dense concentrations of this sea whip in the area known as the Bjørnøya slide. This habitat is therefore assed as “Endangered” in the Norwegian Red List of Ecosystems and Habitat types. Isidella lofotensis, is a type of Bamboo coral which is rarely found outside Norwegian waters. It is most common in fjords and has not been frequently observed within the MAREANO mapping area.

“Soft coral” species belonging to the Alcyonacea are relatively common on silty and mixed bottom substrates throughout the Barents Sea, including Gersemia fruticosa, G. rubiformis, Drifa glomerata and Duva florida. While most of these species need hard bottom or rock on which to attach, Gersemia is able to anchor itself in relatively

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 88

VME Description (from (Gonzalez-Mirelis and Buhl-Mortensen, 2015)) soft sediments and establish significant colonies. These species are relatively common and widely dispersed, but dense aggregations appear to be unusual. Seapen and Species include the seapens Funiculina quadrangularis, Virgularia mirabilis, burrowing Pennatula phosforea and Kophobelemnon stelliferum. The Norway lobster (Nephrops megafauna norvegicus), squat lobster (Munida sarsi) and sea cucumber (Parastichopus tremulus) communities are the most common associated megafauna. Umbellula stands In patches, the deep-sea seapen Umbellula encrinus is found in relatively high densities from halfway down the continental slope (approximately 800 metres below sea level) and deeper. Aggregations of Umbellula are relatively common throughout both Barents and Norwegian Seas. Umbellula incrinis is found in dense aggregations on soft, muddy substrates in the north-eastern part of the Barents Sea near the St. Anna Trough. This large seapen can reach a height of more than two metres. There are often high densities of tube-building amphipods (Neohela) in areas with Umbellula.

6.9.4.4 Identified habitats - North Sea and West of Scotland (UoAs 1 and 3)

UoAs 1 and 3 take place within ICES subareas 4 and 6. At present there is no UoA fishing footprint in Division 3a. ICES subarea 4 is located within the Greater North sea ecoregion, while ICES subarea 6 is part of the Celtic Seas ecoregion. Both areas include some of the most intensively studied sea areas in the world. Multiple projects have mapped substrates, physical processes, habitats, fishery impacts and other anthropogenic activities and influences. A brief overview of the Greater North Sea and Celtic Seas ecoregions is given in ICES (ICES, 2020h, 2018b). Broad-scale sediment types and habitat maps for the region (Figure 16) indicate that the seabed in the North Sea (subarea 4) is predominantly a mix of sands and muds, the muddier fractions often being located in deeper areas. Coarse (i.e. gravelly) sediments occur in isolated patches. Subarea 6 on the other hand is characterised by a patchwork of sand, mud and coarse sediment. Comparison with the fishery footprint data in Figure 8 and Figure 10 shows that the fishery is concentrated along the continental shelf edge of ICES Divisions 4a and 6a where all three sediment types are present. These were therefore considered as the commonly encountered habitats. To be updated with Scapêche data.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 89

Figure 16. Snapshot of MSDF Benthic Broad Habitat Types within the UoA 1 and 3 fishing areas. Information contained here has been derived from data that is made available under the European Marine Observation Data Network (EMODnet) Seabed Habitats initiative (www.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu), financed by the European Union under Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund.2 (Heip et al., 1992) presented results of habitat surveys undertaken region-wide; their analysis of North Sea benthic community composition is summarised in the following paragraphs. The data show that benthic species including Spiophanes bombyx, Pholoe sp. and Goniada maculata (annelid worms) and Amphiura filiformis (a brittle star) occur widely at nearly all depths and in a wide variety of sediments. However, most species are distributed generally south or north of a parallel running to the northern edge of the Dogger Bank, along the 50m depth contour. Some benthic species with a southern distribution may also occur in the central North Sea, but south of the 100m contour at 57-58°N; these include Ophiura albida (a brittle star), Echinocardium cordatum (a burrowing sea urchin), and Chamelea gallina and Tellimya ferruginosa (bivalve species). In contrast, species with a northern distribution were rarely found south of the 50m depth contour, for example Ophiura affinis (a brittle star), Montacuta substriata (a bivalve), Antalis entalis (a mollusc) and Minuspio cirrifera (an annelid). On fine sands, Aricidea minuta and Ophelia borealis (annelids), and Bathyporeia elegans (a gammarid) occur all over the North Sea, but other species such as Bathyporeia guilliamsoniana and Sigalion mathildae (annelids), Fabulina fabula (a bivalve) and Urothoe poseidonis (an amphipod) were only found in the southern North Sea on fine sand at depths less than 30 m. Sediments of muddy sand occur mainly in the southern North Sea at 30-50 m depth and in the west of the northern North Sea.

2 The Data Owner and EMODnet Seabed Habitats consortium accept no liability for the use of this data or for any further analysis or interpretation of the data.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 90

Species with a wide distribution on this type of sediment are Eudorella truncatula (a small crustacean), Glycinde nordmanni (an annelid) and Harpinia antennaria (a gammarid). On coarse (i.e. more gravelly) sediments Echinocyamus pusillus (a pea urchin), Pisione remota and Glycera lapidum (annelid worms) and Spisula elliptica (a bivalve) occur all over the North Sea, while Polycirrus medusa (an annelid worm) and Phoxocephalus holbolli (a gammarid) are restricted to coarse sediments in the south and east of the North Sea.

In the Celtic Sea ecoregion, the soft sediments are characterized by burrowing megafauna; this includes sea pens and commercially important species (e.g. Nephrops norvegicus), and also macrobenthos such as deposit-feeding polychaetes. The coarser sediments are habitats for commercially important shellfish species, e.g. Pecten maximus and Aequipecten opercularis, and to sensitive species and habitats, e.g. maerl, brittle star beds, Modiolus modiolus beds, and Atrina fragilis. The nearshore rocky habitats are characterized by algae and epifauna; however, some areas of rocky habitat in deep waters in the northern part of the region are characterized by hydroids, bryozoans, and cnidarians such as Eunicella verrucosa and Swiftia pallida.

As for the Northeast Arctic above, the OSPAR Commission has a mandate to protect and conserve the diversity of the North East Atlantic and in doing so has advanced much of the work on defining which marine (particularly benthic) ecosystems are of international importance. A map showing the OSPAR threatened and/or declining habitats in the northern North Sea and West of Scotland is given in Figure 17.

Figure 17. Overview of OSPAR threatened and/or declining habitats in the northern North Sea and West of Scotland. From https://www.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/. A database on the distribution and abundance of Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs) (and organisms considered to be indicators of VMEs) across the North Atlantic has been set up by the Joint ICES/NAFO Working Group on Deep-water Ecology (WGDEC). Criteria used to select habitats and indicators for inclusion in the database were those described in the FAO International Guidelines for

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 91

the Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas3. The database is comprised of 'VME habitats' that are records for which there is unequivocal evidence for a VME, e.g. ROV observations of a coral reef and 'VME indicators' which are records that suggest the presence of a VME with varying degrees of uncertainty. An overview of the VME habitats that have some overlap with the VMS data in Figure 8 and Figure 10 in the northern North Sea and West of Scotland is given in Figure 18 (to be updated with Scapêche data).

Figure 18. ICES VME habitats that have some overlap with the VMS data in Figure 8 and Figure 10 in the northern North Sea and West of Scotland. Clockwise from top left: Cold-water coral reef, coral garden, deep- sea sponge aggregations. From https://vme.ices.dk/map.aspx. (to be updated with Scapêche data) Finally, most of the UoA 1 and 3 fishery takes place in UK (Scottish waters). In addition to the OSPAR and ICES datasets above, the team therefore also consulted the available information on VME distribution within Scottish waters specifically. The known extent and distribution of deep-sea VMEs around Scotland is shown in Figure 19. Of relevance to the fishery under assessment are deep-sea sponge aggregations and coral gardens.

3 https://www.ices.dk/data/data-portals/Pages/vulnerable-marine-ecosystems.aspx

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 92

Figure 19. The known extent and distribution of Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems across the deep waters around Scotland as of 2018. From http://marine.gov.scot/sma/assessment/case-study-deep-sea-vulnerable- marine-ecosystems Overview: Based on the information presented on benthic habitat distribution in the northern North Sea and West of Scotland, and the UoA fishing footprint, the following habitats were considered further in this assessment:

Table 26. Summary of commonly encountered habitats identified for UoAs 1 and 3 in this assessment. SGB: Substratum/Geomorphology/Biota (see Table GSA6 in MSC Standard v2.01). To be updated with Scapêche data.

Commonly encountered habitat SGB habitat nomenclature Fine sediment: Sand, mud • Fine (mud, sand) • Flat • Small erect/ encrusting/ burrowing Coarse sediment • Medium - Gravel/pebble (4-60 mm) • Flat / low relief • Small erect/ encrusting/ burrowing

Table 27. Summary of VME habitats identified for UoA1 and 3 in this assessment. Description from http://marine.gov.scot/sma/assessment/case-study-deep-sea-vulnerable-marine-ecosystems unless otherwise indicated.

VME Description Deep-sea sponge Deep-sea sponge aggregations occur across northern parts of the Faroe-Shetland aggregations Channel. Fields of the glass sponge, Pheronema carpenteri, are also recorded from the Hatton-Rockall Basin. Other records include stalked sponge grounds at the base of the Hebridean continental slope in the Rockall Trough, and encrusting sponge dominated aggregations from Rockall Bank.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 93

VME Description Coral reef (including Lophelia pertusa forms reefs that can be up to several kilometres long and more than Lophelia pertusa 20 m high. Lophelia reefs often occur in association with other hard corals reefs) (e.g. Madrepora oculata and Solenosmilia variabilis) and the redfish (Sebastes viviparous). They support extremely rich assemblages of invertebrates - particularly starfish, sea urchins, anemones and squat lobsters (e.g. Munida sarsi). This fragile habitat type is now widely recorded across Scotland’s deep sea notably at Rockall, Hatton and George Bligh Banks, and Anton Dohrn, Rosemary Bank and Hebrides Terrace Seamounts. Cold-water coral reefs are also recorded on the Wyville-Thomson Ridge and Darwin Mounds Coral gardens Coral gardens are highly diverse, comprising dense aggregations of colonies or individuals of one or more coral species, which in some locations may reach densities of between 100 and 700 colonies per 100 m2. Where reef-forming corals occur, they settle in scattered clumps or small colonies and do not dominate the habitat type. Animals typically associated with coral gardens include basket stars, brittlestars, feather stars, molluscs, crustaceans and deep-water fish species. Coral gardens are recorded from Rosemary Bank and Anton Dohrn Seamounts, Rockall, and Hatton Banks. Seapen and Seapen and burrowing megafauna communities occur in plains of fine mud, at depths burrowing from 15-200m or more, including extensively in the northern North Sea in the Fladen megafauna Ground to the northeast of Aberdeen, and in other isolated locations in the central communities North Sea. Typical species include the seapens Virgularia mirabilis and Pennatula phosphorea, and burrowing crustaceans, including Nephrops norvegicus. V. mirabilis and P. phosphorea are vulnerable to removal by towed fishing gears, but are able to withdraw into the sediment when disturbed, which appears to provide some protection from fishing impacts (Greathead et al., 2007).

Further discussion on impacts, management and information is provided in the habitats scoring tables.

There are several important considerations regarding the MSC’s VME habitat requirement that were clarified through the MSC Interpretations website (https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/global- search/VME):

• It is not the responsibility of an assessment team to identify habitats as VME within the fished area. Instead, VMEs need to be identified by a local, regional, national, or international management authority/governance body. • The history of fishing and when the VME was identified is critical to establishing what the ‘unimpacted level’ is; if a VME was already impacted by any fishery/UoA prior to its identification as a VME, and fishing impacts occurred prior to 2006, then the ‘unimpacted level’ is considered to be the status at the point of designation4.

4 Note: The year 2006 was chosen because it is the date of the UNGA Resolution 61/105

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 94

6.9.5 Ecosystem

6.9.5.1 Northeast Arctic

UoA 2 takes place in both the Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea.

The fisheries in the Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea ecoregions are managed by coastal states, with some fisheries managed by the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO) and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). Fisheries advice is provided by ICES. Environmental policy is managed by national agencies and OSPAR, with advice being provided by national agencies, OSPAR, and ICES (ICES, 2019c, 2019d).

There is ongoing detailed research into the Barents Sea ecosystem conducted by Russian and Norwegian scientists, as part of the joint research and marine surveys conducted by these countries5, with the latest report produced in 2020 (Protozorkevich and van den Meeren, 2020). Regular updates are also provided in the ICES Ecosystem overviews (ICES, 2019c) as well as by the ICES WG on integrated assessment of the Barents Sea (ICES_WGIBAR, 2020), and the Working Group on Arctic Fisheries (ICES_AFWG, 2020) in terms of fisheries-related information on the Barents Sea with reference to the ecosystem. Since the 1980s, the Barents Sea has gone from a situation with high fishing pressure, cold conditions and low demersal fish stock levels, to the current situation with high levels of demersal fish stocks, and warmer conditions.

Key conclusions reached by (ICES_WGIBAR, 2020) are as follows:

The Barents Sea has become colder since 2015–2016, and the cooling continued from 2018 to 2019. However, the air and water temperatures are still typical of warm years. Meso zooplankton biomass in the Barents Sea in autumn 2019 was approximately the same as in recent years, and krill biomass has shown an increasing trend in recent decades. Temperatures in 2020-21 are expected to decline slightly but will remain relatively high; the plankton are anticipated to therefore provide good feeding conditions for planktivorous consumers.

In 2019, total biomass of pelagic fish in the Barents Sea was estimated to be at the lowest level in the last 20 years. The main demersal fish stocks in the Barents Sea are in a healthy state and at a level at or above the long-term mean. Diet composition of cod has been relatively stable in recent years. The stock of northern shrimp is relatively stable in the last years. The snow crab population is still spreading, and its abundance is increasing in the Barents Sea.

The white-beaked dolphin was the most common species of marine mammal in 2019 during the ecosystem survey. Summer abundance of minke whales and humpback whales in the Barents Sea has increased recently.

The main stocks are fished sustainably, without violations of fisheries regulations. Concentrations of most contaminants in fish and crustaceans in the Barents Sea are relatively low in comparison to other sea areas. The amount of plastic and other litter in the sea is also relatively low. Levels of the

5 http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/index.php/en/; Joint Russian–Norwegian Ecosystem Assessment, www.barentsportal.com; Joint Norwegian–Russian environmental status reports for the Barents Sea, www.barentsportal.com

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 95

anthropogenic radionuclides Cs-137, Sr-90 and Pu-239,240 in seawater, sediments, fish and seaweed are currently low.

Commercially exploited species (fish, invertebrates, mammals) are part of the marine food web and interact in various ways, including through predation and competition. The main top predators in the ecosystem are cod, harp seal, and minke whale. They all feed on young cod as well as on capelin, herring, and the krill and amphipod prey of these species. Since fishing and hunting mortality rates have been reduced on most species over the last two decades, natural mortality, including cannibalism, has the potential to change; this influences the abundance and yield of other stocks. The abundance of some mammal species has increased in parts of the ecoregion, although more slowly than in fish stocks.

Commercial fisheries are the largest human impact on the fish stocks in the Barents Sea, and thereby on the functioning of the whole ecosystem. It is the human activity with the largest spatial extent, as fishing takes place in most of the Barents Sea except farthest north. There is a multinational fishery operating in the Barents Sea using different fishing gears and targeting several species (Figure 33). The largest commercially-exploited fish stocks (capelin, cod, and haddock) are now harvested at fishing mortalities close to those in the management plan and have full reproductive capacity. Some of the smaller stocks (golden redfish Sebastes marinus and coastal cod in Norway) are overfished. Other species subject to targeted fisheries include Greenland halibut, halibut, beaked redfish, deep-water shrimps, red king crabs, and snow crabs.

The Norwegian Sea, the Greenland Sea, and the Iceland Sea comprise the Nordic seas, which are separated from the rest of the North Atlantic by the Greenland–Scotland Ridge. The Norwegian Sea connects with the Northeast Atlantic Ocean to the southwest, the Icelandic Waters ecoregion and Greenland Sea to the west along the edge to the shallower Iceland Sea between the Faroe Islands, and northwards to Jan Mayen (Spitsbergen). To the south it borders to the shallower North Sea along the 62˚N parallel between Norway and the Faroe Islands, and to the northeast with the shallower Barents Sea.

Water temperatures, both at the surface and in deeper waters in the Norwegian Sea have been above the long-term trend since around the beginning of the 2000s, peaking in 2007 at almost 1.5˚C above the long-term mean at water depths of 50–500 m. Though the 2014 level was near and slightly above and the 2015 level at and below the long-term mean, the temperature trend is still positive because of inflow of Atlantic waters at the western entrance. The heat content of Atlantic water in the Norwegian Sea has been above the long-term mean since 2000.

The decrease in the zooplankton biomass index observed during the last decade for the whole Norwegian Sea has stopped. The index increased again from 2010 to 2014, but had a drop in 2015. Since the mid-2000s, the mackerel Scomber scombrus stock has increased both its geographic distribution during summer feeding and its stock size. The Norwegian spring-spawning (NSS) herring Clupea harengus stock has not produced large year classes after the relatively productive period of 1998–2004, causing decreasing SSB since 2009 to around BPA in 2016 (5 million tonnes). The blue whiting Micromesistius poutassou biomass reached a maximum level in the mid-2000s, declining thereafter until around 2010. Since then, blue whiting has shown an upward trend with production of strong year classes. Populations of seabirds breeding (and therefore feeding) in the ecoregion have declined greatly since 1980.

A multinational fishery currently operates in the Norwegian Sea using different fishing gears and targeting several species. The fishing pressure on the largest commercially exploited fish stocks (NSS herring, blue whiting, and mackerel) have varied since the 1980s, for a number of reasons (Figure 32).

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 96

They are now harvested at fishing mortalities close to those in the management plans and have full reproductive capacity. While the golden redfish S. norvegicus stock is at a historical low point, the beaked redfish S. mentella stock has recovered from a low SSB and fishing quotas (until 2017) are set at 30 000 tonnes annually. The small coastal cod Gadus morhua stock is overfished. The fisheries management plan sets the upper limits for landings in the region. Other stocks are commercially harvested (Greenland halibut Reinhardtius hippoglossoides, halibut Hippoglossus hippoglossus, deep- water shrimps Pandalus borealis, the copepod Calanus finmarchicus, and minke whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata).

6.9.5.2 North Sea and West of Scotland

UoAs 1 and 3 take place in the Greater North Sea and Celtic Sea ecoregions.

Fisheries in both regions are managed through the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), with fisheries of some stocks managed by the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) and by coastal state agreements. Collective fisheries advice is provided by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), the European Commission’s Scientific Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF), and the North Sea and North Western Waters and Pelagic ACs. Environmental policy is managed by national governments and agencies and by OSPAR; advice is provided by national agencies, OSPAR, the European Environment Agency (EEA), and ICES (ICES, 2019e).

The Greater North Sea ecoregion includes the North Sea, English Channel, Skagerrak, and Kattegat. It is a temperate coastal shelf sea with a deep channel in the northwest, a permanently thermally mixed water column in the south and east, and seasonal stratification in the north. Key signals, as described in (ICES, 2019f) are as follows:

The North Sea is characterized by episodic changes in the productivity of key components of the ecosystem. Phytoplankton, zooplankton, and demersal and pelagic fish have all exhibited such cycles in variability. Managers should expect change and ensure that management plans have the potential to respond to new circumstances. The changes have been described as regime shifts; a notable example is the composition of the zooplankton community, which changed both in terms of species and size composition in the late 1980s and again around 2000. There have also been reports of a shift from pelagic to benthic production. The plaice stock in the North Sea has increased almost fourfold in the last 15 years and is now larger than when monitoring began in the 1950s.

Fishing has reduced the number of large fish in the North Sea ecosystem (mostly cod Gadus morhua, saithe Pollachius virens, ling Molva molva, sturgeon Acipenser sturio, and some elasmobranchs). In historical times, the large whale populations of the North Sea were depleted or extirpated by hunting. Whilst the impact of these removals on the ecosystem functioning is not clearly understood, it should be assumed that the North Sea ecosystem is currently in a perturbed state. Several of these elasmobranch species are now considered threatened or endangered by OSPAR and IUCN and are still caught as bycatch in fisheries. However, it is clear that fishing effort has reduced in the North Sea since the 2002 CFP reforms; this can now be detected in the reduction of fishing mortality in most assessed fish stocks and an increase in the amount of larger fish present.

The seabird population showed an overall increasing trend until 2000, after which it declined. Recent changes in fisheries management policy (e.g. reduction in effort and the landing obligation) will likely affect seabirds as well as other parts of the ecosystem.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 97

There have been no significant changes in the cetacean populations of the North Sea. The centre of distribution of the harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena population moved southwards from off the east of Scotland to the southern North Sea between the mid-1990s and the mid-2000s. These animals are caught as bycatch in bottom-set gillnets. The abundance of grey seals has been increasing for at least 30 years.

The main contributing activity to selective extraction of species in the Greater North Sea is fisheries. Sustainable fisheries management aims to minimize long-term negative effects on ecosystems while seeking long-term economic and social viability of the fisheries. Overall fishing effort in the Greater North Sea has fallen by approximately 50% (2004–2012, Figure 45). This decline in effort has resulted in a decline in the fishing mortality rate of commercial fish stocks. There have been shifts in fishing techniques. Beam trawling has been increasingly replaced by pulse beam trawling, sum-wing, twin- rigging, and flyshooting, gear types that all require less fuel. The impact of the EU landing obligation is difficult to predict, but fishing behaviour, data gathering, and stock assessments will be affected.

The Celtic Seas ecoregion covers the northwestern shelf seas of the Europe and includes areas of the deeper eastern Atlantic Ocean and coastal seas that are heavily influenced by oceanic inputs. The ecoregion ranges from north of Shetland to Brittany in the south. In the north there are strong linkages with the North Sea, in the southeast a strong linkage with the channel area, and in the south a strong link with the Bay of Biscay. The eastern part of the Rockall Bank is within the geographic scope of the ecoregion although it is separated from the western European shelf by the Rockall Trough.

Key signals are as follows (from (ICES, 2019e)):

Long-term datasets from the Malin shelf (from 1959 on) and the upper 800 m of the Rockall Trough (from 1975 on) indicate an overall rise in sea surface temperature, affecting the migration, distribution, and onset of spawning of blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou), Northeast Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus), western horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus), and boarfish (Capros aper), as well as the recruitment of some gadoids in the Irish Sea, Celtic Sea, and west of Scotland. The Celtic Seas ecoregion is at the edge of the geographical range of several species, potentially making these species more susceptible to environmental variation.

There has been a decline in overall copepod abundance since 1958. The cold-water species Calanus finmarchicus and Pseudocalanus spp. have decreased in abundance; however, the warm-water copepod C. helgolandicus has increased in abundance and has spread northwards, presumably in response to ocean warming.

The abundance of breeding seabirds has shown a broad downward trend since the early 2000s. Populations of grey seals have been increasing over at least the past thirty years, though the populations are becoming more stable now. Overall trends in the abundances of cetaceans and harbour seals are not known.

Overall fishing pressure on the commercial fish and shellfish stocks in the Celtic Seas ecoregion has decreased since its peak in 1998, while overall biomass of commercial fish and shellfish stocks in the Celtic Sea has increased.

The fishing effort of bottom mobile gears in the Celtic Seas ecoregion decreased by 35% from 2003 to 2014. This has reduced the spatial fishing footprint and the average number of times the seabed is trawled per year.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 98

6.9.6 Scoring elements

Table 28. Principle 2 scoring elements

Component UoA Scoring elements Designation Data-deficient 1 Hake - Northern stock (Greater North Sea, Celtic Seas, and the northern Bay of Biscay) Main No Cod - North Sea, eastern English Channel, Skagerrak

2 Cod – Northeast Arctic Main No 3 Hake - Northern stock (Greater North Sea, Celtic Seas, and the northern Bay of Biscay) Cod - North Sea, eastern English Channel, Primary Skagerrak species Anglerfish - North Sea, Rockall and West of Scotland, Skagerrak and Kattegat Main No Black scabbardfish - Northeast Atlantic and Arctic Ocean Blue ling - Celtic Seas and Faroes grounds Ling - Northeast Atlantic and Arctic Ocean

1, 2, 3 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Minor No

1,2, 3 None Main N/a Secondary Some may be – Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Minor RBF not applied 1 Starry ray, basking shark, common skate complex, N/a No spurdog ETP 2 Common skate complex, spurdog N/a No 3 TBC 1, 2, 3 Fine (sandy, muddy) habitat Commonly No Coarse (gravel) habitat encountered 1, 3 Deep-sea sponge aggregations Coral reef (including Lophelia pertusa reefs) VME No Coral gardens Habitats Seapen and burrowing megafauna communities 2 Soft and hard-bottom sponge aggregations Coral reef (including Lophelia pertusa reefs) Soft-bottom coral gardens VME No Seapen and burrowing megafauna communities Umbellula stands

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 99

6.9.7 Cumulative impacts

The MSC introduced requirements for cumulative impact assessments in Principle 2 with the release of the Fisheries Certification Requirements v2.0. These requirements are to ensure that MSC certified fisheries will no longer cumulatively be at risk of generating negative impacts on Principle 2 species (and habitat).

• For primary species, cumulative impacts assess whether the collective impact of overlapping MSC fisheries are hindering the recovery of ‘main’ primary species that are below a point of recruitment impairment (PRI); i.e., ensuring that the combined impact of MSC fisheries are not harming the recovery of the stock; if relevant this is scored at PI 2.1.1 SIa SG80.

• For secondary species, the same intent applies when a species is below a biologically based limit, but only in cases where two or more MSC fisheries have ‘main’ catches that are ‘considerable’, defined as a species being ten per cent or more of the total catch; if relevant this is scored at PI 2.2.1 SIa SG80. • For ETP species, the combined impacts of MSC fisheries on all ETP species needs to be evaluated, but only in cases where either national and/or international requirements set catch limits for ETP species and only for those fisheries subject to the same national legislation or within the area of the same binding agreement’; if relevant this is scored at PI 2.3.1 SIa SG80.

• For habitats, in contrast, cumulative impacts are evaluated in the management PI (PI 2.4.2). The requirements here aim to ensure that the impacts of all fisheries (including non-MSC fisheries) on habitats, including vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs), are managed cumulatively to ensure serious and irreversible harm does not occur; this is scored for all fisheries and habitat types at SIa SG100. If relevant, there is also consideration of the UoA’s compliance with VME management measures established by other fisheries at SId SG80.

Outcome Performance Element Cumulative impact? Rationale Indicator

2.1.1 Primary species (main) 2.2.1 Secondary species (main) 2.3.1 ETP outcome 2.4.2 VME management

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 100

The report shall include a summary of the Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) based on the topics below, referencing electronic or other documents used:

- The aquatic ecosystem, its status and any particularly sensitive areas, habitats or ecosystem features influencing or affected by the UoA. - The Primary, Secondary and Endangered, Threatened or Protected (ETP) species including their status and relevant management history. - Specific constraints, e.g. details of any unwanted catch of species, their conservation status and measures taken to minimise this as appropriate. - If cumulative impacts need consideration for any Principle 2 Performance Indicators, the report shall contain a summary of how this has been addressed, i.e. which other MSC UoAs/fisheries and how the cumulative impacts were considered.

Any information used as supporting rationale should be provided in the scoring tables.

The background shall include information justifying how scoring elements were assigned to components within Principle 2 of the MSC Fisheries Standard (Fisheries Standard v2.01 Section SA3.1, SA3.4.2-SA3.4.5, SA3.7.1). The team may amend the table below to present this information. The report shall include the catch and UoA related mortality of all main Primary, main Secondary and ETP species together with a description of the adequacy of information, identification of data sources used and whether they are qualitative or quantitative.

Reference(s): Fisheries Standard v2.01

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 101

6.9.8 Principle 2 Performance Indicator scores and rationales

Scoring table 13. PI 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome

PI 2.1.1 The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the point where recruitment would be impaired (PRI) and does not hinder recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Main primary species stock status

Guide Main primary species are likely to be above the Main primary species are highly likely to be above There is a high degree of certainty that main PRI. the PRI. primary species are above the PRI and are post fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY. OR OR If the species is below the PRI, the UoA has If the species is below the PRI, there is either measures in place that are expected to ensure evidence of recovery or a demonstrably effective that the UoA does not hinder recovery and strategy in place between all MSC UoAs which rebuilding. categorise this species as main, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? Hake (UoA 1, 3) – Yes Hake (UoA 1, 3) – Yes Hake (UoA 1, 3) – Yes North Sea cod (UoA 1, 3) – Yes North Sea cod (UoA 1, 3) – No North Sea cod (UoA 1, 3) – No Northeast Arctic cod (UoA 2) – Yes Northeast Arctic cod (UoA 2) – Yes Northeast Arctic cod (UoA 2) – Yes Anglerfish (UoA 3) – Yes Anglerfish (UoA 3) – Yes Anglerfish (UoA 3) – No Blue ling (UoA 3) – Yes Blue ling (UoA 3) – Yes Blue ling (UoA 3) – No Ling (UoA 3) – Yes Ling (UoA 3) – Yes Ling (UoA 3) – No Rationale

Hake in subareas 4, 6, and 7, and in divisions 3.a, 8.a–b, and 8.d - Northern stock (Greater North Sea, Celtic Seas, and the northern Bay of Biscay) (UoA 1, 3): This stock is assessed by ICES as a category 1 stock, i.e. a stock with quantitative assessments (ICES, 2018c) and was inter-benchmarked in early 2019 to include discard estimates which were missing from some of the fleets and which resulted in revised reference points. The historical FR‐EVHOE‐WIBTS‐Q4 survey was also revised and resulted in some minor changes in the perception of the stock. The recruitment values for 2017 and 2018 were replaced by the geometric mean of the recruitments from 1990 to 2016, owing to the

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 102

uncertainty of the 2017 estimate, retrospective pattern in the recruitment, and lack of EVHOE survey in 2017. Furthermore, given the expansion of the stock into northern areas, northern abundance indices, biological sampling and discard quantification in the northern area may be limited and should be considered in the future (ICES, 2020i). Although the perception of the stock has been revised downwards compared to the previous assessment, the projected 2021 short-term forecast for SSB (257,712 t) remains well above MSY Btrigger (56,000 t) while F (0.263) has been stable at or below FMSY (0.26) for the last 10 years (Figure 20). There is therefore a high degree of certainty that hake is above the PRI and is fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met.

Figure 20. Hake in subareas 4, 6, and 7, and in divisions 3.a, 8.a–b, and 8.d, Northern stock. Top: State of the stock and the fishery relative to reference points. Summary of the stock assessment. Complete discard estimates are available only since 2003. Plots show 95% confidence intervals (shaded area). Fishing mortality (F) confidence intervals derived from standard deviations, calculated internally by the model for F-at-age values. Assumed recruitment (R) values are unshaded. From (ICES, 2020i). Cod in Subarea 4, Division 7.d, and Subdivision 20 (North Sea, eastern English Channel, Skagerrak) (UoA 1 and 3): This stock is assessed by ICES as a category 1 stock, i.e. a stock with quantitative assessments (ICES, 2018c). In recent years (since 2017), assessments resulted in a downscaling of SSB and an upward revision of F. This is caused by lower catch rates of older fish in the IBTS surveys compared to the commercial catches. The reason for this discrepancy is not fully understood and might include a number of possible ecological and anthropogenic drivers (ICES, 2020d). The stock was previously thought to have been on a recovery trajectory (which indeed it was, from ~2006-

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 103

2015) and biomass increased briefly above Blim. Previous ICES assessments gave a more optimistic picture of the stock, with biomass estimated to have been close to Btrigger. For this reason, the Cod Recovery Plan was replaced by a long-term management plan, and some of the main elements (notably restrictions on days at sea) were scrapped in 2017. ICES notes that it is unclear whether this has had any impact on the stock, and if so what (ICES, 2019g). Figure 4 in (ICES, 2019g) also provides an evaluation of biomass by area within the North Sea, showing that in the southern North Sea, there was never any recovery trend at all, while in the other areas, the trend was strong, but reversed abruptly after 2017. ICES suggest that this pattern may be driven by climate change, biological or fisheries effects, or a mixture, with further work needed to establish the main drivers of these trends. The latest ICES assessment for North Sea cod (ICES, 2020d) estimates that the upper bound of the 95% CI for SSB (79,522 t) is now well below Blim (107,000 t). There is therefore a high degree of certainty that this stock is below the point of recruitment impairment. The first part of SG60 and S80 is not met.

For SG60 to be met, the UoA must have measures in place that are expected to ensure that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Although this stock is included in the EU multiannual plan (MAP) for demersal stocks in the North Sea (EU, 2018b), this plan has not been adopted by Norway and ICES advice continues to be based on the MSY approach, with the MAP FMSY lower and upper ranges included as a catch option (ICES, 2020d). This stock is therefore managed through a combination of monitoring and reference points-based stock assessment which forms the basis for the ICES advice based on the MSY approach. The latter is then used as a basis for TAC setting through previously bilateral (EU-Norway) and now trilateral (EU-Norway-UK) negotiations.

At the UoA level, it can be argued that even if the total catch of a species is clearly hindering recovery, UoA catches of less than 30% of the total catch of a species may not normally be influential in hindering a recovery in a marginal sense, i.e., nothing the UoA does would be likely to change the situation (GSA3.4.6). In this sense, the team considered the following UoA landings, as extracted from Table UoA1 and 3 logbook data, none of which made up more than 2% of the 2019 landings estimated by ICES. It can therefore be concluded that the UoA has measures in place that are expected to ensure that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding (i.e. the measure in place is the UoA’s low contribution to overall catch). Therefore, SG60 is met.

Table 29. UoA cod landed catch 2015-2020 vs 2019 ICES estimated landings. Note, UoA cod catches are likely to include catches from other cod stocks as well (see Section 6.9.2).

UoA 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 ICES landings 2019 UoA 1 219 287 348 500 369 No data 28,558 UoA 3 No data 86 138 122 103 93

With respect to SG80, the TACs for the last two years (2019, 2020) have been set in excess of the ICES advised catch (see Table 4a, b and c in (ICES, 2020d)). Furthermore, for 2019, the ICES estimated catch (landing + discards) was 35,685 t, well above the recommended catch of less than 28,204 t. ICES further reports that the below minimum size (BMS) landings of cod reported to ICES are currently negligible, and are much lower than the estimates of catches below the minimum conservation reference size (MCRS) estimated by observer programmes. This suggests that there may still be a degree of unreported discarding of this species, despite the fact that all cod must be landed as per the EU Landing Obligation. In the absence of clear evidence of recovery of this stock, or a demonstrably effective strategy between all MSC UoAs which categorise this species as main, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding, it cannot be concluded that SG80 is met.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 104

Figure 21. Cod in Subarea 4, Division 7.d, and Subdivision 20. Top: State of the stock and the fishery relative to reference points. Bottom: Summary of the stock assessment. Catches are assessment estimates. Only positive unaccounted removals are plotted. Shaded areas (F, SSB) and error bars (R) indicate 95% confidence intervals. Landings below minimum conservation reference size as officially reported. From (ICES, 2020d).

Cod in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic) (UoA 2): This stock is assessed by ICES as a category 1 stock, i.e. a stock with quantitative assessments (ICES, 2018c) and was benchmarked in 2017. Although there is some uncertainty in the assessment (conflicting signals from the different surveys and catch-at-age data, as well as incomplete survey data for 2018), the lower 95% CI bound of 2020 SSB (1,017,269 t) is more than twice MSY Btrigger (460,000 t) while F has been at or below FMSY since the mid-2000s (Figure 22; (ICES, 2020e). On that basis there is a high degree of certainty that this stock is above the PRI and is fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 105

Figure 22. Cod in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). Catch, recruitment, F, and SSB. Confidence intervals (95%) are indicated in the plots for recruitment, F, and SSB. From (ICES, 2020e). Anglerfish (Lophius budegassa, L. piscatorius) in subareas 4 and 6, and in Division 3.a (North Sea, Rockall and West of Scotland, Skagerrak and Kattegat) (UoA 3): The ICES framework for category 3 stocks is applied here, i.e. with survey-based assessments or exploratory assessments indicating trends (ICES, 2018c). The Scottish–Irish Anglerfish and Megrim Industry–Science Survey in Subarea 6 and Division 4.a (SIAMISS-Q2) was used as the index of stock development (note this survey was cancelled in 2020 because of COVID-19). The advice is based on the ratio of the mean of the last two index values (Index A, with 2020 treated as missing) and the mean of the three preceding values (Index B), multiplied by the recent advised catch. This is equivalent to assuming that the 2020 value is equal to the 2019 biomass index (see Figure 23). The index is estimated to have decreased by more than 20% and thus the uncertainty cap was applied in accordance with the ICES precautionary approach (ICES, 2020f). Given that the lowest bound of the 95% CI for the stock size indicator is well above the lowest point in the times series from which the stock has recovered (ca. 30,000 t in 2011 based on Figure 23), the team considers it highly likely that this stock is above the point of recruitment impairment. SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met because this conclusion is based on a single indicator, and the harvest rate has been increasing steadily over the last 3 – 4 years.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 106

Figure 23. Anglerfish in subareas 4 and 6, and in Division 3.a. Summary of the stock assessment. Left: Relative harvest rate (total catch/stock-size indicator; normalized to the average harvest rate). Right: Stock biomass from the SIAMISS-Q2 survey. The horizontal orange lines indicate the average of the most recent two years (with 2020 not available) and the previous three years. From (ICES, 2020f). Black scabbardfish in subareas 1, 2, 4–8, 10, and 14, and divisions 3.a, 9.a, and 12.b (Northeast Atlantic and Arctic Ocean) (UoA 3): As for anglerfish, the ICES framework for category 3 stocks is applied here, i.e. with survey-based assessments or exploratory assessments indicating trends (ICES, 2018c). The abundance of the species in each area is estimated by six-month time intervals (semesters) and by using two different state space models, further linked by a northern–southern migration process. The annual abundance corresponds to the average of two consecutive semesters. Therefore, the 2016 estimate includes the first two months of 2017 and is taken as the index of abundance for 2017. The abundance indices from the northern and southern components are used as indicators of stock development, and stock trends by area are estimated by the slope from a linear regression of the abundance estimate in a given year (Y) versus the abundance estimate in the previous year (Y−1), calculated for the most recent five years (ICES, 2020g). According to the most recent ICES advice, the minimum slope of the two component slopes was −0.048 (for the northern component – see Figure 24), indicating the stock is no longer considered to be increasing according to the data – this is in contrast with the previous, 2018, advice (also given in (ICES, 2020g)). The precautionary buffer was therefore applied in the catch advice, implying a 20% reduction. According to the assessment, however, the stock overall remains stable while the harvest rate is decreasing (Figure 24). On that basis, the team concludes that it is highly likely that the stock is above the PRI and SG60 and SG80 are met. Because this is a Category 3 stock, with no full analytical stock assessment conducted, there is no high degree of certainty that this is the case. SG100 is not met.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 107

Figure 24. Black scabbardfish in the Northeast Atlantic. Top left: Estimated harvest rates (in biomass) for the total assessed area (subareas 6–8 and divisions 5.a, 9.a, and 12.b). Top right: Total biomass index (in thousand tonnes). Bottom: Abundance index in the northern part of the assessed area (left; subareas 6 and 7 and divisions 5.a and 12.b) and in the southern part (right; Subarea 8 and Division 9.a). Shaded areas represent the 2.5 and 97.5 percentiles. Blue ling in subareas 6–7 and Division 5.b (Celtic Seas and Faroes grounds) (UoA 3): This stock is assessed by ICES as a category 1 stock, i.e. a stock with quantitative assessments (ICES, 2018c). The assessment is based on Multi-Year Catch Curves (MYCC), a model fitted to age composition and total catch in order to estimate annual total mortality. Input data are international landings (1995–2017) and age composition of French landings (2009–2017) (ICES, 2020j). According to the latest assessment, summarized in Figure 25, current F (Fupper 2019 = 0.043) is well below FMSY (0.12) and declining, with SSB fluctuating around MSY Btrigger (75,037 t; SSB 95% CI 71,536 – 123,173 t) and increasing. With MSY Btrigger the reference point where there is 5% probability that the stock is below Blim, it is therefore highly likely that the stock is above the PRI and SG60 and SG80 are met. The lower bound of the SSB CI is below MSY Btrigger, however, and the requirements of SG100 are therefore not met.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 108

Figure 25. Blue ling in subareas 6–7 and Division 5.b. Top: State of the stock and the fishery relative to reference points. Bottom: Summary of the stock assessment (weights in thousand tonnes and recruitment in millions). Shaded areas (F, SSB) and error bars (R) indicate 95% confidence intervals. From (ICES, 2020j). Ling in subareas 6–9, 12, and 14, and in divisions 3.a and 4.a (Northeast Atlantic and Arctic Ocean) (UoA 3): The ICES framework for category 3 stocks is applied here, i.e. with survey-based assessments or exploratory assessments indicating trends (ICES, 2018c). The assessment is based on a standardized CPUE series from the Norwegian longline fleet which shows an increasing trend since 2004, with a decline in 2018 ((ICES, 2019b); Figure 26). The advice is then based on a comparison of the two latest index values (index A) with the three preceding values (index B), multiplied by the recent (2018–2019) advised catch. The stock size relative to candidate reference points is unknown, but ICES assesses that fishing pressure on the stock is below FMSY proxy (Figure 26). On that basis, the team concludes that it is highly likely that the stock is above the PRI and SG60 and SG80 are met. Because this is a Category 3 stock, with no full analytical stock assessment conducted, there is no high degree of certainty that this is the case. SG100 is not met.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 109

Figure 26. Ling in subareas 6–9, 12, and 14, and in divisions 3.a and 4.a. Top: State of the stock and fishery relative to reference points. The status evaluation is based on the reference point proxy for FMSY using the length-based indicator method. Bottom: Catches (left) and standardized biomass index from the Norwegian longline fleet targeting ling for all areas combined (kg per 1000 hooks; right). The dashed red lines indicate the average of the biomass index for 2014 to 2016 and for 2017 to 2018. The shaded areas on the biomass index plot represent 95% confidence intervals. From (ICES, 2019b). Note on unobserved mortality due to ghost fishing: Ghost fishing does not appear to be an issue in the fishery under assessment. Where gear becomes entangled, for example on seabed obstructions, it can and is recovered, by releasing one side and hauling the other. Gear is expensive and there is little economic sense in giving up on a recovery attempt. Good local knowledge and gear design further reduces the chance of snagging. This will be verified during the site visit.

b Minor primary species stock status

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 110

Guide Minor primary species are highly likely to be above the PRI. post OR If below the PRI, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of minor primary species. Met? No

Rationale

For all UoAs, a long list of minor primary species were identified. Not all of these were assessed by the team. Using the all or nothing approach, SG100 is not met.

References

(EU, 2013a; ICES, 2020i, 2020d, 2020e, 2020f, 2020g, 2020k, 2019g, 2018c)

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

Draft scoring range UoA 1: 60-79 (North Sea cod) UoA 2: ≥80 UoA 3: 60-79 (North Sea cod) Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 111

Scoring table 14. PI 2.1.2 – Primary species management strategy

PI 2.1.2 There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place

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

species at/to levels which are likely to be above levels which are highly likely to be above the PRI. the PRI. Met? All species - Yes All species - Yes All species - Yes

Rationale

Insert sufficient rationale to support the team’s conclusion for each Scoring Guidepost (SG).

In the context of this performance indicator (Source: MSC FCR v2.01; Table SA8):

- “Measures” are actions or tools in place that either explicitly manage impacts on the component or indirectly contribute to management of the component under assessment having been designed to manage impacts elsewhere.

- A “partial strategy” represents a cohesive arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome and an awareness of the need to change the measures should they cease to be effective. It may not have been designed to manage the impact on that component specifically.

- A “strategy” represents a cohesive and strategic arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome, and which should be designed to manage impact on that component specifically. A strategy needs to be appropriate to the scale, intensity and cultural context of the fishery and should contain mechanisms for the modification fishing practices in the light of the identification of unacceptable impacts.

Hake (UoA 1, 3): The EU multiannual plan (MAP) for stocks in the Western Waters and adjacent waters has been agreed by the EU for hake (EU, 2019a) while it is listed as a bycatch species under the North Sea MAP (EU, 2018b). Although hake is not a jointly managed stock between the EU and other coastal states, it is shared between the waters of the EU, Norway and, since Brexit, the UK. As none of the EU MAPs have been accepted by Norway or the UK, TAC negotiations are set to be made annually bilaterally between the EU and UK, and trilaterally between the EU, UK and Norway. Until an EU–Norway-UK management strategy is agreed on, ICES advice will therefore continue to be based on

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 112

the MSY approach, with the MAP FMSY lower and upper ranges included as a catch option. Hake is therefore managed through a combination of monitoring and stock assessment (see 2.1.1) which forms the basis for the ICES advice based on the MSY approach. The latter is then used as a basis for TAC setting through previously bilateral (EU-Norway) and now trilateral (EU-Norway-UK) negotiations. In addition, the EU fleet is subject to a landing obligation for quota-managed species such as hake (EU 2013), as well as technical measures regarding gear specifications, mesh sizes (described in Section 5.2.2, spatio-temporal restrictions and minimum conservation reference sizes conservation – all of which are outlined in (EU, 2019a). On that basis, the team concludes that a strategy is in place for hake. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met.

North Sea cod (UoA 1, 3): North Sea cod, which is listed as a target species under the North Sea MAP (EU, 2018b) is a jointly managed stock between the EU and Norway, and also the UK. Although EU–Norway have requested an evaluation of multiple management strategies (ICES, 2020d), no formal bilateral agreement is currently in place. Here also, as none of the EU MAPs have been accepted by Norway or the UK, TAC negotiations are set to be made annually bilaterally between the EU and UK, and trilaterally between the EU, UK and Norway. Until an EU–Norway-UK management strategy is agreed on, ICES advice will therefore continue to be based on the MSY approach, with the MAP FMSY lower and upper ranges included as a catch option. North Sea cod is therefore managed through a combination of monitoring and stock assessment (see 2.1.1) which forms the basis for the ICES advice based on the MSY approach. The latter is then used as a basis for TAC setting through previously bilateral (EU-Norway) and now trilateral (EU-Norway-UK) negotiations. In addition, the EU fleet is subject to a landing obligation for quota-managed species such as cod (EU, 2013b), as well as technical measures regarding gear specifications, mesh sizes, spatio-temporal restrictions and minimum conservation reference sizes conservation (EU, 2019a). On that basis, the team concludes that a strategy is in place for North Sea cod. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met.

Northeast Arctic cod (UoA 2): Catches of this stock are managed through the Joint Norwegian–Russian Fisheries Commission management plan which is used as the basis for ICES advice and TAC setting. According to the plan, the TAC is calculated as the average catch predicted for the coming 3 years, using the target level of exploitation (Ftr).

The target level of exploitation is calculated according to the spawning-stock biomass (SSB) in the first year of the forecast as follows:

- if SSB < Bpa, then Ftr = SSB / Bpa × FMSY;

- if Bpa ≤ SSB ≤ 2×Bpa, then Ftr = FMSY;

- if 2 × Bpa < SSB < 3 × Bpa, then Ftr = FMSY × (1 + 0.5 × (SSB – 2 × Bpa) / Bpa);

- if SSB ≥ 3 × Bpa, then Ftr = 1.5 × FMSY;

where FMSY = 0.40 and Bpa = 460 000 tonnes.

If the spawning-stock biomass in the present year, the previous year, and each of the three years of prediction is above Bpa, the TAC should not be changed by more than ±20% compared with the previous year’s TAC. In this case, Ftr should however not be below 0.30. Additional management measures to take into account include a discard ban in Norwegian waters as well as technical measures regarding gear specifications, mesh sizes (described in Section Error! Reference source not found.) and spatio-temporal r estrictions all of which are outlined in the EU technical measures (EU, 2019a) and in the Norwegian Marine Resources Act 2008 relating to the management of wild living marine resources, implemented through inter alia regulations J-139-2001, J-180-1993, J-24-2018, J-89-2020, J-219-2020, J-222-2020 and J-12-2021. On that basis, the team concludes that a strategy is in place for this stock. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 113

Anglerfish (UoA 3): Anglerfish is listed as a target species under the North Sea MAP (EU, 2018b). Although the stock is not jointly managed, it is shared between the EU and Norway, and now also the UK. As none of the EU MAPs have been accepted by Norway or the UK, TAC negotiations are set to be made annually bilaterally between the EU and UK, and trilaterally between the EU, UK and Norway. Until an EU–Norway-UK management strategy is agreed on, ICES advice will therefore continue to be based for this stock on the precautionary approach (as this is a Category 3 stock - (ICES, 2018c)). Anglerfish is therefore managed through a combination of monitoring and assessment of survey trends (see 2.1.1) which forms the basis for the ICES advice based on the precautionary approach. The latter is then used as a basis for TAC setting through previously bilateral (EU-Norway) and now trilateral (EU-Norway-UK) negotiations. In addition, the EU fleet is subject to a landing obligation for quota-managed species such as anglerfish (EU, 2019a, 2013b), as well as technical measures regarding gear specifications, mesh sizes (described in Section Error! Reference source not found.), spatio-temporal restrictions and m inimum conservation reference sizes conservation – all of which are outlined in (EU, 2019a). On that basis, the team concludes that a strategy is in place for anglerfish. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met.

Black scabbardfish (UoA 3): Listed as a target species under the Western Waters MAP (EU, 2019b), however ICES advice follows the precautionary approach (for a Category 3 stock - (ICES, 2018c)) as the plan has not been adopted by the other coastal states that this stock is shared with, and no reference points have been defined. Scoring here is therefore the same as for hake. Note that this deep-sea species also benefits from a ban on deep-sea trawling (beyond 800m depth) as per EU Regulation 2016/2336 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2016. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met.

Blue ling (UoA 3): Listed as a target species under the Western Waters MAP (ICES, 2019g), however ICES advice follows the MSY approach as the plan has not been adopted by the other coastal states that this stock is shared with. Scoring here is therefore the same as for hake. Note that as a deep-sea stock, blue ling also benefits from a ban on deep- sea trawling (beyond 800m depth) as per EU Regulation 2016/2336 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2016. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met.

Ling (UoA 3): This species does not have a management plan and ICES advice therefore follows the precautionary approach (for a category 3 stock - (ICES, 2018c)). Scoring here is therefore the same as for hake. Note that as a deep-sea stock, ling also benefits from a ban on deep-sea trawling (beyond 800m depth) as per EU Regulation 2016/2336 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2016. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met.

b Management strategy evaluation

Guide The measures are considered likely to work, There is some objective basis for confidence that Testing supports high confidence that the based on plausible argument (e.g., general the measures/partial strategy will work, based on partial strategy/strategy will work, based on post experience, theory or comparison with similar some information directly about the fishery and/or information directly about the fishery and/or fisheries/species). species involved. species involved. Met? Hake (UoA 1, 3) – Yes Hake (UoA 1, 3) – Yes Hake (UoA 1, 3) – No North Sea cod (UoA 1, 3) – Yes North Sea cod (UoA 1, 3) – No North Sea cod (UoA 1, 3) – No Northeast Arctic cod (UoA 2) – Yes Northeast Arctic cod (UoA 2) – Yes Northeast Arctic cod (UoA 2) – No Anglerfish (UoA 3) – Yes Anglerfish (UoA 3) – Yes Anglerfish (UoA 3) – No

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 114

Black scabbardfish (UoA 3) – Yes Black scabbardfish (UoA 3) – Yes Black scabbardfish (UoA 3) – No Blue ling (UoA 3) – Yes Blue ling (UoA 3) – Yes Blue ling (UoA 3) – No Ling (UoA 3) – Yes Ling (UoA 3) – Yes Ling (UoA 3) – Yes Rationale

Hake (UoA 1 and 3): This stock is managed as per the ICES MSY approach (see scoring issue a). The projected SSB for 2022 under the MSY catch scenario is 249,402 t, which remains well above MSY Btrigger. There is therefore some objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work. SG60 and SG80 are met. Because the UK’s departure from the EU is a recent development and the UK’s involvement as a third party in the TAC setting procedure has not yet been tested, it cannot be concluded that there is high confidence that the strategy will work. SG100 is not met.

North Sea cod (UoA 1 and 3): This stock is managed as per the ICES MSY approach (see scoring issue a). The analysis by ICES of different options for a long-term management strategy for North Sea cod, in response to a request by the EU and Norway, provides a basis for thinking that the strategy will work; i.e. it is precautionary in the long term with P(SSB< Blim) = 0.011 over the final 10 years of the projection: “All requested management scenarios are considered precautionary in the long term, but none of them in the short term. ICES advises, however, the use of the existing ICES MSY advice rule with an FMSY of 0.31 and an MSY Btrigger of 150 000 t, with added stability elements if desired. This is because the ICES MSY advice rule was the only management strategy that was precautionary across all robustness tests, with a minimal loss of yield and reduced interannual variation of the catch” (ICES, 2019h). SG60 is met. With respect to SG80, the TACs for the last two years (2019, 2020) have been set in excess of the ICES advised catch (see Table 4a, b and c in (ICES, 2020d)). Furthermore, for 2019, the ICES estimated catch (landing + discards) was 35,685 t, well above the recommended catch of less than 28,204 t. ICES further reports that the below minimum size (BMS) landings of cod reported to ICES are currently negligible and are much lower than the estimates of catches below the minimum conservation reference size (MCRS) estimated by observer programmes. This suggests that there may still be a degree of unreported discarding of this species, despite the fact that all cod must be landed as per the EU Landing Obligation. SG80 and SG100 are not met.

Northeast Arctic cod (UoA 2): This stock is managed in accordance with the Joint Norwegian–Russian Fisheries Commission management plan (see scoring issue a). The projected SSB for 2022 under the management plan catch scenario is 1,171,141t, which remains more than twice MSY Btrigger. Furthermore, the management plan was evaluated by ICES to be precautionary, with catches under the HCR leading to a stable stock in the short term and a negligible risk of SSB falling below Blim (ICES, 2016a). This provides an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work – SG60 and SG80 are met. The projections are short-term only and therefore do not provide high confidence. SG100 is not met.

Anglerfish (UoA 3): This stock is managed as per the ICES precautionary approach which takes into account trends based on the Scottish–Irish Anglerfish and Megrim Industry– Science Survey in Subarea 6 and Division 4.a (SIAMISS-Q2) (ICES, 2020f). Given that the stock is highly likely to be above the PRI based on the stock size indicator (see 2.1.1a), there is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy is working. SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met because the harvest rate is increasing and the strategy has not been evaluated for this stock. Black scabbardfish (UoA 3): This stock is managed as per the ICES precautionary approach which takes into account trends based on the abundance of the species in each area estimated by six-month time intervals (semesters) and by using two different state space models, further linked by a northern–southern migration process (ICES, 2020g). Given that the stock is highly likely to be above the PRI based on the stock size indicator (see 2.1.1a), there is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy is working. SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met because the stock size indicator is declining and the strategy has not been evaluated for this stock.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 115

Blue ling (UoA 3): Given the declining F and increasing SSB (see Figure 25 in 2.1.1a), there is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy is working. SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met because the strategy has not been evaluated for this stock.

Ling (UoA 3): With fishing pressure on the stock below FMSY proxy and the stock trend showing an overall increase (despite a recent decline in SSB – see Figure 26 in 2.1.1a and (ICES, 2019b), there is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy is working. SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met because the strategy has not been evaluated for this stock.

c Management strategy implementation

Guide There is some evidence that the measures/partial There is clear evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. strategy/strategy is being implemented post successfully and is achieving its overall objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? No (more information needed) No (more information needed)

Rationale

At UoA level, the management strategy for each stock is implemented through quota allocations and technical measures such as gear restrictions and spatio-temporal measures. Compliance with these elements will be discussed at the site visit. This scoring issue can therefore not yet be scored.

d Shark finning

Guide It is likely that shark finning is not taking place. It is highly likely that shark finning is not taking There is a high degree of certainty that shark place. finning is not taking place. post Met? UoA 1 and 2 – N/a UoA 1 and 2 – N/a UoA 1 and 2 – N/a UoA 3 – Yes UoA 3 – Yes UoA 3 – No Rationale

UoAs 1 and 2: none of the primary species are sharks; this scoring issue is not relevant.

UoA 3: For the Scapêche fishery, a single blue shark was recorded as discarded in the observer data while a single mako shark was recorded as landed in the logbook data (see Section 5.2.4.2). Both species are managed through the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) with a stock assessment and reference points (ICCAT_SCRS, 2019; ICCAT-SCRS, 2015), and a TAC in the North Atlantic (EU, 2021a). These species were therefore assessed as primary minor. Sharks are not targeted or retained by the Scapêche fleet (except for the single mako shark – to be discussed further), as is attested to by the observer reports produced under the Ifremer Obsmer programme, with

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 116

56 trips observed between 2016 and 2020 (observer coverage to be discussed at the site visit). In addition, a European regulation prohibits the practice of “shark finning” and forbids any removal of fins of sharks on board vessels by EU-registered vessels (EU, 2013c). The stricter provisions were strongly supported in France, where there has never been a market for shark fins (see (FR_Senat, 2011)). On that basis, it is highly likely that shark finning is not taking place. SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met because the observer coverage is not sufficiently comprehensive to provide a high degree of certainty. e Review of alternative measures

Guide There is a review of the potential effectiveness There is a regular review of the potential There is a biennial review of the potential and practicality of alternative measures to effectiveness and practicality of alternative effectiveness and practicality of alternative post minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of measures to minimise UoA-related mortality catch of main primary species. unwanted catch of main primary species and they of unwanted catch of all primary species, and are implemented as appropriate. they are implemented, as appropriate. Met? Hake, North Sea cod (UoA 1) – N/a Hake, North Sea cod (UoA 1) – N/a Hake, North Sea cod (UoA 1) – N/a Northeast Arctic cod (UoA 2) – No (more Northeast Arctic cod (UoA 2) – No (more Northeast Arctic cod (UoA 2) – No (more information needed) information needed) information needed) Minor species (all UoAs) – N/a Minor species (all UoAs) – N/a Minor species (all UoAs) – No Rationale

UoA 1: Across all observed trips for Euronor between 2016 and 2020, the average discard rate was 3%. Within the discarded fraction, hake and cod, the only main primary species for this UoA, accounted for a maximum of 61% and 75%, respectively. These maximum values were recorded for singular trips for which the overall discard rate was still low (2% and 3%, respectively). For cod, the vast majority of catches were retained, with discard rates generally not exceeding 5% of the total discarded fraction. For hake, discards (as a % of the total discarded fraction) were generally higher, but still within an overall minimal amount of discards. Furthermore, a landing obligation is in place for these species under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP - (EU, 2013b)), which was introduced in 2015 and became fully implemented in 2019, noting that there are general exemptions across all fisheries for fish damaged by predators, by disease or parasites, contaminated fish unfit for human consumption, fish released during regular vessel tasks e.g., those stuck in the net when cleaning gear, or fish offal from processing. Although compliance of the UoA with this measure is to be discussed at the site visit, based on previous discussions at surveillance audits, the team considers provisionally that there is no unwanted catch for any of the main species and this scoring issue is not applicable.

UoA 2: For the Northeast Arctic UoA, the Emeraude is not subject to any observer coverage (this is to be discussed further at the site visit) although it is required to record any discards in the electronic logbook. For Euronor, 7 observed trips also covered the Norwegian zone (2a) between 2016 and 2020 although it should be discussed to what extent these data are representative of Northeast Arctic fishing activities, given that these trips also included activities in 4a, 6a, 5a and 5b. Overall discard rates averaged at 3%. For cod, the only main species in this UoA, discard rates did not exceed 4% (as a proportion of the total discarded fraction). Note that discarding is prohibited while fishing in the Barents Sea and Norwegian sea. The Norwegian coast guard controls compliance with fishing regulations at sea, catches, and the occurrence of discarding. Before this scoring issue can be scored, the availability of discard data on the UoA and compliance with the Norwegian discard ban should be discussed. Note that the previous reassessment of this

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 117

fishery based its assessment of bycatch (discards) on 2011 data from a Norwegian reference fleet (IMR 2011). It should be investigated whether more up to date data are available.

UoA 3: Across all observed trips for Scapêche between 2016 and 2020, cod made up the bulk of the discards, although the overall discard rate for all observed trips was low, averaging at 5%. As for UoA 1, a landing obligation is in place for these species under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP - (EU, 2013b)) which was introduced in 2015 and became fully implemented in 2019. From the observer data, it is clear that the higher discard rates for cod were recorded before the full implementation of the LO. Although compliance of the UoA with this measure is to be discussed at the site visit, based on previous discussions at surveillance audits, the team considers provisionally that there is no unwanted catch for any of the main species and this scoring issue is not applicable.

Minor species (all UoAs): There is a long list of minor species and discard rates were not reviewed for all of them. On that basis, SG100 is not met for the minor species.

References

(EU, 2019b, 2019a, 2018b, 2013b, 2013c; FR_Senat, 2011; ICCAT_SCRS, 2019; ICCAT-SCRS, 2015; ICES, 2020i, 2020d, 2020e, 2020f, 2020g, 2020j, 2019g, 2019i, 2018c, 2016a; IMR, 2011)

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

Draft scoring range UoA 1: 60-79 (more information needed) UoA 2: <60 (more information needed) UoA: 60-79 (more information needed) Information gap indicator More information sought: - At UoA level, the management strategy for each stock is implemented through quota allocations and technical measures such as gear restrictions and spatio-temporal measures. Compliance with these elements will be discussed at the site visit. - UoA compliance with the EU landing obligation and Norwegian discard ban to be discussed at the site visit. - Data availability on discards for Northeast Arctic operations to be discussed at the site visit. Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage

Overall Performance Indicator score

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 118

Condition number (if relevant)

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 119

Scoring table 15. PI 2.1.3 – Primary species information

PI 2.1.3 Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main primary species

Guide Qualitative information is adequate to Some quantitative information is available Quantitative information is available and is estimate the impact of the UoA on the main and is adequate to assess the impact of the adequate to assess with a high degree of certainty post primary species with respect to status. UoA on the main primary species with the impact of the UoA on main primary species with respect to status. respect to status. OR OR If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is adequate to estimate productivity and susceptibility attributes for Some quantitative information is adequate main primary species. to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for main primary species. Met? UoA 1 and 3 – Yes UoA 1 and 3 – Yes UoA 1 and 3 – No (more information needed) UoA 2 - No (more information needed) UoA 2 - No (more information needed) UoA 2 - No (more information needed) Rationale

UoA 1 and 3: All the main primary species are subject to quota and therefore landings are carefully tracked via electronic logbooks, landings declarations and ‘notes de vente’ as described in Section 5.2.4.1. In areas where discarding was permitted during the gradual implementation of the EU landing obligation, discards are evaluated in a quantitative way in Obsmer observer reports. However from 2015, the EU landing obligation (EU, 2013b) has been gradually introduced and was fully implemented in 2019. Any discarding of main primary species that does occur must be reported in the electronic logbooks. Evidence that these are being recorded has been provided to the team and are in line with observer records which show that discarding is minimal – the average overall discard rate for the fleet is 3% for UoA 1 and 5% for UoA 3. All primary species have ICES stock assessments which are either analytical, with reference points, or based on indices derived from survey trends (see 2.1.1). On that basis, some quantitative information is available and is adequate to assess the impact of the UoA on the main primary species with respect to status. SG60 and SG80 is met. A better understanding of observer coverage in this fishery is needed before SG100 can be scored.

UoA 2 (Euronor and Compagnie des Pêches St Malo in the Northeast Arctic): All the main primary species are subject to quota and therefore landings are carefully tracked via electronic logbooks, landings declarations and ‘notes de vente’ as described in Section 5.2.4.1. During the previous reassessment, it was determined that there is no direct

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 120

information on discarding from this fishery, because there are no observer reports available (and for the reason that discarding is not allowed). Based on the measures in place for selectivity, strong Norwegian enforcement, as well as indirect data sources used by the Norwegians (e.g. reference fleet as per (IMR, 2011)), the team were confident that there is at least not enough discarding for any species to qualify as a ‘main’ discard species (defined as >2% of the total catch if vulnerable). In the absence of observer reports, the team will rely on site visit interviews and additional data sources to score this scoring issue. Self-reporting is in place for both Compagnie des Peches St Malo and Euronor; however, these data should be verified with authorities at the site visit. This issue is therefore not yet scored.

b Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor primary species

Guide Some quantitative information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor primary post species with respect to status. Met? No

Rationale

All UoAs: There is a long list of minor primary species (see Sections 5.2.4.1 and 5.2.4.2) and although ICES advice is in place for all, it is not clear that stock status is known to a sufficient degree such that the impact of the UoA with respect to status can be measured. Using the all or nothing approach, this scoring issue is considered not met.

c Information adequacy for management strategy

Guide Information is adequate to support measures Information is adequate to support a Information is adequate to support a strategy to to manage main primary species. partial strategy to manage main primary manage all primary species, and evaluate with a high post species. degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? UoA 1 and 3 – Yes UoA 1 and 3 – Yes UoA 1 and 3 – Yes UoA 2 – No (more information needed) UoA 2 – No (more information needed) UoA 2 – No (more information needed) Rationale

UoA 1 and 3: Given the fact that discarding is minimal (<3% and 5% on average for UoAs 1 and 3, respectively) according to Obsmer observer reports, the UoA logbook data on landed catch is adequate to support the strategies of the main primary species described in 2.1.2. SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met because stock status is not known to a high degree of certainty for all minor species; it can therefore also not be known whether the strategies in place are achieving their objective for these species.

UoA 2: In the absence of observer reports, the team will rely on site visit interviews and additional data sources to score this scoring issue. Self-reporting is in place for both Compagnie des Peches St Malo and Euronor; however, these data should be verified with authorities at the site visit. This issue is therefore not yet scored.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 121

References

Obsmer observer data for UoA 1 and 3 (see Table 13); UoA logbook data for all UoAs (see Table 10); (EU, 2013b; IMR, 2011)

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

Draft scoring range UoA 1 and 3: ≥80 UoA 2: < 60 (more information needed) Information gap indicator More information sought: - Information needed on observer coverage UoAs 1 and 3 - In the absence of observer reports for UoA 2, the team will rely on site visit interviews and additional data sources to score this scoring issue. Self-reporting is in place for both Compagnie des Pêches St Malo and Euronor; however, these data should be verified with authorities at the site visit. Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 122

Scoring table 16. PI 2.2.1 – Secondary species outcome

PI 2.2.1 The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Main secondary species stock status

Guide Main secondary species are likely to be above Main secondary species are highly likely to There is a high degree of certainty that main biologically based limits. be above biologically based limits. secondary species are above biologically based limits. post OR OR If below biologically based limits, there are If below biologically based limits, there is measures in place expected to ensure that the either evidence of recovery or a UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. demonstrably effective partial strategy in place such that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. AND Where catches of a main secondary species outside of biological limits are considerable, there is either evidence of recovery or a, demonstrably effective strategy in place between those MSC UoAs that have considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? N/a N/a N/a

Rationale

No main secondary species were identified for any of the UoAs (see Section 5.2.4), this scoring issue is therefore not applicable.

See the following interpretation on scoring the Primary/Secondary Outcome PIs in the absence of Main species:

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 123

https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/P2-species-outcome-PIs-scoring-when-no-main-or-no-minor-or-both-PI-2-1-1-1527262009344

Note on unobserved mortality due to ghost fishing: Ghost fishing does not appear to be an issue in the fishery under assessment. Where gear becomes entangled, for example on seabed obstructions, it can and is recovered, by releasing one side and hauling the other. Gear is expensive and there is little economic sense in giving up on a recovery attempt. Good local knowledge and gear design further reduces the chance of snagging. This will be verified during the site visit.

b Minor secondary species stock status

Guide Minor secondary species are highly likely to be above biologically based limits. post OR If below biologically based limits’, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of secondary species Met? No

Rationale

There is a long list of minor secondary species for all UoAs (see Section 5.2.4) and not all have been assessed by the team. Using the all or nothing approach, this scoring issue it not met.

References

Section 5.2.4 of this report

MSC interpretations Log: https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/P2-species-outcome-PIs-scoring-when-no-main-or-no-minor-or-both-PI-2-1-1-1527262009344

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

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Ghost gear nformation will need to be verified at the site visit

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

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 124

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 125

Scoring table 17. PI 2.2.2 – Secondary species management strategy

PI 2.2.2 There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place

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

levels which are highly likely to be above at/to levels which are highly likely to be above biologically based limits or to ensure that the biologically based limits or to ensure that the UoA does not hinder their recovery. UoA does not hinder their recovery. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Insert sufficient rationale to support the team’s conclusion for each Scoring Guidepost (SG).

In the context of this performance indicator (Source: MSC FCR v2.01; Table SA8):

In the absence of main secondary species for any of the UoAs, SG60 and SG80 are met by default.

See the following entry from the MSC interpretations log: https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/Use-of-if-necessary-in-P2-management-PIs-2-1-2-2-2-2-2-4-2-2-5- 2-PI-2-1-2-1527262011402

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 126

There is a long list of minor species, not all of which are managed. SG100 is not met.

b Management strategy evaluation

Guide The measures are considered likely to work, There is some objective basis for confidence Testing supports high confidence that the based on plausible argument (e.g. general that the measures/partial strategy will work, partial strategy/strategy will work, based on post experience, theory or comparison with similar based on some information directly about the information directly about the UoA and/or UoAs/species). UoA and/or species involved. species involved. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

In the absence of main secondary species for any of the UoAs, SG60 and SG80 are met by default.

See the following entry from the MSC interpretations log: https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/Use-of-if-necessary-in-P2-management-PIs-2-1-2-2-2-2-2-4-2-2-5- 2-PI-2-1-2-1527262011402

There is a long list of minor species, not all of which are managed or have a test management strategy in place. SG100 is not met.

c Management strategy implementation

Guide There is some evidence that the There is clear evidence that the partial measures/partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented post implemented successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Yes No

Rationale

In the absence of main secondary species for any of the UoAs, SG80 is met by default.

See the following entry from the MSC interpretations log: https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/Use-of-if-necessary-in-P2-management-PIs-2-1-2-2-2-2-2-4-2-2-5- 2-PI-2-1-2-1527262011402

There is a long list of minor species, not all of which are managed. SG100 is not met.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 127

d Shark finning

Guide It is likely that shark finning is not taking place. It is highly likely that shark finning is not There is a high degree of certainty that shark taking place. finning is not taking place. post Met? UoA 1 and 3 – Yes UoA 1 and 3 – Yes UoA 1 and 3 – Yes UoA 2 – N/a UoA 2 – N/a UoA 2 – N/a Rationale

UoA 1 and 3: Some shark species were identified in the logbook and observer data for UoAs 1 and 3, the majority of which have been discarded (See Section 5.2.4.2). Those that do not meet the Primary or ETP species requirements given in Section 6.9.2 were assessed as Secondary species. Considering their minimal contribution to the total catch, they were all assessed as minor. Sharks are not targeted or retained by the UoA fleets, as is attested to by the observer reports produced under the Ifremer Obsmer programme, with 62 and 56 trips observed for UoAs 1 and 3, respectively, between 2016 and 2020 (an estimate of observer coverage is requested prior to or at the site visit). In addition, a European regulation prohibits the practice of “shark finning” and forbids any removal of fins of sharks on board vessels by EU-registered vessels (EU, 2013c). The stricter provisions were strongly supported in France where there has never been a market for shark fins (see (FR_Senat, 2011)). On that basis, it is highly likely that shark finning is not taking place. SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met because the observer coverage is not sufficiently comprehensive to provide a high degree of certainty. UoA 2: None of the secondary species identified are sharks (See Section 5.2.4.1). This scoring issue is therefore not relevant. e Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch

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

appropriate. Met? All UoAs - Yes All UoAs - Yes UoA 1 and 3 – No UoA 2 – No (more information needed) Rationale

All UoAs: In the absence of main secondary species for any of the UoAs, SG60 and SG80 are met by default.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 128

Minor species (UoA 1 and 3): There is a long list of minor species, most of which are not subject to quota and which are therefore not subject to the EU Landing Obligation. Discarding of these minor species is therefore likely to take place. A biennial review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA- related mortality of unwanted catch of all secondary species is not in place. SG100 is not met.

Minor species (UoA 2): For the Northeast Arctic UoAs, the Emeraude is not subject to any observer coverage (this is to be discussed further at the site visit) although it is required to record any discards in the electronic logbook. For Euronor, 7 observed trips also covered the Norwegian zone (2a) between 2016 and 2020 although it should be discussed to what extent these data are representative of Northeast Arctic fishing activities, given that these trips also included activities in 4a, 6a, 5a and 5b. Overall discard rates averaged at 3%. Note that discarding is prohibited while fishing in the Barents Sea and Norwegian sea. The Norwegian coast guard controls compliance with fishing regulations at sea, catches and the occurrence of discarding. Before this scoring issue can be scored at SG100, the availability of discard data on the UoA and compliance with the Norwegian discard ban should be discussed. Note that the previous reassessment of this fishery based its assessment of bycatch (discards) on 2011 data from a Norwegian reference fleet (IMR, 2011). It should be investigated whether more up to date data are available.

References

Section 5.2.4 of this report; (EU, 2013c, 2013b; FR_Senat, 2011; IMR, 2011)

MSC interpretations log: https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/Use-of-if-necessary-in-P2-management-PIs-2-1-2-2-2-2-2-4-2-2-5-2-PI-2-1-2-1527262011402

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

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator More information sought: - UoA compliance with the EU landing obligation and Norwegian discard ban to be discussed at the site visit. - Data availability on discards for Northeast Arctic operations to be discussed at the site visit. Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 129

Scoring table 18. PI 2.2.3 – Secondary species information

PI 2.2.3 Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on main secondary species

Guide Qualitative information is adequate to estimate Some quantitative information is available and Quantitative information is available and the impact of the UoA on the main secondary adequate to assess the impact of the UoA on adequate to assess with a high degree of post species with respect to status. main secondary species with respect to status. certainty the impact of the UoA on main secondary species with respect to status. OR OR If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is adequate to estimate Some quantitative information is adequate to productivity and susceptibility attributes for assess productivity and susceptibility main secondary species. attributes for main secondary species. Met? UoA 1 and 3 – Yes UoA 1 and 3 – Yes UoA 1 and 3 – No UoA 2 – No (more information needed) UoA 2 – No (more information needed) UoA 2 – No (more information needed) Rationale

UoA 1 and 3: None of the secondary species are subject to quota and these are therefore permitted to be discarded. The logbook data thus only provide a partial picture of the actual UoA catch. However, 62 and 56 trips were observed for UoAs 1 and 3, respectively, between 2016 and 2020 (an estimate of observer coverage is requested prior to or at the site visit). For each trip, the Obsmer reports provide details on the proportion of retained species (as a % of retained catch), the proportion of discarded species (as a % of discarded catch) and the proportion of discarded/retained catch overall. A list of the species recorded in the UoA 1 and UoA 3 Obsmer observer reports for is given in Table 13 and Table 14, respectively. Other than the species/stocks already identified in the UoA logbook data, no additional species were identified as ‘main’, on the basis that their average contribution to total catch did not exceed 5% (or 2% for less resilient species), and that discard rates in this fishery are generally low, averaging at 3% of the total catch for UoA 1 and 5% for UoA 3. Some quantitative information is therefore available and adequate to conclude that there are no ‘main’ secondary species for this UoA. SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met because the observer coverage is not sufficiently comprehensive to provide a high degree of certainty.

UoA 2 (Euronor and Compagnie des Pêches St Malo in the Northeast Arctic): There is a discard ban in place for this UoA including for secondary species. During the previous reassessment, it was determined that there is no direct information on discarding from this fishery, because there are no observer reports available (and for the reason that discarding is not allowed). Based on the measures in place for selectivity, strong Norwegian enforcement, as well as indirect data sources used by the Norwegians (e.g.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 130

reference fleet as per (IMR, 2011)), the team were confident that there is at least not enough discarding for any species to qualify as a ‘main’ discard species (defined as >2% of the total catch if vulnerable). In the absence of observer reports, the team will rely on site visit interviews and additional data sources to score this scoring issue. Self- reporting is in place for both Compagnie des Peches St Malo and Euronor; however, these data should be verified with authorities at the site visit. This issue is therefore not yet scored.

b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species

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

Met? No

Rationale

There is a long list of minor secondary species, not all of which have known stock status. Using the all or nothing approach, SG100 is not met.

c Information adequacy for management strategy

Guide Information is adequate to support measures to Information is adequate to support a partial Information is adequate to support a strategy to manage main secondary species. strategy to manage main secondary species. manage all secondary species, and evaluate with post a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? UoA 1 and 3 – Yes UoA 1 and 3 – Yes UoA 1 and 3 – Yes UoA 2 – No (more information needed) UoA 2 – No (more information needed) UoA 2 – No (more information needed) Rationale

UoAs 1 and 3: As explained in scoring issue a, the combination on logbook and observer data provide adequate information to conclude there are no main secondary species and SG60 and SG80 are therefore met. Not all secondary species are managed, however, and observer coverage is in any case not sufficiently comprehensive to provide a high degree of certainty. SG100 is not met.

UoA 2: In the absence of observer reports, the team will rely on site visit interviews and additional data sources to score this scoring issue. Self-reporting is in place for both Compagnie des Pêches St Malo and Euronor; however, these data should be verified with authorities at the site visit. This issue is therefore not yet scored.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 131

References

UoA logbook and observer data – see Section 5.2.4 (IMR, 2011)

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

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 132

Scoring table 19. PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome

PI 2.3.1 The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

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

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

Rationale

None of the ETP species identified in Section 6.9.3 have limits. This scoring issue is not applicable.

b Direct effects

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

UoA 1 Starry ray - Yes Starry ray – No (more information needed) Starry ray – No (more information needed) Common skate – No (more information needed) Common skate – No (more information needed) Common skate – No (more information needed) Basking shark – Yes Basking shark – Yes Basking shark – Yes Spurdog – Yes Spurdog – Yes Spurdog – Yes UoA 2 No (more information needed) No (more information needed) No (more information needed)

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 133

UoA 3 Common skate – Yes Common skate – No (more information needed) Common skate – No (more information needed) Spurdog – Yes Spurdog – Yes Spurdog – No Rationale

UoA 1: ETP species identified for UoA 1 include starry ray, common skate, basking shark and spurdog.

UoA 3: ETP species identified for UoA 3 include common skate and spurdog.

Starry ray (UoA 1): According to the self-reporting data for both fleets, 366 kg of starry ray were discarded in 2020. According to the observer data for the same year, 161 starry rays were discarded (observer coverage to be discussed at the site visit), suggesting that the observer data are the more reliable data source to estimate impacts on this species. Conditions were raised on starry ray bycatch for both Euronor and Cie des Pêches St Malo (now both included in UoA 1) during the initial reassessment for all ETP species performance indicators (Conditions 1, 2 and 3). To demonstrate progress against this condition, the Client group have carried out an analysis of UoA fishing footprint (based on saithe catches) vs starry ray distribution data according to 2015-2019 International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) data. The analysis indicates that the fishery does not overlap with the area of greatest starry ray abundance according to the IBTS. While there may be some hotspots in the north of Division 4a where the UoA does operate, the extent of spatial overlap appears to be limited (see Figure 7). Across the 2016-2020 period, 1068 starry rays were observed discarded by this fleet. Note that this species is only ETP in ICES Division 3a and subarea 4. The relevant stock is therefore the ICES subareas 2 and 4 and Division 3.a (Norwegian Sea, North Sea, Skagerrak, and Kattegat) stock, assessed by ICES as a Category 3 stock, with abundance indices derived from two surveys (NS–IBTS–Q1 and NS–IBTS–Q3) to provide an overall stock size indicator. In the absence of landings data (this species is listed as forbidden to land - (EU, 2021a)), fishery-independent trawl surveys provide the longest time-series of species-specific information and cover most of the stock area. According to the latest assessment, this indicator has been in continuous decline since 1990 (Figure 27; (ICES, 2019a)).

Figure 27. Starry ray in Subareas 2 and 4 and Division 3.a. Average of survey indices of abundance (n h−1, relative to the time-series mean) from trawl surveys (NS– IBTS–Q1, NS–IBTS–Q3). The horizontal lines show the mean stock indicators for 2017–2018 and 2012–2016. From (ICES, 2019a).

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 134

In the context of the Dutch MSC certified fisheries which also have conditions in relation to this species (Dutch MSC certified twinrig, outrig and flyshoot fishery - Coöperatieve Visserij Organisatie, Osprey and Ekofish), (van Overzee et al., 2019) estimated the starry ray population size for the North Sea, based on the data collected within the International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) and the Beam Trawl Survey (BTS). The estimates concern a minimum estimate of the starry population size as the model assumes a catchability of 1, i.e. assuming that all fish encountered by the gear in the surveys were caught. On that basis, the total stock weight for 2017 was estimated at 19,388 tonnes (97.5% CI: 13,029 – 39,127 t).

Note that a survivability exemption on skates and rays is in place for all North Sea fisheries under the North Sea and North-Western waters discard plans (EU, 2019c, 2019d). with a few exceptions (e.g. cuckoo ray), the STECF considers the survival rates to be generally robust, although it highlighted the risks in extrapolating survival evidence between species, fisheries and seasons. STECF notes that the latest evidence suggest that skate and ray survival rates can be highly variable between species and fisheries. Studies indicate that smaller individuals and smaller species have lower survival, inshore static nets are associated with higher survival and shorter tow durations are associated with higher survival. It is indicated that for some fisheries and species combinations the survival may be close to zero (STECF, 2019).

Based on the limited overlap of this species with the UoA fishery (see Figure 7), known direct effects of the UoA are likely to not hinder recovery of starry rays. SG60 is met. However, at this ACDR stage, insufficient evidence is available to complete scoring for this species. In particular, information is needed about UoA observer coverage and implementation of best practice release techniques on-board the vessels.

Common skate (UoA 1 and 3):

UoA 1: According to the Obsmer observer data, 165 individuals of Dipturus batis or D. cf. intermedia were caught by the UoA between 2016 and 2020. All of the individuals were discarded. For 2020, the observer data include 1 discarded specimen of D. batis (flossada) although none were recorded in the self-reporting data for both fleets in the same year. At this ACDR stage, insufficient evidence is available to complete scoring for this species. In particular, information is needed about UoA observer coverage and implementation of best practice release techniques on-board the vessels.

UoA 3: According to the Obsmer observer data, 192 individuals of common skate were recorded during the 2016 – 2020 period. Conditions were raised on common skate bycatch for Scapêche during the initial reassessment for all ETP species performance indicators (Conditions 1, 2 and 3). In response to these conditions, Scapêche commissioned an analysis of common skate bycatch based on observer data over 2016 – 18. The analysis (in French) is shown in Appendix 5, indicating an average annual fleet-level bycatch of 284 common skate per year (average 2016-2018). For 2018, this is based on all operations that include saithe in the retained catch; for the preceding years, only operations with over 200kg saithe were considered (to be discussed at the site visit). For a worst-case scenario, the team applied the maximum reported weight for this species by Fishbase of 97.1 kg, arriving at a total volume of 27.5 tonnes. ICES estimated 2017 landings of this species complex in Subarea 6 (where this fleet predominantly fishes) and divisions 7.a–c and 7.e–k (Celtic Seas and western English Channel) at 506 tonnes (ICES, 2020l); therefore on a worst-case basis, the UoA would account for 5% of this value (although note that the ICES estimate covers the landings of all four species in the genus Dipturus, including the long-nosed skate D. oxyrinchus, which is also caught by the UoA but which is not a prohibited species while D. batis is a prohibited species – this analysis therefore requires fine-tuning). Whilst catch rates in the surveys are too low to provide a stock size indicator, the consistent occurrence of this species in surveys (NS–IBTS–Q1 and NS–IBTS–Q3) in recent years, 0.054 n h−1 (2011–2018) compared to the 1990s, 0.005 n h−1 (1991–1998) could be indicative of a gradually improving stock status (ICES, 2019j). Furthermore, the Spanish Porcupine Bank survey (SpPGFS-WIBTS-Q4) has seen increasing catch rates of Dipturus spp., although this survey may not be representative of the whole stock area. The UK southwestern beam trawl survey (UK-Q1-SWBeam) further caught immature common skate, with preliminary studies indicating an increasing trend in Division 7.e (ICES,

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 135

2020l). Although stock status indicators remain lacking, it is apparent that the data availability on this species complex may be gradually improving. Judging from the data presented, the team does not consider it likely that the UoA is having a significant population-level effect (SG60 is met); however, for SG80 more robust evidence would need to be presented particularly about UoA overlap with the species and implementation of best practice release techniques on-board the vessels.

Basking shark (UoA 1): A single basking shark was recorded by observers in 2017. The specimen of 4.5m was discarded. With unknown post-release survival, 100% mortality is assumed here. Considering the extremely low interaction rate in this fishery (note no encounters were observed for the Scapêche fishery), the direct effects of the UoA are highly likely to not hinder recovery of basking sharks. SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met because the observer coverage is not sufficiently comprehensive to provide a high degree of certainty.

Spurdog (UoA 1 and 3): 112 Squalus acanthias were observed discarded by the UoA 1 fleet during 2016-20. For UoA 3, this was 26 individuals. The ICES Working Group on Elasmobranch Fishes (WGEF) considers that there is a single NE Atlantic stock ranging from the Barents Sea (Subarea 1) to the Bay of Biscay (Subarea 8), and that this is the most appropriate unit for assessment and management within ICES (ICES_WGEF, 2020). This species is prohibited to be landed (EU, 2021b) and all specimens must therefore be discarded. Low mortality has been reported for spurdog caught by trawl when tow duration was < 1 h, with overall mortality of about 6%, with higher levels of mortality (ca. 55%) reported for gillnet-caught spurdog (ICES_WGEF, 2020). According to the latest ICES assessment (ICES, 2020m), recruitment over approximately the last 15 years has been increasing which has been paired with an overall increase in biomass, although this remains below MSY Btrigger (Figure 28). Under the current 0-TAC rule, biomass is projected to further increase in 2022-23 (ICES, 2020m). On that basis, the team concludes that the direct effects of the UoAs are highly likely to not hinder recovery of spurdog. SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met because the observer coverage is not sufficiently comprehensive to provide a high degree of certainty.

Figure 28. Spurdog in subareas 1–10, 12, and 14. Summary of the stock assessment. Recruitment (number of pups), mean harvest rate (average ages 5–30), and total biomass. Shaded areas in the bottom panels reflect estimates of precision (±2 standard deviation) and horizontal lines indicate the associated MSY reference points. The final-year recruitment estimate is provisional, taken from the estimated stock–recruitment relationship. From (ICES, 2020m). UoA 2: As noted in the previous reassessment, the Northeast Arctic UoA vessels have not yet had the opportunity to take observers on board because of the duration of the trips, and because the fishery is considered low risk because of the rigid and rigorously enforced Norwegian regulatory framework that among other things forbids discarding. Despite this discard ban and although Norwegian enforcement of foreign vessels is perceived to be strict, it is acknowledged that there may be small amounts of discarding (e.g. (IMR, 2011)). During the 2016 reassessment, the team relied on the Norwegian ‘reference fleet’ and information from Russian observers given in other MSC reports

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 136

from overlapping Russian fisheries. At this ACDR stage, it is not clear whether an updated reference fleet dataset is available. No detailed analysis of ETP interactions was therefore carried out for this ACDR and this will be discussed with stakeholders at the site visit and the report updated accordingly.

c Indirect effects

Guide Indirect effects have been considered for the UoA There is a high degree of confidence that and are thought to be highly likely to not create there are no significant detrimental indirect post unacceptable impacts. effects of the UoA on ETP species. Met? UoA 1 and 3 – Yes UoA 1 and 3 – No UoA 2 - No (more information needed) UoA 2 - No (more information needed) Rationale

UoA 1 and 3: Potential indirect effects for the ETP species considered above may include reduced availability of prey items due to their removal by the UoA or disturbance of foraging behaviour. Saithe is not a key prey item for any of the species considered here (starry ray, common skate, spurdog, basking shark). Disturbance is unquantifiable, but most likely is not significant compared to direct impacts from fishing. SG80 is met. SG100 is not met because there is not a ‘high degree of confidence’ about indirect effects.

UoA 2: As per scoring issue b, this UoA is not yet scored.

References

(EU, 2019d, 2019c; ICES, 2020m, 2020l, 2019j, 2019a; ICES_WGEF, 2020; STECF, 2019; van Overzee et al., 2019)

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

Draft scoring range UoA 1: < 60 (more information needed) UoA 2: < 60 (more information needed) UoA 3: 60-79 (more information needed)

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 137

Information gap indicator More information sought: - UoA 1: Information is needed about UoA observer coverage and implementation of best practice release techniques of skates and rays on-board the vessels. - UoA 2: In the absence of observer reports for UoA 2, the team will rely on site visit interviews and additional data sources to score this scoring issue. Self-reporting is in place for both Compagnie des Pêches St Malo and Euronor; however, these data should be verified with authorities at the site visit. - UoA 3: Information is needed about UoA overlap with common skate and implementation of best practice release techniques on-board the vessels. Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 138

Scoring table 20. PI 2.3.2 – ETP species management strategy

PI 2.3.2 The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: meet national and international requirements; ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species. Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place (national and international requirements)

Guide There are measures in place that minimise the There is a strategy in place for managing the There is a comprehensive strategy in place UoA-related mortality of ETP species, and are UoA’s impact on ETP species, including for managing the UoA’s impact on ETP post expected to be highly likely to achieve national and measures to minimise mortality, which is species, including measures to minimise international requirements for the protection of designed to be highly likely to achieve national mortality, which is designed to achieve ETP species. and international requirements for the above national and international protection of ETP species. requirements for the protection of ETP species. Met? UoA 1 and 3 – Yes UoA 1 and 3 – Yes UoA 1 and 3 – No UoA 2 – No (more information needed) UoA 2 – No (more information needed) UoA 2 – No (more information needed) Rationale

Insert sufficient rationale to support the team's conclusion for each Scoring Guidepost (SG). Scoring issue need not be scored if requirements for protection or rebuilding are provided through national ETP legislation or international agreements (note: this is NOT the same as there being no limits as per 2.3.1a).

In the context of this performance indicator (Source: MSC FCR v2.01; Table SA8):

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 139

UoA 1 and 3: All ETP species identified for these UoAs either have a 0-TAC in place (spurdog - (EU, 2021a)), or are forbidden to land (common skate, starry ray, basking shark - (EU, 2021a, 2019a)). These management measures are based on the regular assessments conducted by ICES with fishery-independent trawl surveys providing the latest information on abundance trends (ICES, 2020m, 2020l, 2019g, 2019k). At UoA level, the non-retention of these species is implemented by all vessels and this is monitored by Ifremer scientists through the independent Obsmer observer programme. For skates and rays specifically, FROM Nord, Euronor’s Producer Organisation, is the lead partner in the European project INTERREG 2 Seas SUMARiS (Sustainable Management of Rays and Skates) which aims to put together the necessary knowledge and evidence in order to implement a species-specific cross-border management strategy for rays and skates fishery in the English Channel and the North Sea. The project is being conducted by different EU member states (the UK, Netherlands, Belgium and France) in partnership with producer organisations (FROM Nord, Rederscentrale), scientific organisations (IFREMER and ILVO), Nausicaa, the French National Sea Centre and associated partners (VisNed, the AQUIMER Hub and CEFAS) (see https://www.interreg2seas.eu/nl/sumaris). The project was launched in October 2017. Through FROM Nord, the captains and crew of both UoA companies have been attending SUMARiS training sessions over 2018 (on species identification, handling and release practices and reporting - http://www.fromnord.fr/le-from-nord/projets/nos- projets-en-cours-de-realisation/sumaris), in addition to the annual training sessions organized by the companies themselves, and have been provided the SUMARiS guide on ray handling and release practices to improve identification and increase post-release survival. The vessels have also been equipped with a separate skates and ray ID guide and summary of regulations by Euronor and Cie des Pêches. As of 2019, the IKTUS reporting tool became functional, facilitating the self-reporting on ETP species interactions. Although Scapêche is not a formal participant of the SUMARiS project, the company also regularly discusses ray identification and proper handling techniques with the fishermen before vessels leave port, and has distributed the SUMARiS ID and handling/release guide to its vessels and crew. A self-reporting system is also in place.

The Red Rocks and Longay Urgent MPA for flapper skate was announced on 10 March 2021 by Scottish Ministers, based on the discovery of egg-laying habitat of flapper skate (Dipturus intermedius - part of the common skate complex), with dense numbers of eggs in the Inner Sound of Skye. Interim measures for protection will come into force on 17th March through an urgent Marine Conservation Order, whilst further survey work and assessment to be carried out to support permanent protection. This site will make a significant contribution to the conservation of this skate species: https://www.nature.scot/professional-advice/protected-areas-and-species/protected- areas/marine-protected-areas-mpas.

The team therefore concludes that a strategy is in place for all ETP species identified for UoAs 1 and 3. SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met because the strategy is not designed to achieve above national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species.

UoA 2: As noted in the previous reassessment, the Northeast Arctic UoA vessels have not yet had the opportunity to take observers on board because of the duration of the trips, and because the fishery is considered low risk because of the rigid and rigorously enforced Norwegian regulatory framework that among other things forbids discarding. Despite this discard ban and although Norwegian enforcement of foreign vessels is perceived to be strict, it is acknowledged that there may be small amounts of discarding (e.g. (IMR, 2011)). During the 2016 reassessment, the team relied on the Norwegian ‘reference fleet’ and information from Russian observers given in other MSC reports from overlapping Russian fisheries. At this ACDR stage, it is not clear whether an updated reference fleet dataset is available. No detailed analysis of ETP interactions was therefore carried out for this ACDR and this will be discussed with stakeholders at the site visit and the report updated accordingly.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 140

b Management strategy in place (alternative)

Guide There are measures in place that are expected to There is a strategy in place that is expected to There is a comprehensive strategy in place ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of for managing ETP species, to ensure the UoA post ETP species. ETP species. does not hinder the recovery of ETP species. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

Scoring issue a was scored so this SI is not scored.

c Management strategy evaluation

Guide The measures are considered likely to work, based There is an objective basis for confidence that The strategy/comprehensive strategy is on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, the measures/strategy will work, based on mainly based on information directly about post theory or comparison with similar information directly about the fishery and/or the fishery and/or species involved, and a fisheries/species). the species involved. quantitative analysis supports high confidence that the strategy will work. UoA 1 Starry ray, common skate – No (more information Starry ray, common skate – No (more Starry ray, common skate – No (more needed) information needed) information needed) Basking shark – Yes Basking shark – Yes Basking shark – No (more information needed)

Spurdog – No (more information needed) Spurdog – Yes Spurdog – Yes

UoA 2 No (more information needed) No (more information needed) No (more information needed)

UoA 3 Common skate – no (more information needed) Common skate – no (more information needed) Common skate – no (more information needed) Rationale

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 141

information on abundance trends (ICES, 2020m, 2020l, 2019j, 2019k). At UoA level, the non-retention of these species is implemented by all vessels and this is monitored by Ifremer scientists through the independent Obsmer observer programme.

For basking shark, the level of interactions is sufficiently sporadic (one observed over a 5-year period) to provide an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work. SG60 and SG80 are met.

For spurdog, the increasing trend in biomass (see 2.3.1a, Figure 28) also provides an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work. SG60 and SG80 are met.

For common skate and starry ray, a survivability exemption on skates and rays is in place for all North Sea fisheries under the North Sea and North-Western waters discard plans (EU, 2019c, 2019d). With a few exceptions (e.g. cuckoo ray), the STECF considers the survival rates to be generally robust, although it highlighted the risks in extrapolating survival evidence between species, fisheries and seasons. STECF notes that the latest evidence suggest that skate and ray survival rates can be highly variable between species and fisheries. Studies indicate that smaller individuals and smaller species have lower survival, inshore static nets are associated with higher survival and shorter tow durations are associated with higher survival. It is indicated that for some fisheries and species combinations the survival may be close to zero (STECF, 2019).

• For UoA 1, at this ACDR stage, the team could not determine the fleet-level impact on starry ray or common skate because details on observer coverage are lacking. In the absence of species-specific post-release mortality rates, additional review is also needed to determine whether the non-retention policy by itself has an objective basis for confidence that it will work. Further information is therefore required before this scoring issue can be scored for those species.

• For UoA 3, in the absence of species-specific post-release mortality rates for common skate, additional review is needed to determine whether the non-retention policy by itself has an objective basis for confidence that it will work. Information needs to be presented particularly about UoA overlap with the species and implementation of best practice release techniques on-board the vessels. Further information is therefore required before this scoring issue can be scored for common skate.

• UoA 2: No detailed analysis of ETP interactions was therefore carried out for this ACDR and this will be discussed with stakeholders at the site visit and the report updated accordingly.

d Management strategy implementation

Guide There is some evidence that the There is clear evidence that the measures/strategy is being implemented strategy/comprehensive strategy is being post successfully. implemented successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a) or (b). Met? No (more information needed) No (more information needed)

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 142

Rationale

UoA 1 and 3: The non-retention of these species is implemented by all vessels and this is monitored by Ifremer scientists through the independent Obsmer observer programme. Observer coverage is not yet known for either UoAs, however, and an initial comparison of observer data and ETP discards according to the self-reporting data indicates ETP interactions are not being consistently recorded by the crew. This scoring issue is scored as provisionally not met.

UoA 2: No detailed analysis of ETP interactions was therefore carried out for this ACDR and this will be discussed with stakeholders at the site visit and the report updated accordingly.

e Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species

Guide There is a review of the potential effectiveness and There is a regular review of the potential There is a biennial review of the potential practicality of alternative measures to minimise effectiveness and practicality of alternative effectiveness and practicality of alternative post UoA-related mortality of ETP species. measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of measures to minimise UoA-related ETP species and they are implemented as mortality ETP species, and they are appropriate. implemented, as appropriate. Met? Yes Yes (verification needed) No (more information needed)

Rationale

ICES undertakes annual reviews of population data and fishery-induced mortality for the ETP species in this assessment through working groups such as WGBYC and WGEF. Often these reports facilitate information exchange on catch rates, practicalities of management measures and research into new mitigation techniques available.

The EU re-issues the Fishing Opportunities regulation (EU, 2021a) on an annual basis based on the available scientific advice from STECF, ICES and any other relevant bodies. These various reviews and issuing of updated regulations mean each UoA must review its measures in place to limit UoA-related mortality of ETP species and implement any new measures required as appropriate.

The measures put in place to minimise mortality of ETP species include standard gear design and configuration measures for the reduction of bycatch (sorting panel, mesh size), as well as bars across the hopper when the catch is sorted in order to quickly release any bycaught elasmobranchs. On the basis of the examples above it is clear that discussion and review on how to reduce unwanted catch, including ETP species, is ongoing and based on regular information exchange with research institutes and advisory and regulatory bodies. Various measures have been tested and when shown to work, are implemented. SG60 and 80 are likely met; however, this needs to be verified at the site visit. SG100 is provisionally not yet scored.

References

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 143

(EU, 2021a, 2019a, 2019c, 2019d; ICES, 2020m, 2020l, 2019k; STECF, 2019)

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

Draft scoring range All UoAs: <60 (more information needed)

Information gap indicator More information sought: - UoA 1: Information is needed about UoA observer coverage and implementation of best practice release techniques of skates and rays on-board the vessels. - UoA 2: In the absence of observer reports for UoA 2, the team will rely on site visit interviews and additional data sources to score this scoring issue. - UoA 3: Information is needed about UoA overlap with common skate and implementation of best practice release techniques on-board the vessels. Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 144

Scoring table 21. PI 2.3.3 – ETP species information

PI 2.3.3 Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: Information for the development of the management strategy; Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts

Guide Qualitative information is adequate to estimate Some quantitative information is adequate to Quantitative information is available to assess the UoA related mortality on ETP species. assess the UoA related mortality and impact with a high degree of certainty the magnitude of post and to determine whether the UoA may be a UoA-related impacts, mortalities and injuries OR threat to protection and recovery of the ETP and the consequences for the status of ETP If RBF is used to score PI 2.3.1 for the UoA: species. species. Qualitative information is adequate to estimate OR productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP If RBF is used to score PI 2.3.1 for the UoA: species. Some quantitative information is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species. Met? UoA 1 and 3 – Yes UoA 1 and 3 – Yes UoA 1 and 3 – No UoA 2 – No (more information needed) UoA 2 – No (more information needed) UoA 2 – No (more information needed) Rationale

UoA 1 and 3: Information on interactions with ETP species comes from the French ObsMer observer programme; between 2016-2020 62 and 56 trips were observed for UoAs 1 and 3, respectively (an estimate of observer coverage is requested prior to or at the site visit). Interactions with ETP species are detailed in the report, including a breakdown of the number of individuals discarded by length (summarised by number in observer tables, see Section 5.2.4.2). This allows an approximate quantitative estimate of fishery-related mortality to be made. In terms of the impact of this mortality on the stock, ICES provides analyses and advice for each species (ICES, 2020m, 2020l, 2019k, 2019l). SG60 and 80 are met. The observer coverage is, however, not sufficiently comprehensive to provide a ‘high degree of certainty’ for any of the species, so SG100 is not met.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 145

UoA 2: As noted in the previous reassessment, the Northeast Arctic UoA vessels have not yet had the opportunity to take observers on board because of the duration of the trips, and because the fishery is considered low risk because of the rigid and rigorously enforced Norwegian regulatory framework that among other things forbids discarding (live specimens can be released, whereas dead specimens must be landed). Despite this discard ban and although Norwegian enforcement of foreign vessels is perceived to be strict, it is acknowledged that there may be small amounts of discarding (e.g. (IMR, 2011)). During the 2016 reassessment, the team relied on the Norwegian ‘reference fleet’ and information from Russian observers given in other MSC reports from overlapping Russian fisheries. At this ACDR stage, it is not clear whether an updated reference fleet dataset is available. No detailed analysis of ETP interactions was therefore carried out for this ACDR and this will be discussed with stakeholders at the site visit and the report updated accordingly.

b Information adequacy for management strategy

Guide Information is adequate to support measures to Information is adequate to measure trends Information is adequate to support a manage the impacts on ETP species. and support a strategy to manage impacts comprehensive strategy to manage impacts, post on ETP species. minimise mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives. UoA 1 Common skate, starry ray – Yes Common skate, starry ray – No (more Common skate, starry ray – No (more information needed) information needed) Basking shark, spurdog – Yes Basking shark, spurdog – Yes Basking shark, spurdog – No UoA 2 No (more information needed) No (more information needed) No (more information needed)

UoA 3 Common skate – Yes Common skate – No (more information Common skate – No (more information needed) needed) Spurdog – Yes Spurdog – Yes Spurdog – Yes Rationale

UoA 1 and 3: For basking shark and spurdog, the low level of interactions (basking shark) and increasing trend in biomass (spurdog - (ICES, 2020m)) indicate that the UoAs are highly unlikely to hinder recovery of these species. The strategy, which focuses on non-retention, therefore has an objective basis for confidence that it will work (SI 2.3.2c). On that basis, the observer data for the UoAs provide adequate information to measure trends and to support the strategy to manage impacts on those species. SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met because the observer coverage is not sufficiently comprehensive to provide a high degree of certainty.

For starry ray and common skate, while the strategy here also focuses on non-retention, given the lack of data on post-release survival and the continued depleted status of both species, it is not clear that the observer data alone provide adequate information to support the strategy:

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 146

• UoA 1 has carried out an overlap analysis of starry ray distribution according to the IBTS (see Figure 7), which is extremely useful in determining the overall risk of overlap between the species and the fishery; however more data are needed on the fleet-level impact of the fishery (which cannot be determined without knowing the observer coverage) and to what extent the best-practice release techniques developed through the SUMARIS project 1) will promote post-release survival and 2) are being implemented consistently. Although no overlap analysis was carried out for common skate, the level of interactions with this species is much lower according to the observer data (Table 13). However, here also additional information is needed to determine fleet-level impacts and likelihood of post-release survival. At this stage, the observer data are sufficient for SG60 to be met, but SG80 is provisionally scored as not met.

• UoA 3 carried out a fleet-level estimate of common skate bycatch in the fishery; however because there is no population estimate for this species, it is difficult to gauge the UoA impact. Further information is therefore needed to what extent the best-practice release techniques developed through the SUMARIS project 1) will promote post-release survival and 2) are being implemented consistently. At this stage, the observer data are sufficient for SG60 to be met, but SG80 is provisionally scored as not met.

UoA 2: As per scoring issue a, this UoA has not yet been scored.

References

(ICES, 2020m, 2020l, 2019l, 2019j; IMR, 2011)

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

Draft scoring range UoA 1 and 3: 60-79 UoA 2: <60 Information gap indicator More information sought: - UoA 1: Information is needed about UoA observer coverage and implementation of best practice release techniques of skates and rays on-board the vessels. SUMARIS project to be reviewed. - UoA 2: In the absence of observer reports for UoA 2, the team will rely on site visit interviews and additional data sources to score this scoring issue. - UoA 3: Information is needed about implementation of best practice release techniques on-board the vessels. SUMARIS project to be reviewed. Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage

Overall Performance Indicator score

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 147

Condition number (if relevant)

Scoring table 22. PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome

PI 2.4.1 The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Commonly encountered habitat status

Guide The UoA is unlikely to reduce structure and The UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and There is evidence that the UoA is highly function of the commonly encountered function of the commonly encountered habitats to unlikely to reduce structure and function of post habitats to a point where there would be a point where there would be serious or irreversible the commonly encountered habitats to a serious or irreversible harm. harm. point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Commonly encountered habitats include the following for all UoAs (see Sections 6.9.4.3 and 6.9.4.4 for how these were identified, SGB nomenclature and associated biota):

• Fine sediment: Sandy mud, sand, mud

• Coarse sediment: Sandy gravel, muddy sandy gravel, gravelly sandy mud, gravelly muddy sand

When assessing the status of habitats and the impacts of fishing, teams are required to consider the full area managed by the local, regional, national, or international governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates (the “managed area” for short) (SA3.13.5). The MSC also specifies that the team shall use all available information (e.g., bioregional information) to determine the range and distribution of the habitat under consideration, and whether this distribution is entirely within the ‘managed area’ or extends beyond the ‘managed area’ (SA3.13.5.1). In the context of this assessment, the team considered the habitat area at the level of the northern North Sea and West of Scotland within the North sea and Celtic Sea ecoregions (ICES, 2020h, 2018b) for UoA 1 and 3, and at the level of the Barents Sea ecoregion (ICES, 2019c) and the Norwegian coastal zone for UoA 2. For commonly encountered habitats, the team is required to interpret ‘serious or irreversible harm’ as reductions in habitat structure and function such that the habitat (within the ‘managed area’) would be unable to recover at least 80% of its structure and function within 5-20 years if fishing on the habitat were to cease entirely (SA3.13.4).

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 148

Important considerations in assessing recovery at the level of ‘habitat under consideration’ are that fishing does not occur across the entire area that may potentially be fished – fishers have favoured areas and tows based on factors including distance from port, target species, bycatch mix, vessel and gear safety, and knowledge of the grounds. As such, some sites may be fished regularly, while other sites will be fished very rarely or even never at all. Even in favoured areas, fishing is patchy in time and space, such that the seabed overall will comprise a mosaic of undisturbed, recently impacted and recovering benthic communities and habitats (Lambert et al., 2014). Recovery of the seabed community in impacted areas is then dependent upon recruitment of new individuals, growth of surviving biota, and immigration from adjacent sites (Hiddink et al., 2017).

The Working Group on Fisheries Benthic Impact and Trade-offs (WGFBIT) develops methods and performs assessments to evaluate benthic impact from fisheries at a regional scale. The FBIT assessment framework was applied to the Arctic Sea, the North Sea and the Celtic Sea (ICES, 2020n). Standard structured regional outputs from the WGFBIT assessment workflow, in terms of pressure, sensitivity and impact estimates, were produced and presented for each region. The assessments are produced with the latest VMS data collated by WGSFD and using the ICES VMS package developed by the ICES secretariat. For both the Celtic and Arctic Seas (Figure 29 and Figure 31), the distribution of the Relative Benthic Status (RBS) indicator reflects the relationship between the fishing intensity and the habitat-specific sensitivity. The relative benthic status value ranges between 0 and 1; it is equivalent to biomass over carrying capacity (B/K). Although there are habitat types intensively fished, the RBS value is high, indicating high recovery values and consequently a good status of the benthic biomass (e.g. offshore circalittoral mixed sediment or offshore circalittoral coarse sediment are near 1 RBS - Table 30). For the North Sea, the impact is expressed as the reduction of the maximum benthic biomass which would result if current levels of abrasion would continue for a long time (i.e. the equilibrium reduction). A value of 0 means abrasion has zero impact on the benthos, which can occur only if no abrasion occurs. A value of 1 means that if current abrasion continues, the assessment predicts that no benthic biomass can survive (ICES, 2020n). This is visualized in Figure 30. While these findings are clearly preliminary, they do illustrate that fishing intensity is not homogenous across any of the UoA areas. While some parts of the UoA fishing footprints (Figure 8 to Figure 10) overlap with intensely fished zones (e.g. the continental shelf edge to the northwest of Scotland), these zones are highly concentrated and are surrounded by larger areas with low fishing intensity.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 149

Figure 29. Relative benthic status (RBS) for the Celtic sea Ecoregion (map resulting from preliminary results that cannot be used for assessing the status of the region). From (ICES, 2020n).

Table 30. MSFD broad habitat type and the mean RBS and fishing intensity for the Celtic Sea. From (ICES, 2020n).

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 150

Figure 30. Impact of abrasion on the benthic biomass. Impact is calculated following the PD method. Highest impact is found in areas with high sensitivity and high abrasion. Low impact means low abrasion, low sensitivity or both. From (ICES, 2020n).

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 151

Figure 31. Relative benthic status (RBS) in the Norwegian Shelf and Southern Barents Sea (left) and Barents Sea (right) in 2018. From (ICES, 2020n). Various meta-analyses have looked at benthic community recovery rates across different habitat types and trawling regimes, using studies mainly from the Northeast and Northwest Atlantic (e.g. (Collie et al., 2000; Hiddink et al., 2017; Kaiser et al., 2006; Sciberras et al., 2018)). It is encouraging that, in general, these meta-analyses present very similar outcomes, although communities in coarse substrata show slower recovery times than those in sandy or muddy substrata; this is likely related to the fact that communities in coarse substrata have a higher proportion of sessile epibenthic species than those in sand and mud substrata, and sessile epibenthic species tend to be more vulnerable to trawl disturbance than infaunal species. Overall, (Hiddink et al., 2017) included 24 comparative and 46 experimental studies in their analysis, and demonstrated that, if biota was reduced to 0.5 x the carrying capacity (K), community biomass would be expected to recover back to 0.95 K in 3.6 years (5-95% uncertainty interval = 1.9- 6.4 years), with abundance following otter trawling expected to recover in approximately 3 years (5-95% uncertainty level = approximately 1-9 years). Even under very high levels of depletion, and assuming the extreme range of probability, (Hiddink et al., 2017) show that recovery back to 0.95K would be expected for both biomass and abundance following otter trawl use within 20 years. (Sciberras et al., 2018) conducted a meta-analysis with data from 122 experimental studies. At the depth of penetration typical for otter trawling, species richness and abundance (incorporating available biomass data) was predicted to recover within about 3 years.

Based on these meta-analyses, and given the limited fishing footprints of these UoAs (based on small fleets – 15 vessels under assessment across all UoAs, and the VMS data in Section 6.9.4.1) within the areas under consideration, the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the commonly encountered habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met because this has not been specifically investigated for these UoAs and evidence is therefore lacking. Note that this scoring is to be verified for the Scapêche fleet for which UoA-specific VMS data are lacking.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 152

b VME habitat status

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

UoA 1 Deep-sea sponge aggregations, coral reef, coral Deep-sea sponge aggregations, coral reef, coral No gardens – Yes gardens – Yes Seapen and burrowing megafauna - Yes Seapen and burrowing megafauna– No (more information needed) UoA 2 Yes Yes Yes

UoA 3 Deep-sea sponge aggregations, coral reef, coral Deep-sea sponge aggregations, coral reef, coral No gardens – Yes gardens – Yes Seapen and burrowing megafauna – No (more Seapen and burrowing megafauna – No (more information needed) information needed) Rationale

North Sea and West of Scotland (UoAs 1 and 3)

The following VMEs were identified for these UoAs (see Table 27 for a description)

• Deep‐sea sponge aggregations • Coral reef (including Lophelia pertusa reefs) • Coral gardens • Seapen and burrowing megafauna communities

To assess the impact of the UoA on these habitat types the team first considered whether any management is in place to mitigate impacts. Most of the UoA 1 and 3 fishery takes place in UK (Scottish waters) where spatial restrictions for bottom trawl gear are in force, as shown in Figure 32. An EU-wide Deep-sea Fisheries Regulation (2016/2336) prohibits trawling in waters greater than 800m. The regulation also prohibits fishing with bottom trawls in areas between 400-800m where VMEs are known to occur or are likely to occur. At a national level, Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) play a role in protecting VMEs from external threats such as fishing and other anthropogenic disturbance. Implementing MPAs has become a key tool in Scotland’s commitment to safeguarding and enhancing biodiversity in Scottish seas (http://marine.gov.scot/sma/assessment/case-study-deep-sea-vulnerable-marine-ecosystems). JNCC is responsible for identifying and recommending Nature

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 153

Conservation MPAs in Scottish offshore waters (beyond 12 nautical miles). Marine Scotland is the lead authority regarding the implementation of, and compliance with, any measures to managing fishing activity. There are currently 30 Nature Conservation MPAs designated, 13 of which are offshore (https://jncc.gov.uk/our-work/offshore- mpas/). Figure 33 shows the distribution of those offshore MPAs that offer protection for the deep-sea VMEs such as deep-sea sponge aggregations, Lophelia pertusa reefs and coral gardens. The combination of UoA 1 VMS data (Figure 8), and known VME distribution (Figure 17, Figure 18, Figure 19) indicates that overlap between the UoA and these VME types is limited, particularly as the majority of VME records are in deeper waters, off the continental shelf. The team therefore concludes that for coral reef, coral gardens and deep-sea sponge aggregations, the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the VME habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm (i.e. to below 80% of the unimpacted level - SA3.13.4.1). SG60 and SG80 are therefore met. In the absence of any dedicated research providing evidence that this is the case for the UoA, SG100 is not met.

Seapens and burrowing megafauna are not a deep-sea habitat in the North Sea and the OSPAR data in Figure 17 clearly indicates that some overlap between this habitat type and the UoA is likely to the east of Scotland, including within the Fladen Grounds. These is a large area of mud in the northern North Sea where the Central Fladen MPA has been designated (Figure 34). Several different types of seapen can be found anchored in the muddy seabed within the MPA. The southern area includes examples of the nationally uncommon tall seapen (Funiculina quadrangularis), which can grow up to 2 m in height. At present, no gear restrictions are in place for the Central Fladen MPA, although a voluntary closure was implemented by the MSC certified Scottish fleet (SFSAG – see (Jones et al., 2018)). It not clear whether this voluntary closure has also been implemented by the UoA fleet. Despite the fact that the VMS data indicates overlap with this habitat type is likely limited for UoA 1 (and SG60 is probably met, although this needs verifying at the site visit with Marine Scotland), the team concludes that at this ACDR stage insufficient evidence is available to conclude that the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the seapens and burrowed mud habitat to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. SG80 is provisionally not met for UoA 1. Without UoA-specific VMS data for the Scapêche fleet (UoA 3), this scoring element cannot yet be scored

Figure 32. Spatial fishing restrictions in northern North Sea and West of Scotland (UK waters) as defined by EU, UK and Scottish legislation since 1986 (Last updated: August 16, 2019). From: https://marinescotland.atkinsgeospatial.com/nmpi/default.aspx?layers=453.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 154

Figure 33. Distribution of Deep-sea Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) with Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs), in Scottish waters, in 2018. From http://marine.gov.scot/sma/assessment/case-study-deep-sea-vulnerable-marine-ecosystems

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 155

Figure 34. Map showing the location of The Central Fladen MPA. From (JNCC, 2014). Northeast Arctic (UoA 2)

The following VMEs were identified for this UoA (see

Table 25 for a description)

• Soft and hard‐bottom sponge aggregations • Coral reef (including Lophelia pertusa reefs) • Soft‐bottom coral gardens • Seapen and burrowing megafauna communities

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 156

• Umbellula stands

To assess the impact of the UoA on these habitat types the team first considered whether any management is in place to mitigate impacts:

• Closed areas: For the coral reef habitat type specifically, there are several marine protected areas along the Norwegian coast from which any bottom trawling activity is excluded as per Norwegian regulation J‐48‐2016; these are shown in the red rectangles on Figure 15. Furthermore, on the 1st July 2019, the Norway Department of Fisheries introduced a number of closed areas around Svalbard under Regulation J‐61‐2019 (Figure 35). The new regulation introduces a ban on all ground fishing in ten areas in the Barents Sea, with a new division of areas where bottom gear fishing can take place and areas where such fishing requires special license from the Directorate of Fisheries. Comparison with the modelled biotope map in Figure 13 shows that the closed areas will provide protection for ‘large sponges and boreal fauna’ and ‘polar front fauna with echinoderms and crustaceans’ amongst others.

• Move on rules: The NEAFC recommendation on the protection of VMEs in the NEAFC Regulatory Area (which encompasses most of the Barents and all the Norwegian Sea (NEAFC, 2014) is specifically designed to “prevent significant adverse impacts on VMEs”. Article 4 of the recommendation identifies “existing bottom fishing areas” in NEAFC regulated international waters. Article 5 defines a series of area closures for the protection of deep sea VMEs. These are mainly seamounts and banks in international waters of the NE Atlantic. Articles 6 and 7 require that any “exploratory fishing” outside these areas will require thorough assessment and rigorous protocols to ensure that appropriate information is collected and VMEs are not damaged. Article 8 sets down protocols for responding to any encounter with VMEs (defined as >30kg of live coral and/or >400kg of live sponge) – specifically to report the encounter and move at least 2nm from the relevant trawl track. Information should be collated and preferably mapped. Although this recommendation is not obligatory within national jurisdictions, Norway has largely implemented it within its own regulations, including its own move‐on rule which allows for up to 30 kg of corals and 400 kg of sponges in a haul before a vessel has to move on.

• Precautionary approach towards licensing: Under the new regulation J‐61‐2019, any proposed new fishery must first submit an application and then gain approval to obtain a fishing permit. This regulation applies to all Norwegian waters including the Svalbard Fisheries Protection Zone (FPZ), Norwegian EEZ, and Jan Mayen. Any such proposed new fishery will not be permitted if there are known areas of VME species.

Second, the team considered the data available to inform on UoA impacts. The information presented in Section 6.9.4.3 makes clear that the distribution of vulnerable habitat types in the Barents Sea and Norwegian zone is known or has been modelled. UoA VMS data further inform on the likely overlap between the fishing footprint and VME habitats (Figure 9). While some overlap is likely, any impacts stemming from the single UoA vessel, the Emeraude, are highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the VME habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm (i.e. to below 80% of the unimpacted level ‐ SA3.13.4.1) within the ‘managed area’ for any of the VMEs identified. On that basis, SG60 and SG80 are met. However, in the absence of observer data or any other form of independent data collection, independent verification of VME interaction rates is lacking. There can therefore be no high degree of certainty and SG100 is not met. The team notes that this scoring is very much dependent on the scale of this fishery. Any increase in vessel numbers would result in the rescoring of this scoring issue. Compliance with closed areas and move‐on rule is to be verified at the site visit.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 157

Figure 35. Closed areas around Svalbard under Regulation J-61-2019. From https://kart.fiskeridir.no/fiskeinord. c Minor habitat status

Guide There is evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of post the minor habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? No

Rationale

The minor habitats are those that are not commonly encountered by the gear (i.e. those not considered under SI(a), such as mud, rocky outcrops and gullies, etc). Bottom trawls are designed to ride over seabed irregularities but still have the capacity to affect habitat structure and function through surface abrasion and boulder turning. The team could not find evidence to support SG100 for any of the UoAs.

References

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 158

(Collie et al., 2000; Dolan et al., 2015; Gonzalez-Mirelis and Buhl-Mortensen, 2015; Greathead et al., 2007; ICES, 2020h, 2020n, 2019c, 2018b; Jones et al., 2018; Kaiser et al., 2006; Lambert et al., 2014; NEAFC, 2014; Sciberras et al., 2018) Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage

Draft scoring range UoA 1: 60 -79 UoA 2: ≥ 80 UoA 3: < 60 (more information needed) Information gap indicator More information sought on: UoA 1: higher-resolution information on likely overlap between fishery and seapens and burrowing megafauna habitats in the northern North Sea and whether VME avoidance measures are in place, including the SFSAG Fladen closure as per Jones et al. (2018) UoA 2: Compliance with closed areas and move-on rule to be verified at the site visit. UoA 3: UoA-specific VMS data are needed at a sufficient level of resolution so that overlap with VME habitats can be determined, in particular with seapens and burrowing megafauna in the northern North Sea. Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 159

Scoring table 23. PI 2.4.2 – Habitats management strategy

PI 2.4.2 There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place

Guide There are measures in place, if necessary, There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, There is a strategy in place for managing the that are expected to achieve the Habitat that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome impact of all MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries on post Outcome 80 level of performance. 80 level of performance or above. habitats. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Insert sufficient rationale to support the team’s conclusion for each Scoring Guidepost (SG).

In the context of this performance indicator (Source: MSC FCR v2.01; Table SA8):

UoAs 1 and 3

There are various overarching European and international objectives and components to the approach to sustainably manage fishing impacts on habitats for the North Sea fisheries. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) is key in driving a focus on managing impacts of fishing on European marine habitats, and is the environmental pillar of the EU Maritime Strategy. The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) applies to all vessels within each UoA, and there are various accompanying notes and Article clauses within the CFP Regulation (EU, 2013b) that are key to defining the strategy for managing impacts of fishing on habitats. EU Member States including France are therefore required to implement a range of measures expected to ensure fisheries do not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to seabed habitats. An important element is the

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 160

key CFP objective of balancing fishing opportunities to fishing effort. This is achieved through limiting fishing effort (days at sea), vessel size and power (kW) and fleet size, by limiting the size of gears (for example, beam trawl width and codend mesh size) that may be used, and by setting TACs and national quotas by area. VMS is also required to be carried by all UoA vessels to monitor activity in time and space, while there are requirements to collect and make data available to inform the management process, including on the potential environmental impact of fishing activities (e.g. see CFP note 46 - (EU, 2013b)). On this latter point, a very extensive body of research has been produced over the years on habitat mapping, fishing activity mapping, the effects of fishing, habitat recovery and reducing fishing impacts. This work has often been focused on fishing activities in the Greater North Sea, and informs the approach to managing fishing activities (Rijnsdorp et al., 2018).

Under the OSPAR Convention, there is also a general obligation to protect the marine environment. The Convention text (https://www.ospar.org/convention/text) states:

Article 2 part 1: The Contracting Parties shall…. take the necessary measures to protect the maritime area against the adverse effects of human activities so as to safeguard human health and to conserve marine ecosystems and, when practicable, restore marine areas which have been adversely affected.

To deliver on OSPAR commitments with respect to habitats, OSPAR Contracting Parties adopted Recommendation 2003/3 with the purpose of establishing an ecologically coherent network of MPAs in the North-East Atlantic that is well managed by 2016. Contracting Parties began to nominate sites to the OSPAR network in 2005. In tandem with the OSPAR Convention, ICES holds a VME database containing observations of VME indicators and habitats across the North Atlantic and provides scientific advice to governments. These data are used to develop deep-sea fisheries measures to help protect VMEs. Between 2004 and 2011, three fisheries management measures were introduced in Scottish waters: EU Darwin Mounds closure (2004); NEAFC/EU North West Rockall Bank Box (2007) and NEAFC/EU Rockall Haddock Box (2009). Between 2011 and 2018, an additional six fisheries management measures have been implemented in the Scottish waters including EU Blue Ling protection areas (2013) and an EU-wide Deep-sea Fisheries Regulation (2016/2336) which prohibits trawling in waters greater than 800m. The regulation also prohibits fishing with bottom trawls in areas between 400-800m where VMEs are known to occur or are likely to occur. An overview of area closures to which the UoAs are subject is given in 2.4.1b.

Overall, there are clearly a range of measures in place for commonly encountered and VME habitats, based around effort control, activity monitoring, habitat mapping, research on impacts and recovery, and protected area designation, that together comprise a partial strategy for managing impacts on habitats – all fleets therefore meet SG60 and 80. It cannot be said that there is a strategy in place for managing the impact of all MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries on habitats, however. SG100 is not met.

Northeast Arctic (UoA 2)

The NEAFC recommendation on the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems in the NEAFC Regulatory Area (which encompasses most of the Barents and all the Norwegian Sea (NEAFC, 2014) is specifically designed to “prevent significant adverse impacts on VMEs”). Article 4 of the recommendation identifies “existing bottom fishing areas” in NEAFC regulated international waters. Article 5 defines a series of area closures for the protection of deep sea VMEs. These are mainly seamounts and banks in international waters of the NE Atlantic. Articles 6 and 7 require that any “exploratory fishing” outside these areas will require thorough assessment and rigorous protocols to ensure that appropriate information is collected and VMEs are not damaged. Article 8 sets down protocols for responding to any encounter with VMEs (defined as >30kg of live coral and/or >400kg of live sponge) – specifically to report the encounter and move at least 2nm from the relevant trawl track. Information should be collated and preferably mapped. Although this recommendation is not obligatory within national jurisdictions, Norway has largely implemented it within its own regulations and has introduced a series of closed areas (specifically for cold-water coral reefs along the Norwegian coastal zone, and for VMEs more generally around the Svalbard archipelago – see 2.4.1b) as well as a move-on rule. Furthermore, benthic habitat research is ongoing, both in the Barents Sea through the the Russian Polar Research Institute of Marine Fisheries and

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 161

Oceanography (PINRO) and the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research (IMR). Since 2003, both institutions participate in an annual Joint Russian-Norwegian ecosystem survey using five research vessels and bottom trawlers, with the most recent one completed in 2019 (Protozorkevich and van den Meeren, 2020). For the Norwegian zone, the MAREANO programme is a comprehensive research programme which aims to map the Norwegian EEZ seafloor. The program was first launched in 2005 and since then has increased the area covered year by year (see sampling stations here: http://mareano.no/kart/mareano.html#maps/4050). Finally, at UoA level, as of 2019, the IKTUS reporting tool became functional, facilitating the self-reporting on VME indicator species interactions. On this basis, the team considers that a partial strategy is in place that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above. SG60 and SG80 are met. It cannot be said that there is a strategy in place for managing the impact of all MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries on habitats, however. SG100 is not met.

b Management strategy evaluation

Guide The measures are considered likely to work, There is some objective basis for confidence that Testing supports high confidence that the based on plausible argument (e.g. general the measures/partial strategy will work, based on partial strategy/strategy will work, based on post experience, theory or comparison with similar information directly about the UoA and/or information directly about the UoA and/or UoAs/habitats). habitats involved. habitats involved. Met? UoA 1 – Yes UoA 1 and 3 – No (more information needed) No UoA 2 – Yes UoA 2 – Yes UoA 3 – No (more information needed) Rationale

UoA 1 and 3: For commonly encountered habitats, the research carried out by (Collie et al., 2000; Hiddink et al., 2017; Kaiser et al., 2006; Lambert et al., 2014; Sciberras et al., 2018), combined with the benthic habitat impact assessment for the Arctic Sea by the ICES WGFBIT (ICES, 2020n) provides an objective basis for confidence that the measures/partial strategy will work. For VME habitats, the spatial closures shown in 2.4.1b, and the limited overlap between UoA 1 and the seapen and burrowing megafauna habitat type provides plausible argument that the measures/partial strategy will work. SG60 is met. However, at this ACDR stage, further information on the degree of overlap, as well as the Obsmer data collection programme is needed before SG80 can be considered met. For UoA 3, the lack of UoA-specific data means that SG60 is provisionally considered not met.

UoA 2: For commonly encountered habitats, the research carried out by (Collie et al., 2000; Hiddink et al., 2017; Kaiser et al., 2006; Lambert et al., 2014; Sciberras et al., 2018), combined with the benthic habitat impact assessment for the Arctic Sea by the ICES WGFBIT (ICES, 2020n) provides an objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work. For VMEs, the small fleet size (a single vessel), combined with the strict Norwegian enforcement regime, provides some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work. SG80 is met. In the absence of testing, SG100 is not met.

c Management strategy implementation

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 162

Guide There is some quantitative evidence that the There is clear quantitative evidence that the measures/partial strategy is being implemented partial strategy/strategy is being implemented post successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a). Met? UoA 1 and 3 – No (more information needed) No UoA 2 – No Rationale

UoA 1 and 3: The overlap analysis based on UoA VMS data (Section 6.9.4.1) shows that the seapens and burrowing megafauna habitat is the only VME type not protected through the spatial gear restrictions put in place by Marine Scotland. At this ACDR stage, further information on the degree of overlap with this habitat type, as well as the Obsmer data collection programme is needed before SG80 can be considered met.

UoA 2: In the absence of observer data or any other form of independent data collection, independent verification of VME interaction rates is lacking. It further needs mentioning that to date, no VME encounters have been recorded by the UoA and that the move-on rule has yet to be triggered. Quantitative evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully (particularly the move-on rule) is therefore lacking. SG80 is not met.

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

Guide There is qualitative evidence that the UoA There is some quantitative evidence that the UoA There is clear quantitative evidence that the complies with its management requirements to complies with both its management requirements UoA complies with both its management post protect VMEs. and with protection measures afforded to VMEs requirements and with protection measures by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, where afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non- relevant. MSC fisheries, where relevant. Met? No (more information needed) No (more information needed) No (more information needed)

Rationale

UoAs 1 and 3: discussions with Marine Scotland about UoA compliance with spatial restrictions will be required at the site visit before this scoring issue can be scored. Protection measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries to be identified.

UoA 2: discussions with Norwegian authorities about UoA compliance with spatial restrictions and move-on rules will be required before this scoring issue can be scored. Protection measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries to be identified.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 163

References

(Collie et al., 2000; Greathead et al., 2007; Hiddink et al., 2017; ICES, 2020h, 2020n, 2018b; JNCC, 2014; Jones et al., 2018; Kaiser et al., 2006; Lambert et al., 2014; NEAFC, 2014; Sciberras et al., 2018)

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

Draft scoring range <60 (more information needed)

Information gap indicator UoA 1: higher-resolution information on likely overlap between fishery and seapens and burrowing megafauna habitats in the northern North Sea and whether VME avoidance measures are in place, including the SFSAG Fladen closure as per Jones et al. (2018). Discussions with Marine Scotland about UoA compliance with spatial restrictions to be had during the site visit. Further information needed on Obsmer data collection programme. UoA 2: discussions with Norwegian authorities about UoA compliance with spatial restrictions and move- on rules to be had during the site visit UoA 3: UoA-specific VMS data are needed at a sufficient level of resolution so that overlap with VME habitats can be determined, in particular with seapens and burrowing megafauna in the northern North Sea. Discussions with Marine Scotland about UoA compliance with spatial restrictions to be had during the site visit. Further information needed on Obsmer data collection programme. Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 164

Scoring table 24. PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information

PI 2.4.3 Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information quality

Guide The types and distribution of the main habitats The nature, distribution and vulnerability of the The distribution of all habitats is known over are broadly understood. main habitats in the UoA area are known at a level their range, with particular attention to the post of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the occurrence of vulnerable habitats. OR UoA. If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: OR Qualitative information is adequate to estimate If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: the types and distribution of the main habitats. Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

UoA 1 and 3: UoAs 1 and 3 take place within ICES subareas 4 and 6. There is currently no fishing footprint in Division 3a. ICES subarea 4 is located within the Greater North Sea ecoregion, while ICES subarea 6 is part of the Celtic Seas ecoregion. Both areas include some of the most intensively studied sea areas in the world. Multiple projects have mapped substrates, physical processes, habitats, fishery impacts and other anthropogenic activities and influences. A brief overview of the Greater North Sea and Celtic Seas ecoregions is given in ICES (ICES, 2020h, 2018b). Broad-scale sediment types and habitat maps for both regions are available, as shown in Section 6.9.4.4. The OSPAR Commission has advanced much of the work on defining which marine (particularly benthic) ecosystems are of international importance. A map showing the OSPAR threatened and/or declining habitats in the northern North Sea and West of Scotland is given in Figure 17. A database on the distribution and abundance of VMEs (and organisms considered to be indicators of VMEs) across the North Atlantic has also been set up by the Joint ICES/NAFO Working Group on Deep-water Ecology (WGDEC). Criteria used to select habitats and indicators for inclusion in the database were those described in the FAO International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas. The database is comprised of 'VME habitats' that are records for which there is unequivocal evidence for a VME, e.g. ROV observations of a coral reef and 'VME indicators' which are records that suggest the presence of a VME with varying degrees of uncertainty. Finally, within Scottish waters, a significant number of surveys, characterisation studies and new research projects have improved the understanding of the distribution, ecology and functioning of VME habitats in Scotland’s offshore waters. These include (but are not limited to):

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 165

• In 2012, a cruise to the Faroe-Shetland Channel and Wyville-Thomson Ridge greatly increased the understanding of the distribution of the Boreal ostur form of deep- sea sponge aggregations in the Faroe-Shetland Channel (Eggett, 2018).

• In 2014, characterisation studies increased the understanding of deep-sea ecosystems by refining the habitat definition of coral gardens (Henry and Roberts, 2014a) and deep-sea sponge aggregations (Henry and Roberts, 2014b) and verifying suspected records of these habitat types.

• In 2017, a cruise to the Faroe-Shetland Channel and Wyville Thomson Ridge started to gather evidence for site condition monitoring of the protected features of these MPAs (Taylor, 2019)

• In 2018, a cruise to the Faroe-Shetland Sponge Belt, Rosemary Bank Seamount and Wyville Thomson Ridge gathered initial data for site condition monitoring which would better inform and support future monitoring efforts (Taylor, 2019).

• RV Cefas Endeavour survey (2014) – This JNCC-led survey collected data about the ecological communities across the Fladen Grounds, and also sought to improve understanding of feature condition in the Nature Conservation MPA.

• RV Cefas Endeavour survey (2013) – This JNCC-led survey of the Fladen Grounds set out to map the presence of burrowed mud habitat, including the seapens and burrowing megafauna communities in circalittoral fine mud across the region.

• International Bottom Trawl Survey Quarter 3 (2011) – JNCC collaborated with Marine Scotland Science on this survey to undertake habitat survey work to verify the presence of sea-pens and burrowing megafauna communities in circalittoral fine mud.

• Analysis of CEND01/13 Fladen Grounds survey (2017) – This report presents findings from the analyses of samples collected during the CEND01/13 Fladen Grounds pMPA survey. The main aim of this survey was to confirm the presence of Priority Marine Features (burrowed mud) within the pMPAs and provide evidence to allow comparison of benthic assemblages between the sites.

The nature, distribution and vulnerability of the main habitats in the UoA area are therefore known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the UoA. SG60 and SG80 are met. The distribution of all habitats is not known however. SG100 is not met.

UoA 2 overlaps with the Barents Sea, the Norwegian coastal shelf area, and the International Waters in ICES Division 2a (to be confirmed during the site visit). Benthic habitat research in the Barents Sea is undertaken by both the Russian Polar Research Institute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanography (PINRO) and the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research (IMR). Since 2003, both institutions participate in an annual Joint Russian-Norwegian ecosystem survey using five research vessels and bottom trawlers, with the most recent one completed in 2019 (Protozorkevich and van den Meeren, 2020). The MAREANO programme is a comprehensive research programme which aims to map the Norwegian EEZ seafloor. The program was first launched in 2005 and since then has increased the area covered year by year (see sampling stations here: http://mareano.no/kart/mareano.html#maps/4050). The identification of certain vulnerable habitats such as coral reefs in the mainland coastline has led to the designation of new marine protected areas in the Norwegian coastal zone. A map of the surface sediment distribution in the Barents Sea is shown in Figure 11, while the substrates within the coastal Norwegian Sea have been mapped by the MAREANO project (Figure 14).

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 166

A baseline survey (2011) of epibenthos using bottom-trawl surveys found that the Barents Sea has at least 354 benthic taxa. Depth, temperature, salinity, and number of ice days determine four main megafaunal regions. The southwestern region is dominated by filter-feeders (sponges) in the inflow area of warm Atlantic water while the deeper trenches have detritivorous fauna (echinoderms). On the banks/slopes in the southeast and west regions, predators (sea stars, anemones. and snow crabs) prevail together with filtrating species (sea cucumber and bivalves) within a mosaic of banks and slopes. Plankton-feeding brittle stars are common in the northwestern and northeastern regions, with an increasing snow crab population in the northeast (ICES, 2019c). Increasing snow and red king crab populations and potentially expanding trawling activity (e.g. for scallops and demersal fish) are the main impacts to the benthic community. Species including Geodia sponges (e.g. G. barretti and G. macandrewii) in the southwestern, basket stars Gorgonocephalus spp. in the northern areas, sea pen Umbellula encrinus on the shelf facing the Arctic Ocean, and sea cucumber Cucumaria frondosa in shallow southern areas are particularly vulnerable to being impacted by trawling activities (ICES, 2019c). The greatest taxonomic diversity was observed around of the Spitsbergen archipelago, with a general reduction of taxonomic diversity occurring in an easterly direction (Figure 12; (Protozorkevich and van den Meeren, 2020).

A biotope map, covering the entire Barents Sea, has been compiled in collaboration between the Geological Survey of Norway, IMR and PINRO under the framework of the Norwegian-Russian Environmental Commission Workplan for 2011-2013 and 2013-2015, and builds on the biological sampling carried out annually by IMR and PINRO on the joint Norwegian-Russian Ecosystem Survey (Dolan et al. 2015). Benthic fauna biomass data from bottom-trawl samples were arranged into faunal groups and a set of these groups was used as the basis for the biotope classes used here in predictive modelling. The relationship of these biotope classes to the physical environment was analysed and selected full coverage physical data (sediment grain size, bathymetry and oceanographic parameters) were used to create a model and to predict the distribution of biotopes across the entire study area (Figure 13). MAREANO has located several vulnerable habitat locations, as shown in Figure 15.

b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts

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

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 167

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

All UoAs: The aforementioned ongoing habitat mapping, combined with UoA VMS data (aggregated by year, or available at a high resolution, if needed) means that information is adequate to allow for identification of the main impacts of the UoA on the main habitats, and there is reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction and on the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. SG60 and SG80 are met. The physical impacts of the gear on all habitats have, however, not been quantified fully. SG100 is not met.

c Monitoring

Guide Adequate information continues to be collected Changes in all habitat distributions over time to detect any increase in risk to the main habitats. are measured. post

Met? Yes No

Rationale

UoA 1 and 3: the habitat maps for the North Sea, Celtic Sea and Arctic Sea are continuously improving and are publicly accessible (see Sections 6.9.4.3 and 6.9.4.4). Changes in fishing patterns will be apparent from the VMS data for the UoA fleets, and from the benthic impact assessments being carried out by the ICES WGFBIT (ICES, 2020n). This means that adequate information continues to be collected to detect any increase in risk to the main habitats. SG80 is met. SG100 is not met because changes in all habitat distributions are not measured.

References

(Dolan et al., 2015; Eggett, 2018; Henry and Roberts, 2014b, 2014a; ICES, 2020h, 2019c, 2018b; Protozorkevich and van den Meeren, 2020; Taylor, 2019)

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

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 168

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 169

Scoring table 25. PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome

PI 2.5.1 The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem structure and function

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Ecosystem status

Guide The UoA is unlikely to disrupt the key elements The UoA is highly unlikely to disrupt the key There is evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely underlying ecosystem structure and function to elements underlying ecosystem structure and to disrupt the key elements underlying post a point where there would be a serious or function to a point where there would be a ecosystem structure and function to a point irreversible harm. serious or irreversible harm. where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

North Sea and West of Scotland (UoAs 1 and 3)

For all three companies in this area, the majority of the catch (when saithe is being targeted for Scapêche) is saithe, so a key impact on the ecosystem depends on the status of the saithe stock, which is approximately at MSY Btrigger – i.e. above the point of recruitment impairment with high probability, but not necessarily at maximum productivity (BMSY) (ICES, 2020a). The second most important species in the fishery is hake, the biomass of which has been exploding in recent years and is now well above all reference points (ICES, 2020i). Cod is probably the most problematic bycatch species for this fishery in that the North Sea stock is currently below Blim (ICES, 2020d). The UoAs, however, account for a fraction of total landings on the stock (Table 16 and Table 17) and are not likely to be hindering recovery. Although compliance with the landings obligation will be verified at the site visit, observer data indicate discard rates are low (Section 5.2.4). The evidence suggests that the North Sea ecosystem is mainly influenced by climate- driven bottom-up forces rather than predator-driven top-down forces (e.g. (Alheit et al., 2005b; Beaugrand, 2004; Gregory Beaugrand and Ibanez, 2004). Through the running of an Ecopath model with Ecosim, (Mackinson and Daskalov, 2007)suggest that the removal of saithe from the North Sea ecosystem through fishing mortality would result in a reduction in predation on prey species, but unlikely to cause a trophic cascade that would impact other elements in the North Sea ecosystem. On that basis, the team concludes that SG60 and SG80 are provisionally met; however this section needs to be updated with the latest available scientific information prior to or at the site visit.

Northeast Arctic (UoA 2)

The main impact of the fishery in this area is likewise likely to be the removal of the main target species, which in this case is cod rather than saithe. The NEA cod stock biomass is at ~2X target levels (ICES, 2020e); haddock and saithe stocks are also healthy (ICES, 2020k, 2020o). Although compliance with the Norwegian discard ban should be verified, discard rates are considered negligible. The ICES working group WGIBAR provided an assessment of the Barents Sea ecosystem in 2015 (ICES, 2015), indicating

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 170

the system is relatively healthy, with large stocks of key species (notably cod and capelin). The ecosystem may be changing, but driven most likely by environmental change rather than fisheries (although fisheries clearly play a role in the ecosystem, but not one which could be characterised as ‘serious or irreversible harm’). On that basis, the team concludes that SG60 and SG80 are provisionally met; however this section needs to be updated with the latest available scientific information prior to or at the site visit.

References

(Alheit et al., 2005a; Beaugrand, 2004; G Beaugrand and Ibanez, 2004; ICES, 2020e, 2020k, 2020i, 2020o, 2015; Mackinson and Daskalov, 2007)

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

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator More information sought: Information to be brought up to date Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 171

Scoring table 26. PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management strategy

PI 2.5.2 There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place

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

Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance. place. Met? UoAs 1 and 3 – Yes UoAs 1 and 3 – Yes UoAs 1 and 3 – Yes UoA 2 – Yes UoA 2 – Yes UoA 2 – No Rationale

North Sea and West of Scotland

The management system contains overarching environmental management objectives arising from international agreements (such as the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity), and EC legislation (the CFP and EC environmental Directives). The CFP explicitly states in Article 2: (3) “The CFP shall implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management so as to ensure that negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are minimised, …” Both the Water Framework Directive (WFD; Directive 2000/60/EC), and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD; Directive 2008/56/EC) outline the need for better water quality, and prescribes to achieve ‘good environmental status’, following the precautionary approach through the use of an ecosystem-based approach. With regards to the greater North Sea ecosystem, the MSFD is most notable. Although the UK has now left the European Union, Scotland (where most of the UoA fishes) has worked with the UK governments on amendments which have been made to the Marine Strategy Regulations 2010, which transpose the requirements of the EU's Marine Strategy Framework Directive into domestic law, so that they continue to be effective now that the UK is no longer part of the EU. The MSFD requires the UK to put in place measures to achieve or maintain good environmental status (GES) in the marine environment by 2020. The MSFD is transposed for the whole of the UK by the Marine Strategy Regulations 2010, providing a UK-wide framework for meeting the requirements of the Directive. As a member of the EU, the UK was required to collaborate with other Member States in the north east Atlantic, to monitor, assess and report progress towards GES; and to implement a programme of measures to achieve or maintain GES

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 172

targets. The existing UK-wide framework has been maintained to allow for consistent marine environmental monitoring and standards across the UK. The UK will also continue to develop its marine strategy with other countries in the north east Atlantic, through the OSPAR Convention6.

The Greater North Sea Ecoregion structure and function is well studied with many reports and data available on habitats, species, fishing impacts and functional relationships upon which to base informed management decisions, and increasingly, fisheries management and marine spatial planning are taking an ecosystem-based approach toward managing potential impacts throughout the Greater North Sea Ecoregion.

For the waters of around Scotland, a number of protected areas have been designated, to protect various ecosystem elements. Site-specific management plans are either in place or in development (e.g. see 2.3.2 for common skate and 2.4.2 for benthic habitats) and address the impact of fishing by the UoA when and where significant impacts are considered likely to occur to designated features.

Further to the MSFD, the CFP and associated ICES stock assessments and TAC recommendations constitute a strategy to address the impact of biomass removal from the ecosystem and ensure it remains within sustainable levels.

While implementation of a full ecosystem approach to fisheries management is still some way off, overall, the team considered that the MSFD (and equivalent UK legislation), CFP and ICES advice constitute an overarching strategy designed to address, where required, the main ecosystem impacts of the UoAs under assessment. The main impacts of the UoAs on the ecosystem are well studied and addressed in the measures to achieve a ‘good environmental status’. Some management measures are already in place by the establishment of TACs and quotas, technical measures, closed areas, landing obligation, enforcement effort, and continued monitoring of many species present in the ecosystem, so SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met.

Northeast Arctic

There is a range of more specific measures and initiatives in place to address management of individual ecosystem elements.

o Measures described in P1 to ensure that the fishery does not pose a risk to target species stock, and its relationship within the food web in the Barents Sea Ecosystem (eg harvest control rules).

o A range of technical measures and protocols to minimise bycatch of other fish species (described and evaluated under Primary and Secondary species as well as ETP - 2.1, 2.2, 2.3) that may play an important role in ecosystem structure and function

o Closed areas to protect the juveniles of a variety of fish species.

o Closed areas to protect the most valuable/vulnerable benthic habitats in the Norwegian zone and Barents Sea

6 https://www.gov.scot/publications/eu-exit-marine-environmental-legislation-scotland-2/pages/7/

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 173

o Protocols and gear development initiatives to reduce benthic impacts.

The Norwegian Ministry of the Environment has developed management plans (strategies) for the Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea. These provide overarching frameworks for sustainable management of these ecosystems. Norway is also subject to agreements under OSPAR Annex V “on the protection and conservation of the ecosystems and Biological Diversity in the maritime area. These relate to population viability, genetic diversity, safe biological limits (for harvested species), management of key species in the ecosystem, and endangered species for which Norway has special responsibility. The mix of planning initiatives, Norwegian research cooperation initiatives, ecosystem monitoring and assessments, seabed mapping, fishing effort distribution monitoring, ICES advice, collaboration on stocks management and research and the range of individual measures designed to protect different elements of the ecosystem, taken together may be regarded as comprising a partial strategy. SG60 and SG80 is met.

This will be further developed through ongoing activities such as that of the Working Group on the Integrated Assessments of the Norwegian Sea (WGINOR). However, while there is an overarching ecosystem management plan for the Barents Sea, several of the initiatives relating to benthic impacts have only recently been implemented and cannot yet be considered to be part of a strategic plan. SG100 is not met.

b Management strategy evaluation

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

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

North Sea and West of Scotland

Sustainable management of fisheries in EU waters is enabled under the Common Fisheries Policy framework. The CFP acknowledges the need for a collective fisheries management policy, taking a multispecies and ecosystem-based approach toward developing management plans. These approaches are progressing through numerous routes, including the MSFD in particular, whilst at a scientific level through ICES e.g. the Working Group on Multispecies Assessment Methods (WGSAM), which was formed to support the development of such methods.

The MSFD is based on a strong evidence base, including fisheries data (stock assessments, spatial distribution of fishing effort and landings), as well as other inputs such as the Habitat Atlas and site-specific detailed habitat data for Scottish waters. Within these areas (designated to ensure good ecosystem structure and function), any activity assessed as having a significant negative impact on designated features (species or habitats) should be subject to management measures.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 174

Collectively, these approaches (MSFD, CFP, MSP, ICES stock assessments and working groups) are working toward a common goal of maintaining ecosystem structure and function throughout the Greater North Sea and Celtic Sea Ecoregions and encouraging sustainable exploitation of marine resources. Structure and function is well-studied for both ecoregions with many reports and data available on habitats, species, fishing impacts and functional relationships upon which to base informed management decisions (e.g. see (ICES, 2020h, 2018b)).

Measures are in place to identify and avoid or reduce ecosystem impacts of the fishery where possible. A full suite of management measures are applied, including TACs and quotas, technical measures, closed areas, landing obligation, enforcement effort, and continued monitoring of many species present in the ecosystem. Given the broad knowledge on the North sea ecosystems and the continued monitoring by different research institutions, there is some objective basis for confidence that the measures and partial strategy implemented will work (and are working already). SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met as the MSFD and UK equivalent legislation are relatively new management approaches which will take many years to implement fully, and be tested in the field. The MSFD includes some detailed descriptors around 'good environmental status' but these remain to be specifically defined in many cases making testing the success of certain elements of the strategy difficult at this stage.

Northeast Arctic

The measures described above address key elements of the ecosystem, and take into account the steadily improving information resources, and the various mapping initiatives. These measures are already significantly restraining impacts on fish and benthic communities, while impacts on seabirds and marine mammals are considered to be relatively minor. A fundamental part of the partial strategy is the IMR ecosystem research cruises, which result in annual status reports which specifically focus on ecosystem trends, threats and projections, and this then directly contributes to the work of ICES in producing advice for target species, and determining catch levels. The saithe stock is at biomass levels well above MSY BTRIGGER. The integrated ecosystem approach-based management plan and strategies for the Barents Sea and Norwegian coastal zone, which take into account direct information about the ecosystems involved through ICES advice, scientific advice from IMR, PINRO and the scientific community and which uses historical and current information collected under the framework of the Joint-Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission, are reviewed every 4 years which allows for modifications to the management plans where further effectiveness is required.

Given the broad knowledge on the Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea, the continued monitoring by different research institutions, and the generally healthy status of the ecosystem, there is some objective basis for confidence that the measures and partial strategy implemented will work (and are working already). SG80 is met. However, as no testing has been carried out, SG100 is not met.

c Management strategy implementation

Guide There is some evidence that the There is clear evidence that the partial measures/partial strategy is being implemented strategy/strategy is being implemented post successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Yes No

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 175

Rationale

North Sea and West of Scotland

The measures being put in place across the Uoa area are typical measures for marine and fisheries conservation and many are already in place, i.e. effort reduction, setting of TACs to keep exploitation of stocks at sustainable levels; limit/eliminate discards; protection measures for endangered species; spatial protection for habitats. All these measures are based on analysis of the available scientific data, of which there are large quantities for the Celtic Sea and Greater North Sea Ecoregions (ICES, 2020h, 2018b).

Fleet-specific landings data provide evidence of successful implementation of TACs set under the CFP. The continued development and roll-out of MPAs in Scotland (e.g. the Red Rocks and Longay Urgent MPA for flapper skate) provides further evidence of the implementation of the management strategy. There have been various ecosystem studies of the impacts of fisheries on the North Sea (Cook and Heath, 2005; ICES, 2016b; Mackinson and Daskalov, 2007) which show that fisheries have had a measurable impact on various aspects of the ecosystem, quantitatively but not qualitatively i.e. relative proportions of secondary production and consumption by different consumer groups have changed, but the overall ecosystem structure and function remains intact. This gives confidence that the measures being implemented under the MSFD are likely to work, based on information about the ecosystem. On the basis of the evidence described above regarding the implementation of measures and strategies to manage ecosystem impacts of the various UoAs, SG80 is met.

As noted in scoring issue (b), SG100 is not met as the MSFD and UK equivalent legislation are relatively new management approaches which will take many years to implement fully. The MSFD includes some detailed descriptors around 'good environmental status' but these remain to be specifically defined in many cases making testing the success of certain elements of the strategy difficult at this stage.

Northeast Arctic

There is evidence of area closures (and VMS tracking to confirm compliance), of research cruises and resulting status reports, and there is evidence of ecosystem elements being given key consideration at fisheries management level –in the form of ICES advice.

Evidence relating to successful implementation at the fleet level includes:

• VMS data relating to the spatial intensity of fishing effort, and compliance with closed area restrictions;

• Catch records

• Vessel inspections

This provides some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. SG80 is met. In the absence of independent observer data, SG100 is not met.

References

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 176

(Cook and Heath, 2005; ICES, 2020h, 2018b, 2016b; Mackinson and Daskalov, 2007)

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

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 177

Scoring table 27. PI 2.5.3 – Ecosystem information

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information quality

Guide Information is adequate to identify the key Information is adequate to broadly elements of the ecosystem. understand the key elements of the post ecosystem. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

The fisheries are located in information-rich areas, with data including stock assessments or equivalent for most species, including all the main primary and secondary species (see PI2.1.1 and PI2.2.1). Information is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem, like the trophic structure of the Greater North Sea and Celtic sea ecosystem, as well as the Barents and Norwegian Seas (such as prey, predators, and competitors; community composition, productivity patterns and characteristics of biodiversity - (ICES, 2020h, 2019c, 2018b)).

Through ICES working groups, such as the Working Group on Integrated Assessments of the North Sea (ICES WGINOSE), the Working Group on the Ecosystem Effects of Fishing Activities (ICES WGECO), the Working Group on integrated assessment of the Barents Sea (WGIBAR), and the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), ecosystem evaluation with consideration for the ecosystem approach, takes place. Modelling of fishing impacts on benthic habitats is also carried out; see for example (ICES, 2020n). Furthermore, evaluations of interactions between stocks and fisheries (e.g. through the aforementioned working groups), mapping of benthos (see PI2.4.1 and PI2.4.3) and ongoing work under the MSFD, and nationally within Scottish and Norwegian waters, as discussed in PI2.5.1 and PI2.5.2. contributes to the knowledge base on these ecosystems. Information is therefore adequate, and the key elements of the ecosystem are broadly understood. SG60 and 80 are met.

b Investigation of UoA impacts

Guide Main impacts of the UoA on these key Main impacts of the UoA on these key Main interactions between the UoA and these ecosystem elements can be inferred from ecosystem elements can be inferred from ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing post existing information, but have not been existing information, and some have been information, and have been investigated in investigated in detail. investigated in detail. detail. Met? Yes Yes No

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 178

Rationale

There is detailed information on catches of Principle 1, retained species as well as other bycatch on primary, secondary and ETP species collated and analysed by relevant fisheries research institutions (e.g. IFREMER, IMR, PINRO, ICES), and UoA-specific VMS data indicating overlap with benthic habitats. This provides information about the impact of the assessed fishery on the populations of non-target species involved and would provide evidence of impact if any key ecosystem species were affected. Many interactions between fisheries and key ecosystem elements have been investigated in detail, especially trophic interactions with key predator - prey relationships, and with bottom substrates (e.g. (ICES, 2020n). In particular, there is a high level of spatial and temporal information on this fishery and the gear used. SG60 and SG80 are met. Although there is increasing spatial and temporal information on most forms of fishing and captures, it cannot be said that all the main interactions have been investigated in detail. SG 100 is not met.

c Understanding of component functions

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

Rationale

As discussed in scoring issue a, and in more detail in earlier PIs, the impacts of the UoAs on target, bycatch, retained and ETP species and habitats are identified. The function of each component in the relevant ecosystems is well known, and has been the subject of various research and/or modelling studies to further elucidate the importance of each component and their interactions with one another. SG80 and SG100 are met.

d Information relevance

Guide Adequate information is available on the Adequate information is available on the impacts impacts of the UoA on these components to of the UoA on the components and elements to post allow some of the main consequences for allow the main consequences for the ecosystem the ecosystem to be inferred. to be inferred. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 179

In general, as set out above, there is a great deal of information available about all aspects of the ecosystem and the fishery, allowing the main consequences for the fishery on the ecosystem to be inferred as done in the rationale for PI 2.5.1. Section 6.9.5 summarises the knowledge of ecosystem functional elements such as trophic function, community composition, productivity, biogeochemical cycling etc. whilst ecosystem components (species and habitats) are detailed in the preceding report sections. Further research is always undertaken to enhance understanding of fishing impacts on ecosystem components and elements, but the extensive body of data and reports available specific to each ecoregion provide adequate information from which to infer the main ecosystem consequences. SG80 and 100 are met.

e Monitoring

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

Rationale

Adequate data continue to be collected on a regular basis by the fisheries (landings, effort, VMS and EU logbooks), and through observer data (for UoAs 1 and 3), as well as wider-ranging stock / population assessments for many species of fish, mammal and bird, all of which can alert fishery managers to possible changes in risk to ecosystem elements and components. Therefore, SG80 is met. Strategies are in place to manage ecosystem impacts (see PI 2.5.2 above) based on the information available, and ongoing monitoring of the targets associated with the ecosystem-based approach, as used in e.g. the MSFD, provides additional information to support the management of ecosystem impacts. Information is deemed adequate and SG100 is met.

References

(Anisimova et al., 2010; Collie et al., 2000; Dolan et al., 2015; Gonzalez-Mirelis and Buhl-Mortensen, 2015; Hiddink et al., 2017; ICES, 2020h, 2019c, 2018b; IMR, 2011; Kaiser et al., 2006; Lambert et al., 2014; Protozorkevich and van den Meeren, 2020; Sciberras et al., 2018)

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

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 180

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 181

6.10 Principle 3

The North Sea and West of Scotland saithe stock (UoA1 and UoA3) is widely distributed across the Northern North Sea (UK, Norway, and EU waters). The Northeast Arctic (NEA) saithe stock (UoA 2) straddles the Norwegian and Svalbard waters of the Barents Sea (subareas 1 and 2) and the High Seas.

The year 2021 marked the end of the transition period for the UK leaving the EU (“Brexit”). The UK is now a Coastal State and joint fisheries manager independent from the EU. This additional jurisdiction impacts the governance of all three UoAs in different ways.

6.10.1 Jurisdictions and customary framework

The jurisdictions involved in the management of the Saithe fishery are now as follows:

• France as a flag state ; • The EU as policy-maker through the CFP and joint fishery manager, and as coastal state for the North Sea stock (Sweden and Denmark waters); • Norway as a coastal state for both North Sea and NEA stocks, joint fishery manager for the North Sea stock and sole manager of the NEA stock; • NEAFC as RFMO for the NEA stock that straddles the High Seas; and • The UK as an independent coastal state and joint fishery manager for the North Sea stock since the 1st January 2021 following Brexit. • In addition, the catch may be landed in Norwegian, Faroes, EU (Denmark, France, Netherlands) and UK (Scotland, Shetlands) ports for UoA1 and UoA2, or in ports in the UK (Scotland), Republic of Ireland and France for UoA3 (this is to be confirmed with the clients at the site visit). The French and EU jurisdictions are common to all three UoAs, the others differ according to the stock targeted and vessel activities as follows:

• UoA1 : The vessels target the North Sea saithe stock. The stock straddles UK, EU and Norwegian waters. The vessels operate in the Northern North Sea in what are now essentially UK-Scottish waters (2a, 4a and 6a), and to a much lesser extent in Norwegian waters of the Northern North Sea (4a) and European waters in the Skagerrak (3a see Figure 1). • UoA2: Only freezer vessels (currently three) operate in the NEA saithe fishery, in Norwegian waters (subarea 2a.2) and the Svalbard Fisheries Protection Zones (subarea 2b.2) under Norwegian management, and on the High Seas under NEAFC management (2.a.1 and 2.b.1). • UoA3: Vessels target the North Sea stock and fish in UK-Scottish waters of the Northern North Sea (6a, 5b and 4a), and also in EU waters to the West of the Republic of Ireland (still subarea 6a). They also fish in areas 7 and 8 on different trips, which are not included in the fishery. The Institutions involved in fisheries management and their mandates at international, European and French levels have not changed since the previous certification, although the names of some French institutions changed with the ministerial re-organisation and new Ministère de la mer in 2020. They are listed in Table 31. The most important change comes from the UK “Brexit” of the European Union with effect 1st January 2021, because most of the fishing activities take place in what are now (UK) Scottish waters. The Scottish (UK) fisheries management framework and changes at EU and international levels are briefly reviewed in the following sections.

6.10.1.1 EU

Marine environmental protection and monitoring obligations of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD, Directive 2008/56/EC) have been translated into a French national strategy and sub-

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 182

national strategic documents for the sea and coastal waters of each ocean region (MEMN and NAMO for this fishery) working towards achieving ‘good ecological status’ (GES) by 2020 (France, 2017). Even though the fishery does not take place in French waters, the objectives of the MSFD and obligations of the French strategy apply to all French vessels.

Table 31. Key organisations involved in management of the Scapêche, Euronor and Compagnie des Pêches de St-Malo saithe fishery three UoAs.

Organisation Organisation Organisation Role UoA1 UoA2 UoA3 International UK UK Independent Coastal State since leaving the EU effective from 1st January 2021. Negotiates access to UK/Scottish waters through agreement with the EU, Norway and the Faroe Islands. The UK Marine Management Organisation (MMO) is acting as the UK Single Issuing Authority (UKSIA) for non-UK fishing vessels.

Scotland Scotland Scottish Ministers now have powers to limit fishing operations, temporarily or permanently, in specific areas through Orders relating to the exploitation of sea fisheries resources in the Scottish offshore region (i.e., 12-200nm) for the purposes of marine conservation. Norway Norway Norwegian and European delegations (and the UK since 2021) meet at least annually, generally in December before the EU Council agrees final TACs, to discuss arrangements for jointly managed stocks, including North Sea saithe, and reciprocal access, including to Norwegian waters and the Svalbard Fishery Protection Zone (SFPZ) under Norwegian protection. NEAFC North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, RFMO for the High Seas areas between EEZs. The UK is a signatory with effect 1st January 2021. OSPAR OSPAR OSPAR OSPAR North-East Atlantic Environment Strategy covers all waters in which the fishery takes place. The work of the OSPAR Commission is guided by the ecosystem approach to an integrated management of human activities in the marine environment and supported by a general obligation of Contracting Parties (including Norway, UK, France and EU) to apply the precautionary principle. European Union European Union EU Commission DG MARE: negotiates and legislates with the EU Parliament and the EU Council of Fisheries Ministers the basis of the EU Common Fisheries Policy. ICES and STECF ICES carries out stock assessments (Norwegian and UK scientists participate) and, together with the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee (STECF), provides scientific advice to European Commission.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 183

Organisation Organisation Organisation Role UoA1 UoA2 UoA3 EFCA European Fisheries Control Agency: has joint deployment plans (JDP) to coordinate operations between EU member states in the North Sea and in Western Waters that cover the extent of the fishery. North Sea Long North - EU stakeholder Advisory Councils bring together Advisory Distance Western representatives of the fishing industry, scientific Council (NSAC Advisory Waters institutes, NGOs and other stakeholders. They liaise - DMWG) Council Advisory with and provide advice to the Commission regarding (LDAC - Council Coastal States agreements, the landing obligation etc. WG2) (NWWAC - Three ACs cover the extent of the fishery. WG1) The UK has observer status from 1st January 2021. France Ministère de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation Direction des pêches maritimes et de l’aquaculture – DPMA, Central government legislative level, negotiates and legislates the bases of the EU Common Fisheries Policy in France and internationally.

Ifremer Scientific research and stock assessment institute – a national organisation with headquarters in Brest (Brittany) and regional offices dealing with locally- relevant issues. DIRM Manche Est-mer du DIRM NAMO French government representations (two Directions Nord (MEMN) inter-régionales de la Mer (DIRM) involved in the fishery, according to the vessels ports of registration) at sub-national level, under the Ministère de la Mer, in DIRM Nord Atlantique- charge of integrated maritime and coastal policy Manche Ouest (NAMO) implementation, including commercial fisheries licensing and MSFD.

Centre National de Surveillance des Pêches French national Fisheries Monitoring Control and (CNSP) Surveillance (MCS) competent authority, located with CROSS-A Etel, in Brittany. Processes VMS data, e- logbooks and notices of arrival in port. Gendarmerie Maritime, Douanes, Marine Marine police, customs and navy – check fishing vessels nationale at sea, landings and sales. Checks may be opportunistic or coordinated by the CROSS as part of a fishery- specific risk-based enforcement strategy and EU EFCA Joint deployment plans. Comité National des Pêches maritimes et des Policy and regulatory recommendations at national élevages marins (CNPMEM) level; Licensing and other bylaws; Represents the fishing industry at national level and Advisory Councils. FROM Nord Producer Organisation (PO) to which vessels in the UoAs belong: The PO submits its EU annual Production Plan and Marketing to the DPMA, manages quota on behalf of their members, divides its members quota allocation into individual vessel allocations on the basis of track record, assists with quota swaps; keeps members informed of changes in regulation and policy and provides other support as required; may impose additional requirements on member vessels.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 184

Organisation Organisation Organisation Role UoA1 UoA2 UoA3 UAPF – Union des Armateurs à la Pêche de Professional body representing vessel owners at France national and international levels.

The European Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) provides the basic legal framework for the fishery’s management system. It is the same as for the initial certification audit. Of note are the progress made in the implementation of key policy elements, and the increasing role played by the EU Parliament through co-decision with the European Commission and co-decision with the Council, in particular regarding the conclusion of agreements with third countries such as Norway, the Faroe Islands, and now also with the UK.

The most important elements of the current EU legislation for the fishery are listed in Table 32. EU regulations have direct effect in the French legal order but they also gradually make their way into national legislation. Implications regarding fisheries management objectives and monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) are detailed below.

Table 32. Key marine fisheries and environmental EU legislation for the fishery.

Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2008/56/oj

Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 of 29 September 2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, amending Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1936/2001 and (EC) No 601/2004 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 1093/94 and (EC) No 1447/1999 – and CATCH, a catch certification IT system launched in May 2019. http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2008/1005/oj

Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/1380/oj

Regulation (EU) 2015/812 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 amending Council Regulations (EC) No 850/98, (EC) No 2187/2005, (EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 254/2002, (EC) No 2347/2002 and (EC) No 1224/2009, and Regulations (EU) No 1379/2013 and (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as regards the landing obligation, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1434/98 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2015/812/oj

Regulation (EU) 2018/973 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2018 establishing a multiannual plan for demersal stocks in the North Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks, specifying details of the implementation of the landing obligation in the North Sea and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 676/2007 and (EC) No 1342/2008 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/973/oj

Regulation (EU) 2019/472 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 establishing a multiannual plan for stocks fished in the Western Waters and adjacent waters, and for fisheries exploiting those stocks, amending Regulations (EU) 2016/1139 and (EU) 2018/973, and repealing Council Regulations

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 185

(EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007 and (EC) No 1300/2008 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/472/oj

Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on the conservation of fisheries resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No 1224/2009 and Regulations (EU) No1380/2013, (EU) 2016/1139, (EU) 2018/973, (EU) 2019/472 and (EU) 2019/1022 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 894/97, (EC) No 850/98, (EC) No 2549/2000, (EC) No 254/2002, (EC) No 812/2004 and (EC) No 2187/2005 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/1241/oj

Council Regulation (EU) 2019/124 of 30 January 2019 fixing for 2019 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non- Union waters http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/124/2020-10-31 (consolidated version Oct. 2020)

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/2014 of 21 August 2020 specifying details of implementation of the landing obligation for certain fisheries in the North Sea for the period 2021-2023 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2020/2014/oj

The most recent EU legislative change of importance is the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2019/124 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on the conservation of fisheries resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures (TM). This new regulation was overdue since the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) reform of 2013. It lays down the technical measures concerning the taking and landing of fisheries resources, as well as the operation of fishing gears and the interaction of fishing activities with marine ecosystems. It aims to enable key objectives of the CFP, including the landing obligation, by facilitating regionalised approaches (see (EU, 2018b)for the North Sea and (EU, 2019b)nd by simplifying rules, providing flexibilities for certain TM to be changed or amended through joint recommendations, provided that the alternatives are scientifically assessed as being at least equivalent to those being replaced”. It particular, it is supposed to “facilitate the possibility to have technical measures that can be aligned between the EU and Norway” (EU-Norway, 2019a).

6.10.1.2 France

The French ministerial department (DPMA - Ministère de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation) is the licensing authority, in charge vessel registration and licensing, including the renewal of European Fishing Authorisations and representing the French fishing industry interests in access negotiations with Norway, the Faroe Islands, and now with the UK. For this fishery, which targets quota-managed internationally shared stocks and operates entirely outside French territorial waters, the policy objectives and management framework are provided by the EU CFP (Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, see Table 32) and associated legislation, which have direct effect in national legislation.

The CFP and the French primary legislation for the Environment (Code de l’Environnement) and for Fisheries (Code Rural et de la Pêche maritime) all require that the precautionary principle guides policy and executive decisions.

All vessels in the UoAs are members of the FROM-Nord Producer Organisation (PO), which manages the fishery’s catch and production quotas on their behalf.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 186

6.10.1.3 UK

The UK and the EU agreed to a Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA: (TCA, 2020), applicable on a provisional basis from 1 January 2021, which addresses the domain of fisheries, in particular the question of access and national quota splits for this fishery that either takes place in previously EU and now mainly Scottish (UK) waters (UoA1 and UoA3) or in Norwegian managed (Norway and Svalbard JFPZ) and High Seas-NEAFC (UoA2).

After 5 years of preparations and negotiations, the UK formally left the European Union on 1st January 2021. The Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) published on 31st December 2020 (Heading 5 – Fisheries)7 allows for a transition period and a review every five years (art. 179). In its Part 2, the agreement sets out arrangements relating to the trade in goods and provisions for mutual fisheries access. In Chapter 7, the Agreement includes reciprocal commitments not to reduce the level of environmental or climate protection and, in Chapter 8, an affirmation by both parties of existing commitments to a range of international conventions and other commitments in the area of labour, environment, and climate, including to the effective implementation of the Paris Agreement.

For both EU and UK, the TCA shared fisheries management objective is higher than the CFP, to “exploit shared stocks at rates intended to maintain and progressively restore populations of harvested species above biomass levels that can produce the maximum sustainable yield” (TCA, 2020); having regard to:

(a) applying the precautionary approach to fisheries management; (b) promoting the long-term sustainability (environmental, social and economic) and optimum utilisation of shared stocks; (c) basing conservation and management decisions for fisheries on the best available scientific advice, principally that provided by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES); (d) ensuring selectivity in fisheries to protect juvenile fish and spawning aggregations of fish, and to avoid and reduce unwanted bycatch; (e) taking due account of and minimising harmful impacts of fishing on the marine ecosystem and taking due account of the need to preserve marine biological diversity; (f) applying proportionate and non-discriminatory measures for the conservation of marine living resources and the management of fisheries resources, while preserving the regulatory autonomy of the Parties; (g) ensuring the collection and timely sharing of complete and accurate data relevant for the conservation of shared stocks and for the management of fisheries; (h) ensuring compliance with fisheries conservation and management measures, and combating illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing; and (i) ensuring the timely implementation of any agreed measures into the Parties’ regulatory frameworks. From 1st January 2022, fisheries management measures in UK waters could be replaced or even simplified, provided – for shared stocks – that the new measures deliver (at least) the same conservation benefit. In that case, new measures would need to be agreed as being proportionate and non-discriminatory in order to apply to non-UK vessels. During the TCA transition period until 30 June 2026, each of the UK and EU parties have agreed to grant to vessels of the other Party full access to its waters to fish specified TAC and non-quota stocks in the respective Excusive Economic Zones and

7 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/agreements-reached-between-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and- northern-ireland-and-the-european-union

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 187

in a specified part of the waters of the Parties between six and twelve nautical miles. Existing possibilities for quota and effort swaps between the UK and EU members states and cross-year swaps stopped from 1 January 2021.

The exchange of fishing rights for trade facilitation measures between sovereign states is directly apparent in the TCA. Final details are not entirely available until bilateral UK-Norway arrangements are finalised, but Marine Scotland identified potential decreases in TAC shares for key demersal stocks linked to the TCA (Scottish Government, 2020a). The withdrawal of the UK from EU means that previously EU-stocks are becoming UK-EU shared stocks. The 2021 TACs and Quota Regulation (TQR) notes that the (EU) Commission will undertake bilateral consultations with the United Kingdom, bilateral consultations with Norway and trilateral consultations with the United Kingdom and Norway on the basis of the draft Union position to be endorsed by the Council. Until all those consultations are concluded, “the Council should, in a manner that fully respects the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the rights and obligations of the coastal States as well as their sovereignty and jurisdiction, establish provisional TACs to be fished in Union and international waters, and waters to which the Union vessels are granted access by third countries” (EU, 2021a). The UK signed a Framework Agreement on Fisheries with Norway (UoA2) in September 2020 (UK-Norway, 2020). For stocks that are also shared with Norway, specific fisheries management arrangements apply (see next section).

6.10.1.4 Scotland

Fishing operations for UoA1 and UoA3 are mostly taking place in what are now Scottish waters. The UK Fisheries Act 2020 specifies the Scottish ministers’ powers in matters of fisheries management and sea fisheries licensing in Scottish waters, which extend to 200nm (see for details: Schedule 10 Amendments of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 General powers and duties of the Marine Management Organisation – MMO). The updated primary legislation confirms the powers of Scottish Ministers and relevant “marine functions” of the Scottish government in terms of fisheries management including:

• fishing quotas; • ensuring that commercial fish activities are carried out lawfully; • the registration of buyers and sellers of first-sale fish. In particular (Section 137A - (UK, 2020)), the Scottish Ministers now have powers to limit fishing operations, temporarily or permanently, in specific areas through Orders relating to the exploitation of sea fisheries resources in the Scottish offshore region (i.e., 12-200nm) for the purposes of conserving:

• marine flora, • marine habitats or types of marine habitat, • features of geological or geomorphological interest. This is similar to the powers afforded to Scottish Ministers under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, to make Marine Conservation Orders (MCOs) to further the objectives of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the Scottish marine area up to 12 nautical miles from baselines, which can include prohibiting, restricting or regulating certain activities such as:

• vessel movements and activity • interference or disturbance/damage to the seabed, or • the use of certain equipment and exploration activities.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 188

The latest legislative developments and guidance from the Scottish development are indicated on the Scottish government’s Sea Fisheries website8 (Scottish Government, 2020b)For example, the Fishing vessel landing obligation guidance 2021 clearly details the LO provisions that apply to demersal fisheries.

After extensive consultation, Scotland published a policy paper on 17th December 2020, Future fisheries: management strategy – 2020 to 203059 (Scottish Government, 2020c) which includes a 12- point Action Plan and clearly exposed its fisheries management approach for the next ten years.

Regarding the Marine Environment, the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive that was transposed into UK law (the Marine Strategy Regulations 2010 – “MSR 2010”) is in the process of being amended (see The Marine Environment (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018) and (Scottish Government, 2020d).

Scotland published its “Environment Strategy for Scotland: vision and outcomes” on the 25th February 2020, which sits alongside its National Marine Plan60, and has reaffirmed its commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) and performance reporting including for SDG14 – Life below water. A review of Regional Marine Plans and marine planning partnerships in place in some of the eleven Scottish Marine Regions was published in December 2020 (Scottish Parliament, 2020).

Scotland published its Marine Assessment 2020 (Moffat et al., 2020). It is the third in a series of reports describing the state of the marine environment, following ‘Scotland’s Seas – Towards Understanding their State’ published in 2008, and ‘Scotland’s Marine Atlas: Information for the National Marine Plan’ published in 2011. The Scottish Marine Assessment 2020 provides an up-to-date review of the current state of Scotland’s seas, delivering on the statutory requirement to prepare an assessment under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. The latest assessment has identified priority areas to protect the marine environment and continue to tackle the climate emergency. It will inform future marine policy, including the development of a Blue Economy Action Plan, and the forthcoming review of Scotland’s National Marine Plan, both expected in 2021.

6.10.1.5 Norway

The European Community had three fisheries agreements with Norway, namely the bilateral, the trilateral and the neighbouring agreements. The bilateral arrangement covers the North Sea and the Atlantic, the trilateral agreement covers Skagerrak and Kattegat (Denmark, Sweden and Norway) and the neighbourhood arrangement covers the Swedish fishery in Norwegian waters of the North Sea.

Until 1st January 2021, the EU discussed fishery arrangements with Norway on behalf of the UK. Arrangements were usually published in December for the following year for the jointly-managed demersal stocks in the North Sea (saithe, haddock, plaice, whiting and cod). In the last agreed record (December 2019 for the year 2020 (EU-Norway, 2019a)) the Delegations agreed points are summarised in Table 33. The same percentage zonal shares apply for Norway and the EU, and out of the EU shares. The specific UK % shares for 2021 and following years are expected to be published in future tripartite (Norway-UK-EU) annual agreed records.

Pre-Brexit arrangements were belatedly replaced (in part) with two sets for 2021, one between the EU-Norway-UK that includes the North Sea saithe (Table 34, UoA1 and UoA3) and another between the EU and Norway that includes the NEA saithe for UoA2 (Table 35, (EU-Norway, 2021)). At the time

8 https://www.gov.scot/policies/sea-fisheries/sea-fishery-management/

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 189

of this report writing, it is not clear to what extent quota swaps, inter-annual or between Norway, the UK and the EU will be possible for the NS saithe stock in 2021. This will be followed up during the site visit.

Table 33. Agreed management measures between EU and Norway for 2020 (EU-Norway, 2019a) Species EU %TAC share by TAC (MSY Estimated EU Norway stocks area approach) discards 4 and 3a: 90.6% Unwanted catch 41 759t 39 163t NS Saithe 88 093t 6: 9.4% 8% (estim. 2018)

Table 34. Agreed management measures between EU, Norway and the UK for 2021 (EU-Norway-UK, 2021) Species EU %TAC share by TAC (MSY Estimated discards EU Norway UK stocks area approach) 4 and 3a: 90.6% Unwanted catch 22,198 30,946 6,368 NS Saithe 65 687t 6: 9.4% 4.4% (estim. 2019)

The UK-Norway Fisheries Agreement Explanatory Memorandum (UK-Norway, 2020)points out that it mirrors that between the EU and Norway, which was originally signed in 1980, and that the joint management of certain North Sea stocks will now be jointly-managed by the UK, Norway and the EU. Trilateral governance arrangements for 2021 were finalised between Norway, the UK and the EU on 16 March 2021 (EU-Norway-UK, 2021), and between Norway and the EU on the same date. Together, these result in management measures similar (but not identical) to the previous EU-Norway agreed provisions (EU-Norway, 2019a). This is likely to continue, possibly until the end of the TCA six-year transition. This will be followed up during the site visit.

In the Northeast Arctic (NEA) (ICES subareas 1 and 2) the vessels in the fishery UoA2 operate inside Norwegian waters (NEZ) in the Barents Sea and in the Svalbard Fisheries Protection Zone (SFPZ), which is also managed by the Norwegian authorities (Map ref). They target a “Norwegian exclusive stock”. For such stocks, nothing should have changed since the previous certification. However, the new EU- Norway agreed provisions (Norway-EU, 2021)indicate an annual quota of NEA saithe for the EU in 2021 of 770t (Table 35). It would appear that the EU TAC share is down from 2020 while the 2021 overall TAC is up by 15%. This may reflect changes in swaps or unused UK shares, which are not clear from the documents currently available. The matter will be followed up during the site visit.

Table 35. Agreed EU NEA saithe quota in the Norwegian zone for 2021 (E(EU-Norway, 2019b) Species stocks EU TAC share by area TAC (MSY approach) Estimated discards NEA Saithe 1 and 2: 770t 197 779 t None

Norwegian commercial fisheries are governed under the Marine Resources Act of 6 June 2008 no. 37 for the management of wild living marine resources that came into force 1st January 2009. For European vessels, access to Norwegian fisheries is granted through the 1980 EU – Norway bilateral framework agreement that came in force in 1981. For the NEA cod and haddock stocks, which are not shared with Europe, the arrangements allow for the transfer of fishing possibilities of “Norwegian exclusive stocks” (including saithe and Greenland Halibut and others as bycatch) in areas I and II to the EU (see (EU-Norway, 2019a)). The tonnage is then shared between EU member states on the basis of historical track records.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 190

Protection of the marine environment comes under the Norwegian 2008 Nature Management Act and the 2008 Marine Resources Act. Of note is the importance given to the protection of marine habitats (biodiversity and seabed) in particular through the MAREANO mapping initiative that surveys and publishes maps of VMEs since 2005 (see Principle 2).

Norway has split its EEZ into three regions for the purpose of Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) and management plans, from North to South, the Barents Sea, the Norwegian Sea, and the (Norwegian) North Sea9. The Department for Marine Management and Pollution Control of the Ministry of Climate and Environment Responsibility oversees management plans for the Barents Sea and the sea areas off the Lofoten islands, the Norwegian Sea, and the North Sea and Skagerrak. These cover the petroleum industry, fisheries, shipping, under management of the Norwegian Maritime Directorate on environmental issues; marine protected areas, marine spatial planning, marine biological diversity, acute pollution, new marine and maritime industries; and knowledge about marine ecosystems. International cooperation, including the OSPAR Convention, IMO, the London Convention, the EU marine strategy and cooperation on protection of the marine environment in the High North. The fishery takes place in all three marine planning regions.

Changes in Norwegian fisheries regulations are communicated to the EU whenever they arise. The EU Commission forwards them to the French authorities and on to the fishing companies and to the vessels if they are fishing in Norwegian waters at the time.

6.10.1.6 Faroe Islands

There are established provisions regarding the UK-Faroe Islands “special area” (see map10), for which an agreement exists between the UK and Denmark together with the Home Government of the Faroe Islands, relating to the Maritime Delimitation in the Area Between the Faroe Islands and the UK. EU vessels can be authorised by the Faroe Islands to fish within the corresponding Scottish zone. All 6 vessels in UoA1-UoA2 hold European fishing licences from the Faroe Islands to this effect.

Non-Faroese vessels are permitted to fish under the terms of bilateral agreements, e.g., with the EU, Iceland, Norway, Russia and Greenland. For the EU, the agreement concerns only small pelagic stocks (e.g., blue whiting). Finally, there is a specific Faroese saithe stock (ICES Division 5b) for which the EU and the UK have shares of the TAC (France 393t for 2021), which is not part of this fishery.

6.10.1.7 NEAFC

The fishery (UoA2) also takes place to a small extent in international waters where fishing activities are managed by the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC). NEAFC has comprehensive in and out of zone reporting obligations and overall port state measures (PSM) to tackle IUU fishing under the NEAFC Control Scheme, monitoring IUU activity in the zones of Contracting Parties, as well as in international waters. Vessels listed on the NEAFC IUU list (“blacklist”) are not permitted to call at ports, receive services and supplies or change crew members in any port of the member countries of NEAFC.

9 http://msp.ioc-unesco.org/world-applications/europe/norway/ 10 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/faroe-islands-maritime-delimitation

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 191

6.10.2 Consultation, roles and responsibilities

Up to 2021, the most important avenue for discussions and consultation between France and the UK would have been through various EU institutions, including the Advisory Councils, the Producer Organisations, through scientists from government and industry participation in ICES working groups, through the EU Parliament Fisheries Committee and various European professional participation and lobby representation. From 1st January 2021, new arrangements have to be found. To this effect, the EU Commission circulated a letter to all Advisory Councils (AC) (of which three are relevant to this fishery, see Table 31) stressing “that Brexit does not mean the end of our partnership with the UK... UK stakeholders can continue to participate in AC meetings as active observers when issues that affect them are discussed, as provided for in Article 2(k) of Annex III to the CFP Regulation. They can also be reimbursed for their participation in meetings in accordance with Article 6(2) of the Delegated Regulation… to ensure effective cooperation, which is a prerequisite to the sustainable management of fisheries resources in sea basins shared with the UK” (EC-DG MARE, 2021). In addition, the TCA creates a Partnership Council to oversee the joint implementation of the TCA a joint committee, which includes a Specialised Committee on Fisheries (Article FISH.16), and which might provide opportunities for stakeholder engagement (EU-UK, 2020). Membership of the Fisheries Committee has not been published to date. This will be followed up during the site visit.

6.10.3 Long term objectives

6.10.3.1 North Sea Saithe (IIa (south 62°), IIIa, IV and VI (POK/3A46) - UoA1 & UoA3

The NS saithe stock is shared between the UK (Scotland), Norway and the EU. All three fisheries management systems have long-term objectives to manage stocks at MSY levels.

The reformed Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) pledged that all stocks are rebuilt and managed at MSY levels by 2020 latest (EU, 2013b). It introduced a ban on discards (the Landing Obligation – LO), which is fully implemented for UoA1 and UoA3 for this fishery.

An EU multiannual management plan (MAP) was agreed by the EU for this stock (EU, 2018b), but it has not been adopted by Norway; thus, it is not used as the basis of the advice. The 2018 EU MAP for demersal stocks in the North Sea states that it shall contribute to the achievement of the CFP objectives, in particular using the precautionary approach. ICES was requested by the EC to provide advice based on the MSY approach and to include the MAP as a catch option. EU–Norway have requested an evaluation of multiple management strategies that are currently under consideration (ICES, 2019h).

Now that the CFP does not apply in the UK, long-term fisheries management objectives have been integrated to the TCA Fishery (EU-UK, 2020)and revised to aim higher than the current CFP, pledging to apply “the precautionary approach to fisheries management” and “exploit shared stocks at rates intended to maintain and progressively restore populations of harvested species above biomass levels that can produce the maximum sustainable yield”. This provision of the TCA will be binding on both EU and the UK for the next six years. However, they are not binding in the bilateral agreements (EU- Norway, UK-Norway) with Norway as they stand, and therefore the MSY objective at least, which is the basis of ICES Advice also given to Norway, will most likely prevail for this fishery at least in the near future.

The long-term fisheries management objectives set by the UK Fisheries Act (UK, 2020) and Scotland’s Fisheries Management Strategy (Scottish Government, 2020c) are also relevant because the fishery take place mostly in Scottish waters. Presently these are the same as those of the CFP, but they may

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 192

also change to be more demanding in the future, for Principle 1 and Principle 2 objectives and requirements. More information will be sought at the site visit.

6.10.3.2 Northeast Arctic Saithe – (NEA – I and II (POK/1N2AB)) – UoA2

The NEA saithe stock is an exclusively Norwegian-managed stock, with TAC shares granted to non- Norwegian vessels (mainly Russian, also EU) through bilateral access and quota swapping arrangements. The Brexit process also delayed the agreement of EU-Norway bilateral arrangements negotiations for this fishery, which were published on 16 March 2021.

The 2008 Norwegian Marine Resources Act requires that Norwegian fisheries management be guided by the precautionary approach, in line with international treaties and guidelines and by an ecosystem approach that takes into account habitats and biodiversity. The same objectives underpin the integrated management plans for the Barents and Norwegian Seas, and for the Norwegian North Sea and Skagerrak. A long-standing scientific cooperation exists between Norway and Russia regarding fisheries management in the Barents Sea, which also extends to the EU, with ICES acting as providers of scientific advice and scientific peer reviewers (Hammer and Hoel, 2012).

6.10.4 Fishery specific objectives

Fishing opportunities for both saithe stocks are set annually in the form of a TAC agreed on the basis of scientific advice prepared by ICES.

6.10.4.1 North Sea Saithe (UoA1 & 3)

The NS saithe TAC and shares and vessel access agreed between the EU and Norway used to be published in December each year. The split between EU member states (including the UK) was then indicated in an EU Regulation following the EU Council December session.

Following the UK leaving the EU the process was similar this year, but delayed, with the now tripartite (EU, Norway and UK) agreement only published on 16th March 2021. Presumably, a timelier calendar will be resumed in future years. The fishery-specific objectives remain the same as before and are guided by the EU-CFP. In the future, they will be guided by the EU-UK TCA objective for fisheries. The environmental objectives that apply are at least those fixed by the CFP, complemented by Scotland- specific objectives for the demersal fisheries, such as: “Reduce unnecessary discards, reduce incidental bycatch (including mammals, birds and cetaceans), and progress towards Good Environmental Status, for which indicators are clearly defined, explicit and reported upon annually (Scottish Government, 2020b).

The short and long-term fishery-specific objectives are referenced in ICES advice and use the MSY approach to determine a total annual catch (see Principle 1 section). The TAC and quotas are indicated separately for the EU (by member state) and the UK in the EU TACs and quotas Regulation (TQR) published each year, for the UK-EU-Norway shared stocks.

6.10.4.2 Northeast Arctic Saithe (UoA2)

ICES provides scientific advice to the Norwegian and international organisations involved in the management of the NEA Saithe stock on an annual basis. In addition, well-defined and measurable short and long-term objectives for biomass levels and juvenile mortality are given in the integrated management plans for the Barents Sea and the Norwegian Sea, for all main Norwegian exploited

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 193

“exclusive” fish stocks (Principle 1), for protected species, the seabed and benthic habitats (Principle 2).

6.10.5 Decision making processes

6.10.5.1 North Sea Saithe (UoA1 & 3)

EU decision-making processes have not changed since the previous certification, apart from a much larger regulatory role of the European Parliament, now involved systematically with the EU Commission and the EU Council of Fisheries ministers. There are ample organised fora for stakeholders to be involved and a regular calendar for decisions to be taken, although this has been somewhat delayed in 2020 mostly because of numerous last-minute fisheries and trade negotiations linked to the UK ‘Brexit’. Decision-making processes are described in the CFP Regulation and reflected in the implementing legislation (see Table 32). All EU member states and coastal states (including UK- Scotland) involved in the management of the shared stock have published strategies for marine fisheries and marine environmental protection (see section 6.10.1Error! Reference source not f ound.).

6.10.5.2 Northeast Arctic Saithe (UoA2)

The Norwegian fisheries management system is comprehensive, and its decision-processes are codified in the 2008 Marine Resources Act and the integrated marine management plans for the Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea ecosystems. The Marine Plans involve the Ministry of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs, the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development and the Ministry of the Environment. They are approved by the Norwegian Parliament (Storting) and are enforceable. This fishery’s (UoA2) access by EU fishing vessels to the Norwegian and SFPZ waters is according to the EU-Norway Agreement, which has run since 1980 with annual Agreed Records (EU-Norway, 2021, 2019a). A new bilateral agreement post Brexit is presently being negotiated, to replace the 1980 Agreement by 202311.

6.10.6 Compliance and enforcement

6.10.6.1 North Sea Saithe (UoA1 & 3)

Marine Scotland (Scottish government) is responsible for the management of the fisheries in its waters. This includes controlling the activities of all fishing vessels including foreign vessels operating within the Scottish zone, as defined by the Fishery Limits Act 1976 and the Scotland Act 1998, which covers the North Sea (ICES area 4) and west of Scotland (ICES area 6) out to 200 nautical miles. There have been no significant changes in MCS arrangements for this fishery as a result of Brexit. Marine Scotland Compliance has developed and maintained its own aerial, seagoing and terrestrial mean of fisheries surveillance for some time. However, no at-sea on board inspections took place in 2020 until July because of the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. Marine Scotland Compliance uses a risk-based approach, to identify risks associated with management measures and decide on compliance and enforcement options. MCS measures use Marine Protection Vessels (MPVs) to undertake inspections at sea, drones and rigid inflatable boats (RIBS) to monitor inshore waters, and a network of coastal inspectors to verify catches in port. Additional appropriate technology includes Remote Electronic

11 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:07452615-3a32-11eb-b27b-01aa75ed71a1.0015.02/DOC_1&format=PDF

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 194

Monitoring (REM) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) to demonstrate correct and compliant activity by fishers, and help eliminate non-compliant behaviour (Scottish Government, 2020c).

Presently, the main compliance and enforcement challenge in demersal fisheries is linked to the EU Landing Obligation (LO), and the numerous derogations and specific provisions published annually in the LO European Commission Delegated implementing regulations (see reference in Table 12), which greatly complexify surveillance according to the Scottish MCS competent authorities. For the NS saithe, the seasonal nature of the fishery, the mesh sizes and other gear specificities to increase selectivity and the processing practices of the vessels in UoA1 and UoA3 seem to result in little discards. It is also worth noting that fishing vessels operating jointly in UoA1 and the Norwegian waters of UoA2 where a discard ban has been enforced for many years - have clear and tested procedures in place to avoid unwanted catches and record all catches and thus comply with the LO.

At the time of this report (April 2021), the UK Government has not confirmed that the LO will remain in place in the long run. In the meantime, Marine Scotland is planning a legislative review to simplify the current EU LO provisions and implementation regulations currently revised on an annual basis (see (EU, 2019b)), to make the LO easier to monitor and enforce.

A gradual system of sanctions exists in Scotland, from administrative to penal depending on the type of offence, that could be applied to EU vessels in the future. The management’s emphasis is on co- management and puts a stronger emphasis on information, surveillance and prevention and warnings than on prosecution, with a “Promote, Prevent, Respond” approach to Compliance (Scottish Government, 2020c).

However, all demersal fisheries in the North Sea and NW waters are presently seen at high risk of non- compliance by the European Fisheries Control Agency (see (EFCA, 2020)). A harmonised condition was set for all MSC-certified NS fisheries in 2019, and it is provisionally set for the UoA1 and UoA3 of this fishery. More information will be sought at the site visit from the French and Scottish MCS competent authorities for the team to determine if it is warranted.

6.10.6.2 Northeast Arctic Saithe (UoA2)

A discard ban has been enforced for foreign demersal fishing vessels operating in offshore Norwegian waters and the SFPZ for many years. The Norwegian MCS Competent Authority (the Coast Guards) cooperates with the EFCA, the EU national Fisheries Monitoring Centres (FMCs) and the NEAFC to combat IUU activities and coordinate Port State measures. Norwegian authorities operate a high level of real-time scrutiny of all foreign vessels. Any infringement is notified to the French FMC, DPMA and fishing company. For any suspected infringement other than minor, for which a verbal or written notice may be issued, a vessel is instructed to immediately report to a Norwegian port where a local judge could apply a variety of administrative sanctions. The costs of steaming large distance away from the fishing grounds and back are very deterrent according to the fishery’s skippers.

6.10.7 Management performance evaluation

There are regular external reviews of the EU fisheries sustainable partnership agreements, but there doesn’t appear to be a regular review of the EU Northern Agreements, especially of the bilateral agreements with Norway.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 195

6.10.7.1 North Sea Saithe (UoA1 & 3)

The EU institutions provide several levels of scrutiny of the management systems, from peer review of scientific advice through ICES and STECF, to stakeholder analyses through the Advisory Councils and EU Parliamentary scrutiny.

The UK-Scottish arrangements and the Scottish institutions in charge of sea fisheries management have been in place for some years. Their performance are improved regularly through a commitment to openness and co-management responsibilities with key stakeholders, and are monitored and evaluated regularly, mostly through parliamentary scrutiny.

At UK-level, of direct relevance to this fishery, a House of Lords public enquiry into the Implementation of the EU Landing Obligation (LO) launched in 2017 interviewed a large range of stakeholders and published its report in 2019 (UK House of Lords, 2019)The report noted numerous enforcement challenges, the slow adaptation of the fishing industry and in some cases, the lack of suitable tools for the job, including on board remote electronic monitoring (REM) or closed-circuit TV. Another problem area concerns regulatory exemptions, which have also been mentioned by Marine Scotland Compliance, as a source of complexity and confusion.

In Scotland Fisheries management is framed within the delivery of the Scottish Government’s National Performance Framework12, which monitors the sustainability of fish stocks using MSY as an indicator and ICES as a data source, as well as social indicators of wellbeing and Scotland’s performance against the UN (Sustainable Development Goals – SDGs). The management of Sea Fisheries is reviewed annually through various publications. The newly published Fisheries Management Strategy 2020 - 2030 pledges to “publish a monitoring and evaluation framework” and report on progress against the Management Strategy in a regular, open and transparent way (Scottish Government, 2020c).

However, there appears to be no regular external review of the fisheries management effectiveness of the EU-Norway bilateral agreements at EU or Norwegian level. This is particularly important for this stock, for which Norway does not agree with the EU long-term management plan and the stock is therefore managed on an annual basis, despite the decreasing trend of its estimated biomass. More information will be sought at the site visit.

6.10.7.2 Northeast Arctic Saithe (UoA2)

According to the UNESCO, the Norwegian monitoring of the integrated management Marine Plans is limited to existing programs that are focused on measuring state-of-the environment (bio-physical), not on performance of the management plan13, although revisions are programmed every 10 years.

Regarding the fisheries stock management and impacts of fishing activities, there is also a large amount of real-time monitoring that informs distribution maps and research on the status of protected species and VMEs and ultimately improved protection.

In 2018, the Norwegian Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries completed a self-assessment of their performance as a Flag State, according to the FAO Voluntary Guidelines for Flag State Responsibility. The review describes all components of fisheries management, including annual licensing (permit

12 https://nationalperformance.gov.scot/national-outcomes 13 http://msp.ioc-unesco.org/world-applications/europe/norway/barents-sea/

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 196

delivery) and the MCS system with the Coast Guard and prosecuting authority pertinent to foreign vessels.

However, there appears to be no regular external review of the fisheries management effectiveness of the EU-Norway bilateral agreements at EU or Norwegian level.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 197

6.10.8 Principle 3 Performance Indicator scores and rationales

Scoring table 28. PI 3.1.1 – Legal and/or customary framework

PI 3.1.1 The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management

Guide There is an effective national legal system and a There is an effective national legal system and There is an effective national legal system framework for cooperation with other parties, organised and effective cooperation with other and binding procedures governing post where necessary, to deliver management parties, where necessary, to deliver cooperation with other parties which outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2 management outcomes consistent with MSC delivers management outcomes consistent Principles 1 and 2. with MSC Principles 1 and 2. Met? UoA1 and UoA3: Yes UoA1 and UoA3: Yes UoA1 and UoA3: Yes / No – Follow up at UoA2: Yes UoA2: Yes site visit. UoA2: Yes Rationale

UoA1 and UoA3: The NS saithe stock was managed by the EU and Norway, and will now be managed by the UK, Norway and the EU. All elements of the national systems will remain the same, and the bases for organised and effective cooperation have been laid out, through the UK-Norway Framework Agreement (for UoA1: (UK-Norway, 2020)), the TCA (TCA, 2020) and the trilateral arrangements (EU-Norway-UK, 2021), SG60 and SG80 are met. All these changes are already effective, and already deliver P1 and P2 outcomes consistent with P1 and P2 (see Principle 3 background section) and there is no reason to believe that the trilateral system will not be as organised and effective as the bilateral system has been, or maybe even more, on this basis, SG100 may be met. To be followed up during the site visit.

UoA2: The NEA saithe is managed by Norway, based on the 2008 Marine Resources Act, which has proved effective to deliver sustainable outcomes for both the target species (to remain at or above MSY see Principle 1 section) and the Barents Sea and Norwegian waters ecosystems (see Principle 2 section) where the fishery takes place. Access for the French vessels is agreed through annual consultation under the EU-Norway 1980 Fisheries Agreement (see (EU-Norway, 2021)), SG60 and SG80 are met. Norwegian national legislation provides for a wide range of international cooperation, including with Russia through the Joint Norwegian-Russian Commission on Environmental protection, with the EU through ICES, for scientific stock advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort (ICES, 2020p) and to underpin ecosystem

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 198

management (ICES, 2019m), and through Norway membership of the OSPAR and NEAFC. As a result, Norwegian legislation imposes specific reporting obligations, area and seasonal protection and move-on rules that are part of the licensing conditions for all vessels operating in Norwegian waters, SG100 is met.

b Resolution of disputes

Guide The management system incorporates or is subject The management system incorporates or is The management system incorporates or is by law to a mechanism for the resolution of legal subject by law to a transparent mechanism for subject by law to a transparent post disputes arising within the system. the resolution of legal disputes which is mechanism for the resolution of legal considered to be effective in dealing with disputes that is appropriate to the context most issues and that is appropriate to the of the fishery and has been tested and context of the UoA. proven to be effective. Met? UoA1 and UoA3: Yes UoA1 and UoA3: Yes UoA1 and UoA3: Yes / No – Follow up at UoA2: Yes UoA2: Yes site visit. UoA2: Yes Rationale

UoA1 and UoA3: Several mechanisms act proactively to avoid legal disputes that may arise within the EU management system. They are mostly based on stakeholder engagement in the management process through the Advisory Councils (ACs - North Sea, Northwest Waters and Long Distance for UoA2), but also through representation in international negotiations. Were disputes to arise, the French and EU systems have arbitration and appeal mechanisms starting from the local administrative level (for example within the PO regarding vessel quota), which usually do not mobilise the legal system, SG60 and SG80 are met. Regarding contested administrative or criminal matters, the French administrative and penal court systems have documented representation and appeal procedures, which have been tested, SG100 is met. The Scottish (UK) system, which prevails regarding fishing activities in Scottish waters, emphasises information, consultation and co-management, as opposed to confrontation leading to disputes. The present system is considered to be effective, SG60 and SG80 are met. Norway (UoA1) has a similar stakeholder consultation process to engage its fishing industry, and specific administrative and legal recourse mechanisms for foreign vessels controlled in Norwegian waters (see for UoA2 below). Overall evidence indicates that the EU-UK-Norwegian management system is acting proactively to avoid disputes and would rapidly implement any judicial decisions, SG60 and SG80 are met. More information will be sought at the site visit to determine if SG100 is met overall.

UoA2: The Norwegian management system has a system in place for non-Norwegian vessels (this fishery) to contest and resolve administrative and legal decisions regarding compliance with Norwegian regulations that may be deemed unfair. There may be disagreements in certain aspects of international agreements, such as regarding historical rights for French vessel around Svalbard, but this has not led to a legal dispute so far, SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. For potential disputes at EU and French levels, see rationale for UoA1 and UoA3.

c Respect for rights

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 199

Guide The management system has a mechanism to The management system has a mechanism to The management system has a mechanism generally respect the legal rights created explicitly or observe the legal rights created explicitly or to formally commit to the legal rights post established by custom of people dependent on established by custom of people dependent on created explicitly or established by custom fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent fishing for food or livelihood in a manner of people dependent on fishing for food with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. consistent with the objectives of MSC and livelihood in a manner consistent with Principles 1 and 2. the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. Met? UoA1 and UoA3: Yes UoA1 and UoA3: Yes UoA1 and UoA3: No UoA2: Yes UoA2: Yes UoA2: No Rationale

All UoAs: The French, EU, Norwegian and UK fisheries management systems have defined fishing rights in legal terms as a mix of fishing vessel registration, fishing licence (permit) and catch and/or effort production quota that recognise and are awarded on the basis of historical involvement. The saithe stocks are exploited offshore and there are no indigenous people with traditional rights, although all fishing companies and seafarers involved depend on these fishing rights for their livelihoods. So far, these rights have been consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2, SG60 and SG80 are met for all UoAs.

The quota rights are negotiated through international agreements, the TCA for access to Scottish waters (UoA1 and UoA3 - (EU-UK, 2020)), the trilateral agreement for UoA1 and UoA3 (EU-Norway-UK, 2021) and bilateral agreement for UoA2 (EU-Norway, 2021). Discussions with the most Northern of coastal states (here Scotland and Norway) are increasingly mentioning taking account of ‘zonal attachment’ especially for small pelagic species, which may also be relevant for the NS stock (UoA1 and UoA3), implying that the changing distribution of stocks from climate change should modify entitlements from historic rights. Therefore, at this time going forward, there does not appear to be a formal commitment to existing rights. SG100 is not met.

References

(EU-Norway, 2021; EU-Norway-UK, 2021; EU-UK, 2020; ICES, 2020p, 2019m)

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

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator More information sought: Information to be updated at the site visit Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 200

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Scoring table 29. PI 3.1.2 – Consultation, roles and responsibilities

PI 3.1.2 The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Roles and responsibilities

Guide Organisations and individuals involved in the Organisations and individuals involved in the Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. management process have been identified. management process have been identified. post Functions, roles and responsibilities are generally Functions, roles and responsibilities are Functions, roles and responsibilities are understood. explicitly defined and well understood for key explicitly defined and well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction. areas of responsibility and interaction. Met? UoA1 and UoA3: Yes UoA1 and UoA3: Yes UoA1 and UoA3: No UoA2: Yes UoA2: Yes UoA2: No Rationale

All UoAs:

France, EU, Norway, UK: All organisations and individuals in the management systems of the NS (UoA1 and UoA3) and NEA (UoA2) stocks are identified and remain the same as for the previous certification cycles. All key areas of responsibility are covered and clearly understood, including national and international contributions to scientific advice provision (through ICES), to a collaborative MCS system and the role of UK (Scotland) as joint fishery manager, which also prevailed when the vessels were in (the now) Scottish waters, SG60 and SG80 are met.

Some area of responsibility and interactions are not so clear going forward, regarding the content future bilateral (EU-Norway to be revised in 2021, UK-Norway) and trilateral arrangements between Scotland (UK), Norway and the EU. Until more details are known, SG100 is not met.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 201

b Consultation processes

Guide The management system includes consultation The management system includes consultation The management system includes processes that obtain relevant information from processes that regularly seek and accept consultation processes that regularly seek and post the main affected parties, including local relevant information, including local knowledge. accept relevant information, including local knowledge, to inform the management system. The management system demonstrates knowledge. The management system consideration of the information obtained. demonstrates consideration of the information and explains how it is used or not used. Met? UoA1 and UoA3: Yes UoA1 and UoA3: Yes / No UoA1 and UoA3: No UoA2: Yes UoA2: Yes UoA2: Yes Rationale

UoA1 and UoA3: Following ‘Brexit’, the UK (Scotland) is now joint manager for the NS saithe stock (UoA1 and UoA3) but can only participate in the Advisory Council as observers. It could provide information, SG60 would be met. However, participation will need to be based on new rules that are not yet in place. At this time (April 2021), more information is needed to assess what processes will be put in place for joint management arrangements between the EU (and France), Scotland (UK) and Norway to assert how SG80 would be met for UoA1 and UoA3. On the basis of available information at this time, SG80 is not met.

UoA2: Existing EU consultation processes, such as through ICES for scientific advice and through the North Sea (UoA1), Long Distance (UoA2) and NWW (UoA3) Advisory Councils to inform management decisions (see Table 31), ensured that information was regularly sought, obtained and its use (or not) was explained. On this basis, SG60, SG80 and SG100 were met for all UoAs in the past. Presently, this is only the case for UoA2, for which SG100 is met.

c Participation

Guide The consultation process provides opportunity The consultation process provides for all interested and affected parties to be opportunity and encouragement for all post involved. interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement. Met? UoA1 and UoA3: Yes / No UoA1 and UoA3: No UoA2: Yes / No UoA2: No Rationale

All UoAs: On the basis of existing consultation processes, at French and EU levels, stakeholders have ample and regular opportunities to be involved in the fishery’s management process. SG80 was met in the past. This year, Brexit negotiations resulted in important delays, which made it difficult for some EU and UK fleet to participate

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 202

in some Norwegian fisheries. The Trilateral (EU-Norway-UK, 2021) and Bilateral EU-Norway agreements were only recorded in March 2021, and to date (April 2021), the UK- Norway bilateral provisions of the agreement signed in November 2020 are still not agreed (UK-Norway, 2020). Going forward, more information is needed to assess what processes are being put in place for bilateral and trilateral arrangements between Scotland (UK), Norway and the EU to assert how exactly SG80 is met. On the basis of the information available, SG80 is not met. References

(EU-Norway-UK, 2021; Norway-EU, 2021; UK-Norway, 2020)

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

Draft scoring range 60-79 / ≥80

Information gap indicator More information sought: On the bilateral and trilateral arrangements between Scotland (UK), Norway and the EU, for all UoAs Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 203

Scoring table 30. PI 3.1.3 – Long term objectives

PI 3.1.3 The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making that are consistent with MSC Fisheries Standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Objectives

Guide Long-term objectives to guide decision-making, Clear long-term objectives that guide decision- Clear long-term objectives that guide consistent with the MSC Fisheries Standard and the making, consistent with MSC Fisheries decision-making, consistent with MSC post precautionary approach, are implicit within Standard and the precautionary approach are Fisheries Standard and the precautionary management policy. explicit within management policy. approach, are explicit within and required by management policy. Met? UoA1 and UoA3: Yes UoA1 and UoA3: Yes UoA1 and UoA3: Yes / No UoA2: Yes UoA2: Yes UoA2: Yes Rationale

UoA1 and UoA3: Clear long-term objectives are provided by the CFP (EU, 2013b). Long-term fisheries management objectives have also been integrated to the TCA Fishery chapter (see background section 6.10.1.3 (EU-UK, 2020)). In the TCA, which applies to all UK-EU shared stocks. The UK and the EU pledge to apply “the precautionary approach to fisheries management” and to “exploit shared stocks at rates intended to maintain and progressively restore populations of harvested species above biomass levels that can produce the maximum sustainable yield”. The trilateral agreement (EU-Norway-UK, 2021) agrees to work on long-term management strategies for jointly managed stocks. There is a precautionary management plan, which is not endorsed by Norway, but the Bpa and Fmsy are used. Therefore, regarding Principle 1, SG60 and SG80 are met. More information will be sought at the site visit to determine exactly what is required for these various not entirely coinciding requirements, until then SG100 is not met.

Regarding Principle 2, the situation is simpler to the extent that the EU MSFD has set objectives for EU waters that were translated into clear and specific long-term objectives set out in the UK Marine Strategy for marine birds, marine mammals and benthic habitats (Defra, 2019) and complemented by explicit commitments to “Protect environmental, economic and social outcomes by supporting a progressive move to Fmsy (fishing at MSY, i.e. at sustainable levels) for all stocks, without setting arbitrary targets and in mixed fisheries by the use of scientifically established Fmsy ranges; Reduce unnecessary discards as part of our Future Catching Policy to reduce waste and improve the sustainability of our fish stocks, protecting them for future generations and Monitor and reduce incidental bycatch (including mammals, birds and cetaceans in the Scottish Strategy (Scottish Government, 2020c), SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 204

UoA2: The Norwegian 2008 Marine Resources Act requires that Norwegian fisheries management be guided by the precautionary approach and by an ecosystem approach that takes into account habitats and biodiversity, SG60 and SG80 are met. In addition, an ecosystem approach is required, that takes account of habitats and biodiversity. SG100 is met.

References

(Defra, 2019; EU, 2013b; EU-Norway-UK, 2021; EU-UK, 2020; ICES, 2020p; Scottish Government, 2020c)

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

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator More information sought: More information will be sought at the site visit to determine exactly what is required for these various not entirely coinciding requirements Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 205

Scoring table 31. PI 3.2.1 – Fishery-specific objectives

PI 3.2.1 The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Objectives

Guide Objectives, which are broadly consistent with Short and long-term objectives, which are Well defined and measurable short and achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s consistent with achieving the outcomes long-term objectives, which are post Principles 1 and 2, are implicit within the fishery- expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are demonstrably consistent with achieving the specific management system. explicit within the fishery-specific management outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 system. and 2, are explicit within the fishery-specific management system. Met? UoA1 and UoA3: Yes UoA1 and UoA3: Yes UoA1 and UoA3: Partial UoA2: Yes UoA2: Yes UoA2: Partial Rationale

UoA1 and UoA3: For NS saithe, the EU precautionary management plan is not endorsed by Norway, and the ICES MSY approach is used instead. The agreement requires that the estimated SSB must be above the precautionary biomass level (Bpa) or the TAC be decreased when the fishing mortality is in excess of Fmsy, which was the case according to ICES scientific advice (TAC-25% for 2021 - (ICES, 2020a). Regarding Principle 2: there are specific short and long-term objectives for primary species, and the various measures included in the EC implementation regulation for the LO are aimed to reduce fishing mortality on juveniles and secondary fish species. There are also specific Scottish (UK) environmental objectives that apply to demersal fisheries, such as: “Reduce unnecessary discards, reduce incidental bycatch (including mammals, birds and cetaceans), and progress towards Good Environmental Status, for which indicators are clearly defined, explicit and reported upon annually (Scottish Government, 2020c). At all pertinent levels of management EU, UK, Norway, short- and long-term objectives are well defined and measurable for MSC Principle 1 indicators, but possibly not for all Principle 2 related aspects. Therefore, SG60, SG80 are met, SG100 is only partially met. UoA2: The stock is managed according to the Norwegian management plan (see Principle 1), which sets out well defined, measurable and explicit objectives resulting in HCRs that inform the annual TAC levels on a 3-year rolling basis (ICES, 2020p). Regarding MSC Principle 2 indicators, not all aspects have well defined short and long-term objectives, SG60, SG80 are met, SG100 is only partially met.

References

(ICES, 2020p, 2020a; Scottish Government, 2020c)

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 206

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

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Scoring table 32. PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes

PI 3.2.2 The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Decision-making processes

Guide There are some decision-making processes in place There are established decision-making that result in measures and strategies to achieve processes that result in measures and post the fishery-specific objectives. strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. Met? UoA1 and UoA3: Yes UoA1 and UoA3: Yes UoA2: Yes UoA2: Yes Rationale

UoA1 and UoA3: EU decision-making processes have not changed since the previous certification, apart from a more systematic law-making role of the European Parliament, with the EU Commission and the EU Council of Fisheries ministers. The regular decision-making calendar has been delayed in 2020- by trade negotiations linked to the UK ‘Brexit’ that resulted in the EU-UK TCA in late December 2020 (TCA, 2020). Decision-making processes described in the CFP Regulation (EU, 2013b) result in annual TAC and

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 207

sharing decisions for shared stocks and annual LO implementing regulation, for example (see Table 12). All member states and coastal states (including UK-Scotland) involved in the management of the shared stock have published strategies for marine fisheries and marine environmental protection, the latest by the UK and Scotland (see section 6.10.1), SG60 and SG80 are met.

UoA2: Decision-making processes at national level in Norway have remained the same and according to the 2008 Marine Resources Act. They have developed fisheries management and Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) strategies that frame fisheries management in the Norwegian Sea and in the Barents Sea Strategies (UoA2) and in the Norwegian North Sea (UoA1 and UoA3). The EU–Norway agreement demonstrates that decision-making processes are in place, e.g., on TAC and TAC sharing bases, that result in measures and strategies that aim to achieve fishery-specific objectives. SG60 and SG80 are met.

b Responsiveness of decision-making processes

Guide Decision-making processes respond to serious Decision-making processes respond to serious Decision-making processes respond to all issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, and other important issues identified in issues identified in relevant research, post evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a timely and adaptive manner and take some consultation, in a transparent, timely and transparent, timely and adaptive manner account of the wider implications of decisions. adaptive manner and take account of the wider and take account of the wider implications of implications of decisions. decisions. Met? UoA1 and UoA3: Yes UoA1 and UoA3: Yes / No UoA1 and UoA3: No UoA2: Yes UoA2: Yes UoA2: No Rationale

UoA1 and UoA3: Until 2020, decision-making processes for the NS saithe were negotiated between the EU and Norway as joint stock managers and have responded to serious issues in the past, in particular through various stock management planning efforts, and through increased coordinated EU MCS activities by EFCA as well as industry’s effort to increase selectivity and modelling effort to estimate the impact of the LO, which would seem to be relatively minor (reduced from 8% to 4.4% of the catch between 2018 and 2019 (see Table 33 and Table 34), SG60 is met. However, the NS saithe stock biomass has been generally decreasing since 1987 (see Principle 1 section) explained by low recruitment and a fishing mortality F estimated to exceed Fmsy in recent years by the latest stock assessment (ICES, 2020a). As the SSB is decreasing still, there doesn’t appear to be specific decision-making processes invoked to address this important issue. More information will be sought at the site visit to determine whether SG80 is met, especially through the new tripartite agreement (EU-Norway-UK, 2021).

UoA2: The Norwegian fisheries management system, which has integrated commercial fisheries exploitation with regional marine plans to protect the seabed and benthic habitats and vulnerable ecosystem features for some years has demonstrated that serious and important issues linked to the impacts of fishing activities may be addresses systematically. Issues such as selectivity, discards, gear loss, interactions with protected species, catches of VMEs, electronic logbooks etc have been addressed and regulations issued and enforced, SG60 and SG80 are met. It is difficult to ascertain that the Norwegian decision-making processes respond to all issues, in particular with regards to foreign vessels access, SG100 is not met.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 208

c Use of precautionary approach

Guide Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best post available information. Met? UoA1 and UoA3: Yes UoA2: Yes Rationale

All UoAs: All decision-making levels involved in the NS saithe (EU-Norway-EU, UoA1 and UoA3) and NEA Saithe (Norway–UK, UoA2) make explicit reference to the precautionary approach in both scientific advice and management measures. An explicit commitment to collaborate in order to collect and share the best available information is indicated in all bilateral (EU-Norway, 2021; EU-UK, 2020) and trilateral (EU-Norway-UK, 2021) agreements. SG80 is met.

d Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process

Guide Some information on the fishery’s performance Information on the fishery’s performance and Formal reporting to all interested stakeholders and management action is generally available on management action is available on request, provides comprehensive information on the post request to stakeholders. and explanations are provided for any actions fishery’s performance and management or lack of action associated with findings and actions and describes how the management relevant recommendations emerging from system responded to findings and relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and review recommendations emerging from research, activity. monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Met? UoA1 and UoA3: Yes UoA1 and UoA3: Yes UoA1 and UoA3: Yes / No UoA2: Yes UoA2: Yes UoA2: No Rationale

UoA1 and UoA3: ICES analyses the fishery’s performance and EU-Norway agreed measures annually. Scientist from France, Scotland (UK) and Norway participate in ICES working groups, the reports are publicly available (see (ICES, 2020a, 2019h). Scotland (UK) has a transparent system of fisheries co-management, which will be incorporated into the new trilateral management system. The Scottish Government, Scottish Parliament and Marine Scotland (the government department in charge marine environment protection and sea fisheries management) are already reporting in a transparent way all key EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive transposed into the UK Marine Strategy Regulations 2010 (Scottish Government, 2020b). Performance is measured through the delivery of national indicators, including ‘to improve the state of Scotland’s Marine Environment’ (Scottish Government, 2020d). The same applies for the Norwegian North Sea Marine Plan monitoring system, SG60 and SG80 are met. The Scottish Government Marine and fisheries website provides a comprehensive amount of information on the fishery’s performance, SG100 is met. More information will be sourced

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 209

from the management authority at the site visit, to assess how previous EU reporting arrangements through the Regional Advisory Councils and the EFCA, for example, will be replaced for SG100 to be met. UoA2: ICES analyses the fishery’s performance in terms of stock biomass, catches and discards and scientific advice. The Norwegian management decisions and actions are episodically in scientific reports and journal publications. Stakeholders exchange information, contribute and comment on EU decisions that lead to negotiated agreements for access and fishing opportunities for NEA saithe annually, SG60 and SG80 are met. There is monitoring of the fisheries and ecosystem management for the Barents Sea, Norwegian Sea and Norwegian North Sea marine planning indicators, but there doesn’t seem to be a regular analysis of the fishery’s performance. SG100 is not met.

e Approach to disputes

Guide Although the management authority or fishery The management system or fishery is The management system or fishery acts may be subject to continuing court challenges, it is attempting to comply in a timely fashion with proactively to avoid legal disputes or rapidly post not indicating a disrespect or defiance of the law by judicial decisions arising from any legal implements judicial decisions arising from repeatedly violating the same law or regulation challenges. legal challenges. necessary for the sustainability for the fishery. Met? UoA1 and UoA3: Yes UoA1 and UoA3: Yes UoA1 and UoA3: Yes UoA2: Yes UoA2: Yes UoA2: Yes Rationale

UoA1 and UoA3: All jurisdictional levels involved in the fishery (see Table 31) have long-standing instances of co-management, debate and mediation. In France, any dispute regarding attribution of licences and quota management for vessels operating offshore may be taken up with the government (DPMA) and EU instances starting locally with through their Producer organisation (FROM Nord) membership, through the fishermen’s Comité National (CNPMEM), the vessel owners' federation (UAPF) and to the EU Commission through the Advisory Councils (LDAC and NWWAC). There are no long standing or repeated court challenges and the fishing industry has worked closely with the authorities to find solution to the most recent compliance challenges brought up by the LO, SG60 is met. Challenges could arise at French level, but they would be sorted out through mediation or through the administrative courts and matters settled promptly, SG80 is met. In effect, the mechanisms is place act to avoid legal disputes, SG100 is also met.

UoA2: The Norwegian fisheries authorities have long-standing stakeholder participation processes in place for their own fishing fleet. By informing stakeholders at an early stage and by taken their opinions into account, legal disputes are proactively avoided. For instance, the government discussed changes in closed areas in Norway’s coastal waters with fishermen and environmental NGOs. The activities of foreign fishing vessels are closely monitored as soon as they enter Norwegian waters, and any new fisheries measures are communicated immediately. The team concludes that the management system or fishery is attempting to comply in a timely fashion with judicial decisions arising from any legal challenges and by that both SG60 and SG80 are met. By consulting with stakeholders before regulations are implemented the management system or fishery acts proactively to avoid legal disputes or rapidly implements judicial decisions arising from legal challenges. Therefore, SG100 is also met.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 210

References

(EU, 2013a; EU-Norway, 2021, 2019a; EU-Norway-UK, 2021; EU-UK, 2020; ICES, 2020a, 2019h; Scottish Government, 2020d, 2020b)

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

Draft scoring range 60-79 / ≥80

Information gap indicator More information sought: Regarding decision-making processes to address the continuing decreasing in Stock Biomass for the NS saithe (UoA1 and UoA3) To determine whether SG80 is met, especially through the new tripartite agreement (EU-Norway-UK, 2021).

From the management authority at the site visit, to assess how previous EU reporting arrangements through the Regional Advisory Councils and the EFCA, Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 211

Scoring table 33. PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement

PI 3.2.3 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a MCS implementation

Guide Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms A monitoring, control and surveillance system has A comprehensive monitoring, control post exist, and are implemented in the fishery and there been implemented in the fishery and has and surveillance system has been is a reasonable expectation that they are effective. demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant implemented in the fishery and has management measures, strategies and/or rules. demonstrated a consistent ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. Met? UoA1 and UoA3: Yes UoA1 and UoA3: Yes / No UoA1 and UoA3: No UoA2: Yes UoA2: Yes UoA2: Yes Rationale

UoA1 and UoA3: There is a comprehensive monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) system at Scottish (Marine Scotland Compliance and UK FMC), Norwegian (Coast Guard) and EU (European Fisheries Control Agency - EFCA) levels for demersal fisheries, with fully functional exchange of information between coastal states, port states and flag states. The agencies operate through joint deployment plans (EFCA) and use risk-based frameworks to identify where enforcement resources can be best deployed to optimize control, including for jointly managed demersal stocks in the North Sea and West of Scotland (EFCA, 2020). Monitoring, control and surveillance systems exist, they are implemented in the fishery and there is a reasonable expectation that they are effective, SG60 is met. However, the EU MCS system clearly identifies overall high and very high risks linked to the LO ((EFCA, 2020): 115). Generally, for demersal fisheries, it seems that the present combined control density in Scottish, Norwegian and EU waters may not be dissuasive enough to conclude that the system has demonstrated an ability to enforce LO-specific management measures, strategies and rules. For demersal fisheries as a whole, SG80 is not met and a harmonised condition has been set. However, saithe fisheries may be an exception to the general rule, showing generally low and decreasing % of discards (see (ICES, 2020a) from the vessels' efforts in gear modification and also due to the seasonality of the fishery and mono-specific shoaling habits of saithe. Up-to-date information will be sourced from the MCS authorities and stakeholders at the site visit.

UoA2: Norway has an MCS system in place, relying on real-time monitoring of foreign vessels at sea through their Fisheries Monitoring Centre (FMC) and inspections both at sea and in port. The Coast Guards conduct inspections at sea, in cooperation with the Directorate of Fisheries, and the Directorate and the sales organizations conduct inspections in ports and through the value chain. The three agencies cooperate closely and establish annual National Strategic Risk Management Plan (NSRV) to prioritise areas for monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS). In addition, there are close communications between the Norwegian FMC, the NEAFC, the EFCA and the French FMC, SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 212

b Sanctions

Guide Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are Sanctions to deal with non-compliance post there is some evidence that they are applied. consistently applied and thought to provide exist, are consistently applied and effective deterrence. demonstrably provide effective deterrence. Met? UoA1 and UoA3: Yes UoA1 and UoA3: Yes UoA1 and UoA3: Yes / No UoA2: Yes UoA2: Yes UoA2: Yes Rationale

UoA1 and UoA3: All control systems possibly involved in the fishery (Scotland, Norway, EU, France) use a graduated sanctioning system, with sanctions ranging from verbal warnings, written warnings and administrative fines to criminal prosecution. The EU Control Regulation requires member States to ensure that appropriate measures are systematically taken when violations of fishing regulations are detected, including administrative action or criminal proceedings, in order to provide effective deterrence (Art. 89). Sanctions are thought to be consistently applied, SG60 and SG80 are met. It is not clear is the Scottish Control system will operate in a similar manner as the Norwegian system for foreign vessels and therefore too early to determine if the system meets SG100 overall. Up-to-date information will be sourced from the management authority and stakeholders at the site visit.

UoA2: The Norwegian Coast Guard systematically bring a vessel into port when there is suspicions of a serious infringement, which comes at a high cost and has had a demonstrably strong deterrent effect on foreign vessels operating offshore. If a fine issued by the enforcement or prosecution authority is contested, the case automatically goes to court, where the fine may be increased. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met.

c Compliance

Guide Fishers are generally thought to comply with the Some evidence exists to demonstrate fishers There is a high degree of confidence post management system for the fishery under comply with the management system under that fishers comply with the assessment, including, when required, providing assessment, including, when required, providing management system under information of importance to the effective information of importance to the effective assessment, including, providing management of the fishery. management of the fishery. information of importance to the effective management of the fishery. Met? UoA1 and UoA3: Yes UoA1 and UoA3: Yes / No UoA1 and UoA3: No UoA2: Yes UoA2: Yes UoA2: Yes Rationale

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 213

UoA1 and UoA3: The vessels in the fishery have been participating in MSC certified fisheries for two certification cycles (10 years) and their compliance records checked with the MCS competent authorities on an annual basis. On the basis of the information provided by the French competent authority (FMC through DIRM, see Table 31) and copies of the inspection reports consulted in the past, SG60 and SG80 would be met.

However, the European management system has for several years identified demersal fisheries as the “EU’s fisheries with the highest risk of non-compliance” generally, and especially with regards to the LO. This was again the case in 2019 albeit with a much higher risk in the North Sea (ICES Area 4) than in Western Waters (ICES Division VIb) (EFCA, 2020). Therefore, until the most recent evidence is checked, only SG60 is met. Up-to-date information will be sourced from the management authority and stakeholders at the site visit.

UoA2: The vessels in the fishery have been participating in MSC certified fisheries for two certification cycles (10 years) and their compliance records checked with the MCS competent authorities on an annual basis. On the basis of the information provided by the French competent authority (FMC through DIRM, see Table 31) and copies of the inspection reports consulted in the past, there is a high degree of confidence that the vessels comply with the management system. SG60, SG80, SG100 are met.

d Systematic non-compliance

Guide There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance. post Met? UoA1 and UoA3: Yes / No UoA2: Yes Rationale

UoA1 and UoA3: The MSC standard intent behind the phrase ‘no evidence of systematic non-compliance’ is that there is simultaneously adequate evidence to assess the compliance of the fishery and no evidence of infringements that occur regularly (MSC interpretations log).

According to the French MCS competent authority reports and recent inspection reports communicated by the fishery, there is no evidence of systematic non-compliance in the fishery. However, the EFCA still identifies a very high risk of widespread systemic non-compliance with the LO in the North Sea. Up-to-date information will be sourced from the management authority and stakeholders at the site visit to determine whether SG80 is met for this scoring issue. Until such information is gathered and reviewed by the team SG80 is not met.

UoA2: There has been no evidence of systematic non-compliance by foreign vessels licensed to operate in Norwegian and Norwegian managed SFPZ waters in many years, SG80 is met.

References

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 214

(EFCA, 2020; ICES, 2020a)

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

Draft scoring range 60-79 / ≥80

Information gap indicator More information sought: From the fishery’s managers, MCS competent authorities and stakeholders to ascertain compliance with the LO for UoA1 and UoA3 Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 215

Scoring table 34. PI 3.2.4 – Monitoring and management performance evaluation

PI 3.2.4 There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Evaluation coverage

Guide There are mechanisms in place to evaluate There are mechanisms in place to evaluate key There are mechanisms in place to evaluate all post some parts of the fishery-specific management parts of the fishery-specific management system. parts of the fishery-specific management system. system. Met? UoA1 and UoA3: Yes UoA1 and UoA3: Yes / No UoA1 and UoA3: No UoA2: Yes UoA2: Yes UoA2: Yes Rationale

All UoAs: As joint manager, the EU institutions (ICES, EFCA, STECF (occasionally)) report at annually to the European lawmakers (EU Commission, EU Parliament and Council of Ministers) on the monitoring of policy and regulatory implementation and on the status of fisheries and their management. There is regular scrutiny within the EU Commission, SG 60 is met. Key parts are reviewed internally and externally, such as the ICES Advice and fisheries management plans by peers or EFCA annual reports by the EU Parliamentary Committee on Fisheries. Stakeholders also issue independent reviews (e.g., (Pew et al., 2021)). All key parts are evaluated regularly, SG80 is met. However, the EU does not seem to have a mechanism to evaluate it bilateral Agreement with Norway, SG100 is not met.

Until 2020, the Scottish management system has been reviewed through the annual reports from UK to the EU Commission, on fishing capacity, on the LO and other and management and compliance issues that may have been identified in collaboration with ICES or the EFCA. There is already Scottish parliamentary scrutiny, but from 2021, the nature and frequency of evaluation and scrutiny will change. The Scottish Fisheries Management Strategy pledges to publish a monitoring and evaluation framework (Scottish Government, 2020c). SG60 is met. Given the recent changes, and publicly available information, which does not detail evaluation mechanisms, SG80 is provisionally not met at Scottish level. More information will be sourced from the Scottish management authority and stakeholders at the site visit.

Norwegian Parliament (Storting) and government departments provide scrutiny mechanisms that review key parts of the fisheries management system, SG60 and SG80 are met. Norwegian Marine Plans (3 for this fishery) are monitored, and reports regularly diagnostic reports and all parts of the marine ecosystem, SG100 is met.

b Internal and/or external review

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 216

Guide The fishery-specific management system is The fishery-specific management system is The fishery-specific management system is post subject to occasional internal review. subject to regular internal and occasional subject to regular internal and external external review. review. Met? UoA1 and UoA3: Yes UoA1 and UoA3: Yes UoA1 and UoA3: No UoA2: Yes UoA2: Yes UoA2: No Rationale

All UoAs: Guidance for the MSC standard audits take ‘external’ in the context of this performance indicator to include other department within an agency, or other executive branches of government than the one responsible for the aspect of fisheries management (MSC, 2018: GSA4.10.1). All institutions have their internal and external (to the service in question) review mechanisms. In addition, there are regular stakeholder consultations, prior to new regulations being issued, such as through the Advisory Committees for the EU, SG60 and SG80 are met.

There are no regular external review of the EU-Norway bilateral agreements at Norwegian level. The same applies to the EU level, which has no external evaluation system in place for its Northern agreements (including those with Norway), SG100 is not met.

References

MSC, 2018

(Pew et al., 2021; Scottish Government, 2020c)

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

Draft scoring range 60-79 / ≥80

Information gap indicator More information sought: From the fishery’s managers to ascertain the Scottish monitoring and evaluation mechanisms for UoA1 and UoA3 Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 217

7 References

Alheit, J., Mollmann, C., Dutz, J., Kornilovs, G., Loewe, P., 2005a. Synchronous ecological regime shifts in the central Baltic and the North Sea in the late 1980s. Ices Journal of Marine Science 62: 1205– 1215.

Anisimova, N.A., Jorgensen, L.L., Lyubin, P.A., Manushin, I.E., 2010. Mapping and monitoring of benthos in the Barents Sea and Svalbard waters: Results from the joint Russian -Norwegian benthic programme 2006-2008. IMR-PINRO Joint Report Series 1-2010. ISSN1502-8828. 114 pp.

Beaugrand, G., 2004. The North Sea regime shift: evidence, causes, mechanisms and consequences. Progress in Oceanography 60: 245–262.

Beaugrand, Gregory, Ibanez, F., 2004. Monitoring marine plankton ecosystems. II: Long-term changes in North Sea calanoid copepods in relation to hydro-climatic variability. Marine Ecology Progress Series.

Berg, C., Nielsen, A., 2016. Accounting for correlated observations in an age-based state-space stock assessment model. . ICES Journal of Marine Science, 73(7), pp.1788-1797.

Clegg, T., Williams, 2020. Monitoring bycatches in Norwegian fisheries. Rapport fra havforskningen 2020-8. https://www.hi.no/en/hi/nettrapporter/rapport-fra-havforskningen-en-2020-8.

Collie, J.S., Hall, S.J., Kaiser, M.J., Poiner, I.R., 2000. A quantitative analysis of fishing impacts on shelfsea benthos. Journal of Animal Ecology.

Cook, R.M., Heath, M.R., 2005. The implications of warming climate for the management of North Sea demersal fisheries. . ICES Journal of Marine Science, 62(7), pp.1322-1326.

Defra, 2019. Marine Strategy Part One: UK updated assessment and Good Environmental Status, October 2019. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_dat a/file/921262/marine-strategy-part1-october19.pdf .

Dolan, M.F.J., Jorgensen, L.L., Lien, V.S., Ljubin, P., Lepland, A., 2015. Biotopes of the Barents Sea. Scale 1:3 000 000. Geological Survey of Norway (Trondheim), Institute of the Marine Research (Bergen) and Polar Research Institute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanography (Murmansk).

EC, 1998. Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms.

EC-DG MARE, 2021. Letter from the European Commission DG MARE to the chairs of the Advisory Councils.https://www.nwwac.org/_fileupload/Correspondence/Year%2016/Letter%20CV%20B rexit_Inter-AC%2008_03_2021.pdf .

EFCA, 2020. A year in review and Annual report for the year 2019, 192p. https://www.efca.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EFCA%20AYIR_DEF_Digital.pdf and https://www.efca.europa.eu/en/content/annual-report-2019 .

Eggett, A., 2018. MRV Scotia 15-12S Cruise Report: Survey of Wyville Thomson Ridge cSAC-SCI and Faroe-Shetland Sponge Belt Proposed NCMPA, Peterborough: JNCC. Available at:

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 218

http://data.jncc.gov.uk/data/88e6fcdf-5885-4e49-b50f-e643c9eb1dad/JNCC-Report-610- FINAL-WEB.pdf.

EU, 2021a. COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) 2021/92 of 28 January 2021 fixing for 2021 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters.

EU, 2019a. Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on the conservation of fisheries resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No 1224/2009 and Regulations (EU) No 1380/2013, (EU) 2016/1139, (EU) 2018/973, (EU) 2019/472 and (EU) 2019/1022 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 894/97, (EC) No 850/98, (EC) No 2549/2000.

EU, 2019b. Regulation (EU) 2019/472 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 establishing a multiannual plan for stocks fished in the Western Waters and adjacent waters, and for fisheries exploiting those stocks, amending Regulations (EU) 2016/1139 and (EU) 2018/973, and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007 and (EC) No 1300/2008.

EU, 2019c. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/2239 of 1 October 2019 specifying details of the landing obligation for certain demersal fisheries in North-Western waters for the period 2020-2021.

EU, 2019d. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/2238 of 1 October 2019 specifying details of implementation of the landing obligation for certain demersal fisheries in the North Sea for the period 2020-2021.

EU, 2018a. Regulation (EU) 2018/973 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2018 establishing a multiannual plan for demersal stocks in the North Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks, specifying details of the implementation of the landing obligation in the North Sea and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 676/2007 and (EC) No 1342/2008. Official Journal of the European Union, L. 179. 13 pp. http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/973/oj.

EU, 2013a. Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?qid=1547133726973&uri=CELEX:32013R1380.

EU, 2013b. Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC.

EU, 2013c. Regulation (EU) No 605/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1185/2003 on the removal of fins of sharks on board vessels.

EU, 2009. DIRECTIVE 2009/147/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 219

EU, 1992. COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206 22.7.1992, p. 7).

EU-Norway, 2021. Agreed Record of Fisheries Consultations between the European Union and Norway for 2021, signed 16 March 2021.

EU-Norway, 2019a. Agreed Record of Fisheries Consultations between Norway and the European Union for 2020. Brussel, 13 December 2019. https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/sites/fisheries/files/docs/body/2020-norway-fisheries- consultations-north-sea_en.pdf .

EU-Norway, 2019b. Agreed Record of Fisheries Consultations between Norway and the European Union for 2020. Brussel, 13 December 2019.

EU-Norway, 2017. Agreed Record of Fisheries Consultations between Norway and the European Union for 2017. Bergen, 2 December 2016. https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/sites/fisheries/files/docs/pages/2017-agreed-record-eu- norway-north-sea-12-2016.pdf .

EU-Norway-UK, 2021. Agreed Record of Fisheries Consultations between the European Union, Norway and the United Kingdom for 2021, signed 16 March 2021. .

EU-UK, 2020. Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part. Official Journal of the European Union, 31 December 2020.https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:22020A1231(01)&from=EN .

France, 2017. National Strategy for the Sea and Coast, Ministry for an Ecological and Solidary Transition, Decree 2017-222 of February 23rd, 2017. https://www.mer.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2020-11/17094_National-Strategy-for-the- Sea-and-Coastal_EN_fev2017.pdf.

FR_Senat, 2011. Proposition de règlement du Parlement européen et du Conseil modifiant le règlement (CE) n° 1185/2003 du Conseil relatif à l’enlèvement des nageoires de requin à bord des navires COM (2011) 798 final du 21/11/2011. Examen dans le cadre de l’article 88-4 de la Constitution. Texte déposé au Sénat le 01/12/2011 Examen : 20/01/2012 (commission des affaires européennes), https://www.senat.fr/ue/pac/E6865.html.

Gonzalez-Mirelis, G., Buhl-Mortensen, P., 2015. Modelling benthic habitats and biotopes off the coast of Norway to support spatial management. Ecological Informatics.

Greathead, C.F., Donnan, D.W., Mair, J.M., Saunders, G.R., 2007. The sea pens Virgularia mirabilis, Pennatula phosphorea and Funiculina quadrangularis: distribution and conservation issues in Scottish waters. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the UK 87, 1095–1103.

Hammer, M., Hoel, A.H., 2012. Scientific Cooperation under the Norway–Russia Fisheries Regime in the Barents Sea Arctic Review on Law and Politics, vol. 3, 2/2012 pp. 244–274. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/228446842.pdf .

Heip, C., Huys, R., Alkemade, R., 1992. Community structure and functional roles of meiofauna in the North Sea. Netherlands Journal of Aquatic Ecology. 26. 31-41. 10.1007/BF02298026.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 220

Henry, L.A., Roberts, J.M., 2014a. Applying the OSPAR habitat definition of deep-sea sponge aggregations to verify suspected records of the habitat in UK waters, Peterborough: JNCC. Available at: http://data.jncc.gov.uk/data/788783fe-0c27-4faf-9fc3-6b1b1ad3bf78/JNCC- Report-508-FINAL-WEB.pdf.

Henry, L.A., Roberts, J.M., 2014b. Developing an interim technical definition for Coral Gardens specific for UK waters and its subsequent application to verify suspected records, Peterborough: JNCC. Available at: http://data.jncc.gov.uk/data/72060f25-76ff-454a-b980-4afc8de4c490/JNCC- Report-507-FINAL-WEB.pdf.

Hiddink, J.G., Jennings, S., Sciberrasa, M., Szosteka, C.L., Hughes, K.M., Ellis, N., Rijnsdorp, A.D., McConnaughey, R.A., Mazord, T., Hilborn, R., Collie, J.S., Pitcher, C.R., Amoroso, R.O., Parma, A.M., Suuronen, P., Kaiser, M.J., 2017. Global analysis of depletion and recovery of seabed biota after bottom trawling disturbance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

ICCAT_SCRS, 2019. REPORT OF THE 2019 SHORTFIN MAKO SHARK STOCK ASSESSMENT UPDATE MEETING (Madrid, Spain 20-24 May 2019).

ICCAT-SCRS, 2015. REPORT OF THE 2015 ICCAT BLUE SHARK STOCK ASSESSMENT SESSION (Oceanário de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal - July 27 to 31, 2015).

ICES, 2020a. Saithe (Pollachius virens) in subareas 4 and 6, and in Division 3.a (North Sea, Rockall and West of Scotland, Skagerrak and Kattegat). ICES Stock Annex.

ICES, 2020b. Saithe (Pollachius virens) in subareas 4 and 6, and in Division 3.a (North Sea, Rockall and West of Scotland, Skagerrak and Kattegat). ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort. Celtic Seas, Faroes, and Greater North Sea ecoregions. Published 30 June 2020. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5830.

ICES, 2020c. Saithe (Pollachius virens) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort. Arctic Ocean, Barents Sea, and Norwegian Sea ecoregions. Published 16 June 2020.

ICES, 2020d. Cod (Gadus morhua) in Subarea 4, Division 7.d, and Subdivision 20 (North Sea, eastern English Channel, Skagerrak). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2020. ICES Advice 2020, cod.27.47d20. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5891.

ICES, 2020e. Cod (Gadus morhua) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2020. ICES Advice 2020, cod.27.1-2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5909.

ICES, 2020f. Anglerfish (Lophius budegassa, Lophius piscatorius) in subareas 4 and 6, and in Division 3.a (North Sea, Rockall and West of Scotland, Skagerrak and Kattegat). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2020. ICES Advice 2020, anf.27.3a46. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5926.

ICES, 2020g. Black scabbardfish (Aphanopus carbo) in subareas 1, 2, 4–8, 10, and 14, and divisions 3.a, 9.a, and 12.b (Northeast Atlantic and Arctic Ocean). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2020. ICES Advice 2020, bsf.27.nea, https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5816.

ICES, 2020h. Celtic Seas Ecosystem – Fisheries Overview. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2020. ICES Advice 2020, section 7.2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.7606.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 221

ICES, 2020i. Hake (Merluccius merluccius) in subareas 4, 6, and 7, and divisions 3.a, 8.a–b, and8.d, Northern stock (Greater North Sea, Celtic Seas, and the northern Bay of Biscay). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2020. ICES Advice 2020, hke.27.3a46-8abd. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5945.

ICES, 2020j. Blue ling (Molva dypterygia) in subareas 6–7 and Division 5.b (Celtic Seas and Faroes grounds). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2020. ICES Advice 2020, bli.27.5b67. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5819.

ICES, 2020k. Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). InReport of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2020. ICES Advice 2020, had.27.1- 2.https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5948.

ICES, 2020l. Common skate complex (blue skate [Dipturus batis] and flapper skate [Dipturus intermedius]) in Subarea 6 and divisions 7.a–c and 7.e–k (Celtic Seas and western English Channel). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2020. ICES Advice 2020, rjb.27.67a-ce-k. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5784.

ICES, 2020m. Spurdog (Squalus acanthias) in subareas 1–10, 12, and 14 (the Northeast Atlantic and adjacent waters). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2020. ICES Advice 2020, dgs.27.nea.https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5820.

ICES, 2020n. Working Group on Fisheries Benthic Impact and Trade-offs (WGFBIT; outputs from 2019 meeting). ICES Scientific Reports. 2:6. 101 pp. http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.5955.

ICES, 2020o. Saithe (Pollachius virens) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2020. ICES Advice 2020, pok.27.1-2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5831.

ICES, 2020p. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Arctic Ocean, Barents Sea, and Norwegian Sea ecoregions. Published 16 June 2020. https://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2020/2020/pok.27.1-2.pdf .

ICES, 2019a. Saithe (Pollachius virens) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort. Arctic Ocean, Barents Sea, and Norwegian Sea ecoregions. Published 13 June 2019. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.4714 .

ICES, 2019b. Ling (Molva molva) in Subareas 6-9, 12, and 14, and Divisions 3.a and 4.a (Northeast Atlantic and Arctic Ocean). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2019. ICES Advice 2019, lin.27.3a4a6-91214, https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.4815.

ICES, 2019c. Barents Sea Ecoregion – Ecosystem overview. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2019. ICES Advice 2019, Section 5.1, https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5747.

ICES, 2019d. Norwegian Sea Ecoregion – Ecosystem overview. In Report of the ICES AdvisoryCommittee, 2019. ICES Advice 2019, Section 12.1, https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5748.

ICES, 2019e. Celtic Seas Ecoregion – Ecosystem overview. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee,2019. ICES Advice 2019, Section 7.1, https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5749.

ICES, 2019f. Greater North Sea Ecoregion – Ecosystem overview. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2019. ICES Advice 2019, Section 9.1, https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5750.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 222

ICES, 2019g. Cod (Gadus morhua) in Subarea 4, Division 7.d, and Subdivision 20 (North Sea, eastern English Channel, Skagerrak). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2019. ICES Advice 2019, cod.27.47d20, https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5640.

ICES, 2019h. EU and Norway request concerning the long-term management strategy of cod, saithe, and whiting, and of North Sea autumn-spawning herring. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2019. ICES Advice 2019, sr.2019.06, https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.4895.

ICES, 2019j. Common skate complex (Blue skate (Dipturus batis) and flapper skate (Dipturus intermedius) in Subarea 4 and Division 3.a (North Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2019. ICES Advice 2019, rjb.27.3a4, https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.4835.

ICES, 2019k. Starry ray (Amblyraja radiata) in subareas 2 and 4, and Division 3.a (Norwegian Sea, North Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2019. ICES Advice 2019, rjr.27.23a4, https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.4841.

ICES, 2019l. Basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) in subareas 1–10, 12, and 14 (Northeast Atlantic and adjacent waters). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2019. ICES Advice 2019, bsk.27.nea,https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.4827.

ICES, 2019m. Workshop on ecological valuing of areas of the Barents Sea (WKBAR), https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.5444.

ICES, 2018a. Saithe (Pollachius virens) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). ICES Stock Annex. .

ICES, 2018b. Greater North Sea Ecoregion – Ecosystem overview. Published 14 December 2018: https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.4670.

ICES, 2018c. Advice basis. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2018. ICES Advice 2018, Book 1, Section 1.2.https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.4503.

ICES, 2016a. Norway/Russia request for evaluation of harvest control rules for Northeast Arctic cod and haddock and for Barents Sea capelin. ICES Special Request Advice - Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea Ecoregions.

ICES, 2016b. Greater North Sea Ecoregion - Ecosystem overview.

ICES, 2015. Second Interim Report of the Working Group on Integrated Assessments of the Barents Sea (WGIBAR). 1-4 June 2015, Kirkenes, Norway.

ICES, 2014. Report of the Inter-Benchmark Protocol on Northeast Arctic Saithe in Subareas I and II (IBP NEA saithe), March/April 2014, by correspondence. ICES CM 2014/ACOM:53. 94 pp.

ICES, 2011. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), 28 April–4 May 2011, Hamburg, Germany. ICES CM 2011/ACOM:05. 659 pp.

ICES_AFWG, 2020. Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG). ICES Scientific Reports. 2:52. 577 pp. http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.6050.

ICES_WGEF, 2020. Working Group on Elasmobranch Fishes (WGEF). ICES Scientific Reports. 2:77. 789 pp. http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.7470.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 223

ICES_WGIBAR, 2020. Working Group on the Integrated Assessments of the Barents Sea (WGIBAR). ICES Scientific Reports. 2:30. 206 pp. http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.5998.

IMR, 2011. Evaluation of the Norwegian Reference Fleet. A Report to the Institute of MarineResearch by an International Committee. 15 August 2011 (Final Report).

JNCC, 2014. Central Fladen MPA - Assessment Against the MPA Selection Guidelines v5.0 July 2014.

Jones, H., Cook, R., Gascoigne, J., Honneland, G., 2018. MSC Public Certification Report for the SFSAG North Sea haddock expedited assessment on behalf of the Scottish Fisheries Sustainable Accreditation Group (SFSAG).

Kaiser, M.J., Clarke, K.R., Hinz, H., Austen, M.C.V., Somerfield, P.J., Karakassis, I., 2006. Global analysis of response and recovery of benthic biota to fishing. Marine Ecology Progress Series.

Lambert, G.I., Jennings, S., Kaiser, M.J., Davies, T.W., Hiddink, J.G., 2014. Quantifying recovery rates and resilience of seabed habitats impacted by bottom fishing. Journal of Applied Ecology.

Mackinson, S., Daskalov, G., 2007. An ecosystem model of the North Sea to support an ecosystem approach to fisheries management: description and parameterisation. Sci. Ser. Tech Rep., Cefas Lowestoft, 142: 195 pp.

Moffat, C., Baxter, J., Berx, B., Bosley, K., Boulcott, P., Cox, M., Cruickshank, L., Gilham, K., Haynes, V., Roberts, A., Vaughan, D., Webster, L., 2020. Scotland’s Marine Assessment 2020. Scottish Government. https://marine.gov.scot/sma/assessment-theme/headlines-and-next-steps.

NEAFC, 2014. Recommendation 19: Protection of VMEs in NEAFC Regulatory Areas as Amended by Recommendation 09:2015; http://neafc.org/system/files/Annual-Meeting-2014-report- final.pdf.

Norway-EU, 2021. Agreed Record of Conclusions of Fisheries Consultations between Norway and the European Union on the Regulation of Fisheries in the Skagerrak and Kattegat for 2021, signed 16 March 2021.

Pew, Seas at Risk, Oceana, WWF, FishSec, New Economics Foundation, Client Earth, 2021. Recovering fish stocks and fully implementing the Landing Obligation. Managing fishing mortality to meet CFP objectives. NGO Position on recovering fish stocks and fully implementing the Landing Obligation. https://www.pewtrusts.org/- /media/assets/2021/03/ngopositionrecoveringfishstocksandfullyimplementingthelandingobliga tion.pdf .

Protozorkevich, D., van den Meeren, G.I., 2020. Survey report from the joint Norwegian/ Russian ecosystem survey in the Barents Sea and adjacent waters August-October 2019. IMR/PINRO Joint Report Series, 1-2020, 93pp.

Rijnsdorp, A.D., Bolam, S.G., Garcia, C., Hiddink, J.G., Hintzen, N.T., van Denderen, P.D., van Kooten, T., 2018. Estimating sensitivity of seabed habitats to disturbance by bottom trawling based on the longevity of benthic fauna. . Ecological Applications, 28(5), pp.1302-1312.

Sciberras, M., Hiddink, J.G., Jennings, S., Szostek, C.L., Hughes, K.M., Kneafsey, B., Clarke, L.J., Ellis, N., Rijnsdorp, A.D., McConnaughey, R.A., Hilborn, R., Collie, J.S., Pitcher, C.R., Amoroso, R.O., Parma, A.M., Suuronen, P., Kaiser, M.J., 2018. Response of benthic fauna to experimental bottom fishing: a global meta-analysis. Fish and Fisheries, V. 19, pp. 698–715.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 224

Scottish Government, 2020a. Brexit deal means drop in key fishing stocks. News 29 December 2020. https://www.gov.scot/news/brexit-deal-means-drop-in-key-fishing-stocks/ .

Scottish Government, 2020b. Scottish Sea Fisheries Statistics 2019. https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-sea-fisheries-statistics-2019/.

Scottish Government, 2020c. Future Fisheries: Management Strategy - 2020-2030. https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-future-fisheries-management-strategy-2020- 2030/ .

Scottish Government, 2020d. EU Exit: Marine Environmental Legislation in Scotland https://www.gov.scot/publications/eu-exit-marine-environmental-legislation-scotland- 2/pages/6/ .

Scottish Parliament, 2020. Environment Committee - Development and implementation of Regional Marine Plans in Scotland (December 2020), final report. https://scottishparliament- newsroom.prgloo.com/resources/od59s-4jxds-2hg5j-l7tmc-xdmp1.

Sieben, C., Borges, L., Cook, R., Bell, M., Doggett, M., Honneland, G., Gascoigne, J., Lowenberg, U., Seip. C, 2019. Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Public Certification Report Principle One: Target Species Background Joint demersal fisheries in the North Sea and adjacent waters.

STECF, 2019. Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – 61st PlenaryMeeting Report (PLEN-19-02). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2019, ISBN978-92-76-09515-6, doi:10.2760/31279, JRC117461.

Taylor, J. et al., 2019. 1517S Cruise Report - Monitoring survey of North-east Faroe Shetland Channel NCMPA, Wyville Thomson Ridge SAC & West Shetland Shelf NCMPA, Peterborough: JNCC. Available at: http://data.jncc.gov.uk/data/c3206dce-0eae-4cc2-b5d8-e328fe1f1ebd/JNCC- Report-632-FINAL-WEB.pdf.

TCA, 2020. TAC. EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. 30 December 2020.

UK, 2020. Fisheries Act 2020, Revised Fisheries Bill. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/22/enacted/data.pdf .

UK House of Lords, 2019. Fisheries: implementation and enforcement of the EU landing obligation. European Union Committee, 26th Report of Session 2017–19. HL Paper 276, 50pp. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ldselect/ldeucom/276/27602.htm .

UK-Norway, 2020. Framework Agreement on Fisheries between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Kingdom of Norway [CS Norway No.1/2020] and Explanatory Memorandum https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uknorway-framework- agreement-on-fisheries-cs-norway-no12020.

van Overzee, H.M.J., Poos, J.J., Batsleer, J., Molenaar, P., 2019. Starry ray in the ottertrawl andflyshoot fishery. Wageningen, Wageningen Marine Research (University & Research centre),Wageningen Marine Research report. 38 pp.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 225

8 Appendices

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 226

Appendix 1 Assessment information

Appendix 1.1 Previous assessments

The Euronor UoA has been certified since March of 2010, and the Scapêche and Compagnie des Pêches Saint Malo UoAs were certified in January of 2011, these assessments were undertaken by MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd (MEP). The fishery was then recertified in September 2016. Three conditions were raised through the 2016 reassessment, all on ETP Performance Indicators (PIs 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3). Three further conditions were raised at the year 1 surveillance audit (to align with the full assessment of the Euronor and Compagnie des Pêches Saint Malo cod and haddock fishery) on the habitats Performance Indicators (PIs 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.3). This change in scoring was initially driven by a stakeholder submission from WWF regarding habitat impacts in the Barents Sea by heavy demersal gear (otter trawls equipped with rock hoppers). WWF had been involved in several MSC certification processes of cod and haddock fisheries in the Barents Sea, with a special focus on the impacts of trawling operations in vulnerable deep-water habitats (MSC PI 2.4). It was WWF’s opinion that the clients’ and other MSC fishery operations have not yet reached a level where their fishing operations are highly unlikely to cause serious and long-lasting damage to benthic habitats. Table 36. Summary of previous assessment conditions

Condition PI(s) Status number 2.3.1 – ETP 1 Open – deadline is before the end of the current certificate Outcome 2.3.2 – ETP Open – deadline is before the end of the current certificate + 12 months 2 Management (MSC Derogation 6) 2.3.3 – ETP Open - deadline is before the end of the current certificate + 12 months 3 Information (MSC Derogation 6) Open – deadline is year 1 of the next certificate (pending successful 2.4.1 – Habitats 4 outcome of the assessment) as a result of the condition being raised during outcome the Y1S, exceptional circumstances applies Open – deadline is year 1 of the next certificate + 12 months (MSC 2.4.2 – Habitats Derogation 6) (pending successful outcome of the assessment) as a result 5 Management of the condition being raised during the Y1S, exceptional circumstances applies Open – deadline is year 1 of the next certificate + 12 months (MSC 2.4.3 Habitats Derogation 6) (pending successful outcome of the assessment) as a result 6 Information of the condition being raised during the Y1S, exceptional circumstances applies

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 227

Appendix 1.2 Small-scale fisheries

Percentage of fishing activity Percentage of vessels with length Unit of Assessment (UoA) completed within 12 nautical <15m miles of shore UoA 1 0 0 UoA 2 0 0 UoA 3 0 0

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 228

Appendix 2 Evaluation processes and techniques

Appendix 2.1 Site visits

The report shall include:

- An itinerary of site visit activities with dates. - A description of site visit activities, including any locations that were inspected. - Names of individuals contacted.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.16

The site visit was held at XXXX, on the XXXX. The individuals met during the site visit and their roles in the fishery are listed in Table 37.

Table 37. List of attendees at the on-site meetings.

Name Position Type of consultation

Appendix 2.2 Stakeholder participation

The report shall include:

- Details of people interviewed: local residents, representatives of stakeholder organisations including contacts with any regional MSC representatives. - A description of stakeholder engagement strategy and opportunities available.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.16

Appendix 2.3 Evaluation techniques

At Announcement Comment Draft report stage, if the use of the RBF is triggered for this assessment, the CAB shall include in the report:

- The plan for RBF activities that the team will undertake at the site visit. - The justification for using the RBF, which can be copied from previous RBF announcements, and stakeholder comments on its use. - The RBF stakeholder consultation strategy to ensure effective participation from a range of stakeholders including any participatory tools used. - The full list of activities and components to be discussed or evaluated in the assessment.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 229

At Client Draft Report stage, if the RBF was used for this assessment, the CAB shall include in the report:

- A summary of the information obtained from the stakeholder meetings including the range of opinions. - The full list of activities and components that have been discussed or evaluated in the assessment, regardless of the final risk-based outcome.

The stakeholder input should be reported in the stakeholder input appendix and incorporated in the rationales directly in the scoring tables.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.16, FCP v2.2 Annex PF Section PF2.1

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 230

Appendix 3 Scapêche analysis – common skate bycatch rate

Analyses des captures de pochetaux sur la flottille SCAPECHE Dans le cadre de la certification MSC Sur la pêcherie de Lieu Noir

L’analyse suivante a été faite à partir des données Obsmer. Le travail de synthèse s’est concentré sur l’analyse des opérations de pêche échantillonnées pour lesquelles au moins 1kg de lieu noir a été observé.

Ainsi pour les navires faisant partie de la certification, nous présentons les captures de pochetaux (D. batis, D. cf intermedia et D. cf flossada) pour 2016, 2017 et 2018, ainsi qu’une estimation des captures annuelles sur la pêcherie.

Description des champs présentés dans les tableaux :

- Nbre de marée ech = Nombre de marées échantillonnées dans le cadre du programme OBSMER sur l’année donnée - Nb OP ech = Nombre d’opération de pêche échantillonnées dans le cadre du programme OBSMER sur l’année donnée - Nb OP POK >1kg = Nombre d’opération de pêche échantillonnées pour lesquelles au moins 1kg de lieu noir (POK) a été observé - Durée de pêche cumulé = Durée de pêche cumulé pour les opérations de pêche pour lesquelles du lieu noir a été observé - Nb Pocheteaux obs = Nombre de pochetaux observés durant les opérations de pêche pour lesquelles du lieu noir a également été observé - Nb pochetaux/jr de pêche = (Nb Pocheteaux obs/ (Durée de pêche cumulé/60))*24 - Proportion OP avec LN = Nb OP POK >1kg/ Nb OP ech *100 - Nb de jr de pêche annuel = Nombre jour de pêche annuel (données armement) - Nb jour de pêche POK/an = Proportion OP avec LN* Nb de jr de pêche annuel - Estimation Nb de Pochetaux/an = Nb pochetaux/jr de pêche* Nb jour de pêche POK/an

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 231

Nb Nb Nb duree NB Nb Proportion Nb Jr de Nb jr de Estimation OP 2016 Maree OP pêche Pochetaux pochetaux/jr OP avec pêche pêche Nb de POK ech ech cumulé Observés de pêche POK LN annuel POK/an Pochetaux/an >1kg CORAIL 0 0 0 0 0 0,000 0,0% 177 0 0 FASTNET 3 87 11 4755 0 0,000 12,6% 259 33 0 JEAN CLAUDE COULONII 5 152 91 23330 10 0,617 59,9% 271 162 100 JEAN-PIERRE LE ROCH 1 8 8 1960 0 0,000 100,0% 162 162 0 MARIETTE LE ROCH II 5 161 75 14655 5 0,491 46,6% 249 116 57 ROSELEND 3 113 37 7514 15 2,875 32,7% 195 64 184 ROSSOREN 1 30 8 3085 0 0,000 26,7% 243 65 0 Total 18 551 230 55299 30 0,6 41,7% 1556 602 341

Nb Nb Nb OP duree NB Nb Proportion Nb Jr de Nb jr de Estimation 2017 Maree OP POK pêche Pochetaux pochetaux/jour OP avec pêche pêche Nb de ech ech >1kg cumulé Observés de pêche POK LN annuel POK/an Pochetaux/an CORAIL 2 44 1 255 0 0,000 2,3% 156 4 0 FASTNET 2 42 0 0 0 0,000 0,0% 219 0 0 JEAN CLAUDE COULONII 6 173 89 21720 0 0,000 51,4% 245 126 0 JEAN-PIERRE LE ROCH 5 162 97 22430 10 0,642 59,9% 284 170 109 MARIETTE LE ROCH II 7 195 101 21015 0 0,000 51,8% 223 116 0 ROSELEND 1 35 10 2945 0 0,000 28,6% 161 46 0 ROSSOREN 0 0 0 0 0 0,000 0,0% 219 0 0 Total 23 651 298 68365 10 0,1 45,8% 1507 461 109

Nb Nb Nb OP duree NB Nb Proportion Nb Jr de Nb jr de Estimation 2018 Maree OP POK pêche Pochetaux pochetaux/jour OP avec pêche pêche Nb de ech ech >1kg cumulé Observés de pêche POK LN annuel POK/an Pochetaux/an CORAIL 2 15 3 1655 0 0,000 20,0% 111 22 0 FASTNET 3 60 19 8305 4 0,694 31,7% 196 62 43 JEAN CLAUDE COULONII 6 148 73 17515 6 0,493 49,3% 258 127 63 JEAN-PIERRE LE ROCH 7 204 105 23774 11 0,666 51,5% 254 131 87 MARIETTE LE ROCH II 4 135 53 11555 5 0,623 39,3% 249 98 61 ROSELEND 1 48 7 1175 3 3,677 14,6% 155 23 83 ROSSOREN 3 64 16 7280 5 0,989 25,0% 263 66 65 Total 26 674 276 71259 34 1,0 40,9% 1486 528 402

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 232

Appendix 4 Peer review reports

To be drafted at Public Comment Draft Report stage The report shall include unattributed reports of the Peer Reviewers in full using the relevant templates. The report shall include explicit responses of the team that include:

- Identification of specifically what (if any) changes to scoring, rationales, or conditions have been made; and, - A substantiated justification for not making changes where peer reviewers suggest changes, but the team disagrees.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.14

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 233

Appendix 5 Stakeholder input – delete if not applicable

To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report

The CAB shall use the ‘MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments’ to include all written stakeholder input during the stakeholder input opportunities (Announcement Comment Draft Report, site visit and Public Comment Draft Report). Using the ‘MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments’, the team shall respond to all written stakeholder input identifying what changes to scoring, rationales and conditions have been made in response, where the changes have been made, and assigning a ‘CAB response code’.

The ‘MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments’ shall also be used to provide a summary of verbal submissions received during the site visit likely to cause a material difference to the outcome of the assessment. Using the ‘MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments’ the team shall respond to the summary of verbal submissions identifying what changes to scoring, rationales and conditions have been made in response, where the changes have been made, and assigning a ‘CAB response code’.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Sections 7.15, 7.20.5 and 7.22.3

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 234

Appendix 6 Conditions

Appendix 6.1 Summary of Conditions closed under Previous Certification

The report shall include a summary of conditions that were closed during the previous certification.

Appendix 6.2 Open Conditions at reassessment announcement

The CAB shall complete this section if:

1. The assessment is a reassessment, and 2. There are open conditions when the reassessment is announced.

The CAB shall identify conditions that are open at the time of the reassessment announcement, conditions that will be closed during the reassessment including an outline of how and when the condition will be closed, and conditions that are being carried over into the next certificate.

The CAB shall confirm the status of progress for each open condition. For the ACDR the CAB shall base this on the most recent surveillance audit. For the PCDR the CAB shall base this on the site visit.

The CAB shall include details regarding the closing of conditions during the reassessment following Section 5.3.2 from the MSC Surveillance Reporting Template.

The CAB shall only include information on conditions that are being carried over in the ACDR. In the Client and Peer Review Draft Report and subsequent reports the CAB shall incorporate all conditions that are being carried over into Section 8.5.2.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.30.5.

Table 38. Open Condition 1 (using existing numbering)

Performance Indicator Score State score for Performance Indicator Cross reference to page number containing scoring template table or copy Justification justification text here. If condition relates to a previous condition or one raised and closed in the previous assessment include information required here Condition State condition Condition start State when the condition was set Condition deadline State deadline for the condition Milestones State milestones and resulting scores where applicable State a summary of the progress made by the fishery client to address the condition. Progress on condition Identify if milestones have been revised as part of the remedial action at previous surveillance audits.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 235

Identify whether this condition is ‘on target’ ‘ahead of target’, ‘behind target’ or Progress status progress is inadequate, and provide justification as per FCP v2.2 7.28.16.1 and 7.28.16.2 Carrying over Check the box if the condition is carried into the next certificate and include a condition ☒ justiiation for carrying over the condition (FCP v2.2 7.30.5.1.a) Closing the condition during the Outline how and when the condition will be closed during the reassessment reassessment

Appendix 6.3 New Conditions

To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage

The CAB shall document in the report all conditions in separate tables.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.18, 7.30.5 and 7.30.6

Table 39. Condition 1

Performance Indicator Score State score for Performance Indicator Cross reference to page number containing scoring template table or copy justification text here. If condition relates to a previous condition or one Justification raised and closed in the previous assessment include information required here Condition State condition Condition deadline State deadline of condition Check the box if exceptional circumstances apply and condition deadline is Exceptional longer than the period of certification (FCP v2.2 7.18.1.6). Provide a Circumstances ☐ justification Milestones State milestones and resulting scores where applicable Veriication with other Include details of any verification required to meet requirements in FCP v2.2 entities 7.19.8. Complete the Following Rows for reassessments Check the box if the condition is being carried over from a previous certificate and include a justification for carrying over the condition (FCP v2.2 7.30.5.1.a). Carried over condition ☐ Include a justification that progress against the condition and milestones is adequate (FCP v2.2 7.30.5.2). The CAB shall base its justification on information from the reassessment site visit. Check the box if the condition relates to a previous condition that was closed during a previous certification period but where a new condition on the same Related condition ☐ Performance Indicator or Scoring Issue is set.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 236

Include a justification – why is a related condition being raised? (FCP v2.2 7.30.6 & G7.30.6). Check the box if the condition has been rewritten. Include a justification (FCP Condition rewritten ☐ v2.2 7.30.5.3).

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 237

Appendix 7 Client Action Plan

To be added from Public Comment Draft Report stage

The report shall include the Client Action Plan from the fishery client to address conditions.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.19

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 238

Appendix 8 Surveillance

To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage

The report shall include the program for surveillance, timing of surveillance audits and a supporting justification

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.28

Table 40. Fishery surveillance programme

Surveillance level Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 e.g. On-site e.g. On-site e.g. On-site e.g. On-site surveillance audit e.g. Level 5 surveillance audit surveillance audit surveillance audit & re-certification site visit

Table 41. Timing of surveillance audit

Anniversary date Proposed date of Year Rationale of certificate surveillance audit e.g. Scientific advice to be released in e.g. 1 e.g. May 2018 e.g. July 2018 June 2018, proposal to postpone audit to include findings of scientific advice

Table 42. Surveillance level justification

Surveillance Number of Year Rationale activity auditors e.g. From client action plan it can be deduced that information needed to verify progress towards conditions 1.2.1, 2.2.3 and 3.2.3 can be provided remotely e.g. 1 auditor on- in year 3. Considering that milestones site with remote indicate that most conditions will be e.g.3 e.g. On-site audit support from 1 closed out in year 3, the CAB proposes to auditor have an on-site audit with 1 auditor on- site with remote support – this is to ensure that all information is collected and because the information can be provided remotely.

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 239

Appendix 10 Harmonised fishery assessments

This fishery overlaps with several MSC certified fisheries, both in terms of the target species (Principle 1) and the fisheries management framework (Principle 3). The assessment team harmonised with the fisheries listed in the tables below. Table 43. Overlapping fisheries Saithe (Pollachius virens) in subareas 4 and 6 and Division 3.a Performance Fishery Name Gear Name Sub Area(s) First Certified Indicators to harmonise Traps – Pots; Trawls - Bottom trawls; Gillnets And Entangling Nets – Gillnets; Seine Certified, June Norway North Sea demersal Nets - Boat or vessel seines - Danish seines; Hooks And Lines; Surrounding Nets - 3a, 4 P1 2018 With purse lines (purse seines) UK Undergoing Fisheries/DFFU/Doggerbank Trawls - Bottom trawls 2a, 3a, 4, 5b, 6 P1, P3 recertification Group saithe Germany North Sea saithe Certified, October Trawls - Bottom trawls - otter trawls 4, 3a P1, P3 trawl 2008 Joint demersal fisheries in the Certified, October Miscellaneous Gear 3a, 4, 6 P1, P3 North Sea and adjacent waters 2019 SFSAG Northern Demersal Seine Nets - Boat or vessel seines - Danish seines; Trawls - Bottom trawls; Seine Certified, July 3.a, 6, 4 Stocks Nets - Boat or vessel seines - pair seines 2018 This Fishery : Scapêche, Certified, March Euronor and Compagnie des Trawls - Bottom trawls - otter trawls; Trawls - Bottom trawls - pair trawls 3a, 4, 6, 7 P1, P3 2010 Pêches St Malo saithe

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 240

Table 44. Comparison of Principle 1 scores between this assessment and other North Sea saithe (POK) fisheries. Note: pre-FCR v2.0 performance indicators are shown in yellow

1.1.1 1.1.2 1.2.2 (Harvest 1.1.3 1.2.1 (Harvest 1.2.3 (Information/ 1.2.4 (Stock (Stock (Reference Control Rules (Rebuilding) Strategy Monitoring) assessment status) points) and Tools) Version (pre 2.0 Fishery 1.1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 / 2.0) 1.1.1 1.2.3 1.2.4 (Stock (Stock - (Harvest (Harvest (Information/Monitoring) assessment status) (Rebuilding) Control Rules Strategy and Tools)

Norway North Sea demersal Pre 2.0 70 N/a 90 100 90 100 100

UK Fisheries/DFFU/Doggerbank Group 2.0 70 100 N/A 100 85 90 95 saithe (CPRDR)

Germany North Sea saithe trawl Pre 2.0 70 N/a 90 100 90 100 100

Joint demersal fisheries in the North Sea and 2.0 70 100 N/a 95 95 100 100 adjacent waters

SFSAG Northern Demersal Stocks (ACDR) 2.0 60-79 ≥80 N/A 60-79 60-79 ≥80 ≥80

Scapêche, Euronor and Compagnie des 2.0 Pêches St Malo saithe

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 241

Table 45. Overlapping fisheries Saithe (Pollachius virens) in subareas 1 and 2 Performance Fishery Name Gear Name Sub Area(s) First Certified Indicators to harmonise Barents Sea cod, haddock and Certified, Trawls - Bottom trawls - otter trawls 1 and 2 P1 saithe November 2010 Faroe Islands North East Arctic Certified, August Trawls - Bottom trawls 1 and 2 P1, P3 cod haddock and saithe 2012 Greenland cod, haddock and Certified, May saithe trawl fishery in the Trawls - Bottom trawls 1 and 2 P1, P3 2015 Barents Sea Gillnets And Entangling Nets - Gillnets, Hooks And Lines, Seine Nets - Boat or Norway North East Arctic Certified, June vessel seines - Danish seines, Surrounding Nets - With purse lines (purse seines), 1 and 2 P1, P3 saithe 2008 Trawls - Bottom trawls UK Fisheries/DFFU/Doggerbank Certified, May Trawls – Bottom Trawls – otter trawls 1 and 2 P1, P3 Group Northeast Arctic cod 2012 haddock and saithe This Fishery : Scapêche, Under Euronor and Compagnie des Trawls - Bottom trawls - otter trawls; Trawls - Bottom trawls - pair trawls 1 and 2 Assessment, Pêches St Malo saithe March 2010

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 242

Table 46. Comparison of Principle 1 scores between this assessment and other North East Arctic saithe (POK) fisheries. Note: pre-FCR v2.0 performance indicators are shown in yellow

Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe Pre 2.0 90 90 N/A 95 80 90 90

Faroe Islands North East Arctic cod haddock Pre 2.0 100 90 N/A 95 90 90 100 and saithe

Greenland cod, haddock and saithe trawl Pre 2.0 90 90 N/A 95 90 90 100 fishery

Norway North East Arctic saithe Pre 2.0 100 100 N/A 100 90 100 100

UK Fisheries/DFFU/Doggerbank Group Pre 2.0 100 90 N/A 100 80 90 95 Northeast Arctic cod haddock and saithe

Arkhangelsk Trawl fleet Norwegian & 2.0 90 N/A N/A 80 80 95 95 Barents Seas cod, haddock & saithe

Scapêche, Euronor and Compagnie des 2.0 Pêches St Malo saithe

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 243

Appendix 11 Objection Procedure

To be added at Public Certification Report stage

The report shall include all written decisions arising from the Objection Procedure.

Reference(s): MSC Disputes Process v1.0, FCP v2.2 Annex PD Objection Procedure

CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3511R01C 244