Sweden Skagerrak, Kattegat and the Norwegian Deep Cold Water Prawn Fishery

FULL ASSESSMENT REPORT Sweden Skagerrak, Kattegat and the Norwegian Deep cold water prawn fishery

Public Certification Report

Gothenburg Fish Auction

Authors: Bert Keus, Julian Addison, Sigrun Bekkevold Report No.: 2015-001, Rev. 4 Certificate No.: F-DNV-187264 Date: 2015-10-15

Project name: Full assessment report DNV GL - Business Assurance Report title: Sweden Skagerrak, Kattegat and the Norwegian Deep cold water prawn fishery Det Norske Veritas Certification AS Public Certification Report Veritasveien 1 Customer: Gothenburg Fish Auction 1322 HØVIK, Norway Fiskhamnen, Tel: +47 67 57 99 00 414 58 Göteborg http://www.dnvgl.com Contact person: Bengt Gunnarsson Date of issue: 2015-10-15 Project No.: PRJC-494549-2013-MSC-NOR Organisation unit: ZNONO418 Report No.: 2015-001, Rev. 4 Certificate No.: F-DNV-187264

Task and objective: The ojective of this report is the initial assessment of Sweden Skagerrak, Kattegat and the Norwegian Deep cold water prawn fishery against the Marine Stewardship Council Fishery standard: Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing.

Prepared by: Verified by:

Julian addison Anna Kiseleva Independent P1 & P2 expert DNV GL GSR

Bert Keus Independent P3 expert and team leader

Sigrun Bekkevold Team member

☒ Unrestricted distribution (internal and external) Keywords: ☐ Unrestricted distribution within DNV GL [Keywords] ☐ Limited distribution within DNV GL after 3 years ☐ No distribution (confidential) ☐ Secret

Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.

Rev. No. Date Reason for Issue Prepared by Verified by Approved by Preliminary Draft Report for Client Bert Keus, Julian 0 2015-01-30 review Addison, Sigrun Bekkevold 1 2015-02-03 Peer Review Draft Report Same as above 2 2015-03-09 Public Comment Draft Report Same as above 3 2015-08-27 Final Report Same as above 4 2015-10-15 Public Certification Report Same as above

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page i

Table of contents

ABBREVIATIONS ...... 1

LIST OF SYMBOLS AND REFERENCE POINTS ...... 2

LIST OF FISH SPECIES ...... 2

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 4 1.1 Assessment timeline 4 1.2 Scores for separate Principles 4 1.3 Main strength and weaknesses of the client´s operation 4 1.4 Determination with supporting rationale 5 1.5 Conditions for certification and time-scale for compliance 5

2 AUTHORSHIP AND PEER REVIEWERS ...... 7 2.1 Assessment team 7 2.2 Peer reviewers 9

3 DESCRIPTION OF THE FISHERY ...... 10 3.1 Unit(s) of Certification and scope of certification sought 10 3.2 Overview of the fishery 12 3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background 19 3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background 31 3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background 64

4 EVALUATION PROCEDURE ...... 69 4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment 69 4.2 Previous assessments 69 4.3 Assessment Methodologies 69 4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques 73

5 TRACEABILITY ...... 78 5.1 Eligibility Date 78 5.2 Traceability within the Fishery 78 5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody 82 5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practically Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody 82

6 EVALUATION RESULTS ...... 83 6.1 Principle Level Scores 83 6.2 Summary of Scores 83 6.3 Summary of Conditions and Recommendations 84 6.4 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement 85

7 REFERENCES...... 86

APPENDIX 1 SCORING AND RATIONALES ...... 91 Appendix 1a – MSC Principles 91 Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale 92 Appendix 1.2 Conditions 173 Appendix 1.3 Client Action Plan and support from involved entities 180

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page ii

APPENDIX 2. PEER REVIEW REPORTS ...... 186 Peer Reviewer 1 186 Peer Reviewer 2 200

APPENDIX 3. STAKEHOLDER SUBMISSIONS ...... 212 Appendix 3.1 Comments during the period of site-visit 212 Appendix 3.2 Comments to Public Comment Draft Report 217

APPENDIX 4. SURVEILLANCE FREQUENCY ...... 248

APPENDIX 5. CLIENT AGREEMENT ...... 249

APPENDIX 6. PROPOSAL FOR FISHERIES MANAGEMENT MEASURES IN THE SWEDISH NATURA 2000 SITE BRATTEN SE0520189 LOCATED IN THE SWEDISH EEZ OF SKAGERRAK ...... 250

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page iii

ABBREVIATIONS

ACOM (ICES) Advisory Committee on Management AGSE Joint ICES/OSPAR Ad hoc Group on Seabird Ecology AIS Automated Identification System DTU Aqua National Institute of Aquatic Resources (Denmark) EC European Commission EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone ETP Endangered, threatened or protected species EU European Union FAM Fisheries Assessment Methodology ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea LPUE Landings Per Unit Effort MFCA Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs MSC Marine Stewardship Council NEZ Norwegian Economic Zone NGO Non – Governmental Organization OSPAR Oslo and Paris Commission for the protection and conservation of the North- East Atlantic and its Resources PI Performance Indicator PISG Performance Indicator Scoring Guidepost RAC Regional Advisory Council SG Scoring Guidepost SLU Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences SMH Sensitive Marine Habitats SwAM Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management TAC Total Allowable Catch VPA Virtual population analysis WGECO Working Group on Ecosystem Effects of Fishing Activities WGMME (ICES) Working Group on Marine Mammal Ecology WWF World Wide Fund for Nature

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 1

LIST OF SYMBOLS AND REFERENCE POINTS

Blim Minimum biomass below which recruitment is expected to be impaired or the stock dynamics are unknown.

BMSY Biomass corresponding to the maximum sustainable yield (biological reference point); the peak value on a domed yield-per-recruit curve.

Bpa Precautionary biomass below which SSB should not be allowed to fall to safeguard it against falling to Blim.

Btrigger Value of spawning stock biomass (SSB) that triggers a specific management action

F Instantaneous rate of fishing mortality

Flim Fishing mortality rate that is expected to be associated with stock ‘collapse’ if maintained over a longer time (precautionary reference point).

Fmp Management plan target fishing mortality

FMSY F giving maximum sustainable yield (biological reference point).

Fpa Precautionary buffer to avoid that true fishing mortality is at Flim when the perceived fishing mortality is at Fpa.

MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield

LIST OF FISH SPECIES

American plaice Hippoglossoides platessoides Angler fish Lophius piscatorius Blackmouth cashark Galeus melastomus Blue whiting Micromesistius poutassou Bony fish (class of) Osteichthyes Cod Gadus morhua Common skate Dipturus batis Crimson pasiphaeid shrimp Pasiphaea tarda Glass/White shrimp Pasiphea multidentata Greater argentine Argentina silus Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus Norway pout Trisopterus esmarkii Norwegian shrimp Pontophilus norvegicus Pale ray Dipturus linteus Pink shrimp Pandalus montagui Saithe Pollachius virens Shrimp Pandalus borealis Spurdog Squalus acanthias

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 2

Squat lobsters Munida spp. Thornback ray Raja clavata Thorny skate Amblyraja radiata Velvet belly Etmopterus spinax Whiting Merlangius merlangus Witch Glyptocephalus cynoglossus

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 3

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides information on the assessment of the Sweden Skagerrak, Kattegat and the Norwegian Deep cold water prawn fishery for the client Gothenburg Fish Auction against the Marine Stewardship Council’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing v1.3. The assessment team used the default assessment tree as defined in the MSC Certification Requirements v1.3. The assessment process began in February 2014. The report is prepared by DNV GL.

1.1 Assessment timeline

Announcement of Initial Assessment: 4 February 2014

Site Visit and Stakeholder Consultation: 5 – 8 May 2014

Expected Date of Certification: October 2015

Actual Eligibility date: 1 November 2014

1.2 Scores for separate Principles Final Principle Scores

Principle Score

Principle 1 – Target Species 80.6 PASS

Principle 2 – Ecosystem 80.3 PASS

Principle 3 – Management System 84.6 PASS

1.3 Main strength and weaknesses of the client´s operation 1.3.1 Strength

The attributes of the Sweden Skagerrak, Kattegat and the Norwegian Deep cold water prawn fishery that are helpful in achieving sustainability and thereby complying with MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries are:

‐ The EU and Sweden maintain a robust and effective control and surveillance regime, which ensures a high degree of compliance

‐ Assessment of stock status is based on a comprehensive range of fishery-dependent and fishery- independent data and is thoroughly peer-reviewed through a joint NAFO/ICES working group

‐ The mandatory use of sorting grids is effective in minimizing the by-catch of all species.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 4

‐ The fishery does not cause any (significant) mortality of ETP species e.g. whales, seals or birds and the effects on fish species are likely to be within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species.

‐ The Swedish authorities and the European Commission consult with all relevant stakeholder groups regarding new fisheries measures prior to their implementation.

1.3.2 Weaknesses

‐ No well-defined harvest control rules (HCRs) are in place which stipulate what management action will be invoked if the stock biomass declines to levels close to limit reference points.

‐ Insufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to main bycatch species.

‐ Current regulations are not sufficient to provide a high likelihood that the fishery will not cause serious harm to coral gardens and deep sea sponge aggregations.

‐ There is insufficient basis for confidence that the strategy for the protection of habitats is achieving its objectives

‐ There is no mechanism for recording interactions between VME habitats and fishing gear

‐ High grading of smaller low value shrimp takes place on a systematic basis

1.4 Determination with supporting rationale

The Sweden Skagerrak, Kattegat and the Norwegian Deep cold water prawn fishery achieved a score of 80 or more for each of the three MSC Principles, and did not score under 60 for any of the set MSC Criteria. The assessment team therefore recommends the certification of the Sweden Skagerrak, Kattegat and the Norwegian Deep cold water prawn fishery for the client Gothenburg Fish Auction with six conditions and three recommendations.

Following this decision by the assessment team, and review by peer-reviewers and stakeholders, the determination was presented to DNV GL Business Assurance decision making entity that the fishery has passed its assessment and should be certified. The Technical reviewer at DNV adheres to the recommendation of the assessment team and approves the certification of the Sweden Skagerrak, Kattegat and the Norwegian Deep cold water prawn fishery for the client Gothenburg Fish Auction.

1.5 Conditions for certification and time-scale for compliance

The fishery achieved a score of below 80 against 6 performance indicators (PIs) – PI 1.2.2 Harvest control rules, PI 2.2.3 Information on bycatch, PI 2.4.1 Outcome on habitats, PI 2.4.2 Management of the impact of the fishery on habitats, PI 2.4.3 Information on habitats and PI 3.2.3 Compliance and Enforcement. The assessment team has therefore set conditions for continuing certification that the client is required to address. The conditions are applicable to improve performance to at least the 80

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 5

level within the periods set by the DNV GL assessment team. A summary of conditions is given in paragraph 6.3. Full explanation of these conditions is provided in Appendix 1.2.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 6

2 AUTHORSHIP AND PEER REVIEWERS

2.1 Assessment team

Name Role Qualifications

Julian Addison P1 and P2 Julian Addison has 30 years’ experience of stock assessment and expert provision of management advice on shellfish fisheries and scientific research on crustacean biology and population dynamics and inshore fisheries. Until December 2010 when he left the organisation to become an independent consultant, he worked at the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) in Lowestoft, England where he was Senior Shellfish Advisor to Government policy makers, which involved working closely with marine managers, legislators and stakeholders, Government Statutory Nature Conservation Organisations and environmental NGOs. He has also worked as a visiting scientist at DFO in Halifax, Nova Scotia and at NMFS in Woods Hole, Massachusetts where he experienced shellfish management approaches in North America. For four years he was a member of the Scientific Committee and the UK delegation to the International Whaling Commission providing scientific advice to the UK Commissioner. He has worked extensively with ICES and was Chair of the Working Group on the Biology and Life History of Crabs, a member of the Working Group on Crangon Fisheries and Life History and a member of the Steering Group on Ecosystems Function. He recently has been involved in MSC full assessments for the Ireland and Northern Ireland bottom grown mussel (Mytilus edulis) fisheries, the Newfoundland and Labrador snow crab fishery, Faroe Island North East Atlantic Cold Water prawn and Estonia North East Atlantic Cold Water prawn. He also carried out peer reviews of MSC assessments of lobster, cold water prawn, razorfish and cockle fisheries. Other recent work includes a review of the stock assessment model for blue crabs in Chesapeake Bay, USA, and an assessment of three Alaskan crab fisheries under the FAO-based Responsible Fisheries Management scheme.

Julian has completed all requisite training and has signed all relevant forms for assessment team membership on this fishery.

Bert Keus P3 expert Bert Keus is an independent consultant based in Leiden, the and team Netherlands. He holds degrees in both biology and law, and started leader his career at the Netherlands Institute for Fisheries Investigation (RIVO-DLO). Later he held the position of Head of the Environ- mental Division of the Dutch Fisheries Board (Productschap Vis). Particular areas of expertise are environmental impact assessments of fisheries in the Natura 2000 framework, fisheries management plans, natural resource policy, and programme and project evaluations.

He has long association with the several fisheries in the Nether- lands, and he has been involved in efforts to achieve MSC certification of the North Sea brown shrimp fishery – acting as technical advisor to this multi-stakeholder initiative. Through this

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 7

work and several other MSC certifications he has become particularly familiar with the MSC certification process. Between the years 1998 and 2003 he was a Member of the European Sustainable Use Specialist Group (ESUSG), Fisheries Working Group of IUCN. Bert has completed all requisite training including the RBF training and and has signed all relevant forms for assessment team membership on this fishery.

Sigrun Traceability Sigrun Bekkevold is a principal consultant at DNV GL Business Bekkevold and Assurance and holds a Master of Science in industrial chemistry and country biochemistry from the Norwegian University of Science and expert, Technology in Trondheim. She has 25 years of experience in leading and DNV projects for sustainable development of the marine sector both in GL project Norwegian and Nordic perspective and speaks all Nordic languages, manager including Swedish. Sigrun’s main focus has been on research, innovation and business development within total utilization of fish. This includes compiling strategies, action plans, feasibility analysis and market analysis, organizing project teams, performing mass flow analysis, networking with industry, research and authorities, evaluating regulatory issues and communication of results. She held a position of a general manager in RUBIN Foundation aiming for value adding and better utilization of fish by-products. RUBIN has been owned by the seafood industry in Norway and supported by Ministry of Fishery and Coastal Affairs and the Norwegian Seafood Research Fund. The work has included the whole value chain, from the fishing vessel and all the way to the marked. Quality and traceability has been important issues in Sigrun’s every day work.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 8

2.2 Peer reviewers

Name Role Qualifications

David Bennett Peer David Bennett has 46 years experience in fisheries research, Reviewer 1 specialising in the biology, population dynamics, and assessment of commercially exploited fish and shellfish stocks, the provision of national and international fisheries management advice, and fisheries aspects of environmental impact studies. He chaired the ICES Working Group on Nephrops stocks, has been a member of a number of ICES Working and Study Groups, and an expert for the EU Commission. As a consultant he has undertaken a number of fisheries and environmental projects. More recently he has been a member of the MSC teams that assessed the UK NESFC Lobster and Bass fisheries and the Loch Torridon Nephrops Creel Fishery. He has peer reviewed the original Loch Torridon assessment, Burry Inlet Cockles, Vietnamese Ben Tre Clams, North Sea Nephrops and Haddock trawl fisheries, Stornoway Nephrops, Clyde Nephrops creel fishery, Bristol Channel Sea Bass, Tristan da Cunha rock lobsters, Dutch Rod & Line Fishery, Faroese and Estonian NE Arctic Prawns, Russian Barents Sea Cod and Haddock, and Norway North Sea & Spring Spawning Herring.

Geir Hønneland Peer Geir Hønneland is Research Director of the Fridtjof Nansen Institute Reviewer 2 in Oslo, Norway, and adjunct professor at the University of Tromsø, Norway. He holds a Ph.D in political science from the University of Oslo and has primarily studied international fisheries management (with a main emphasis on compliance issues), international environmental politics and international Arctic politics more widely. Among his recent books are Arctic Politics, the Law of the Sea and Russian Identity (Palgrave, 2014), Making Fishery Agreements Work (Edward Elgar, 2012), International Environmental Agreements (Routledge, 2011), Arctic Politics and International Cooperation (Routledge, 2007) and Law and Politics in Ocean Governance: The UN Fish Stocks Agreement and Regional Fisheries Management Regimes (Martinus Nijhoff, 2006). He worked in the Norwegian Coast Guard from 1988 to 1994, where he was certified as fisheries inspector.

Geir also has a wide range of evaluation and onsultancy experience, e.g. for the FAO and OECD, relating to responsible fisheries management. He has been involved in MSC assessments since 2009 (covering cod, haddock and herring fisheries in the Northeast Atlantic and krill in the Southern Ocean). He has also wide experience as peer reviewer, including for shrimp fisheries in the North-East Atlantic and for other Swedish fisheries.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 9

3 DESCRIPTION OF THE FISHERY

3.1 Unit(s) of Certification and scope of certification sought 3.1.1 Statement that the fishery is within the MSC scope

The assessment team confirms that the fishery under assessment meets the scope requirements, which are defined in MSC Certification Requirements Version 1.3, 14 January, 2013 (CR 27.4).

Principle 3, Criterion A1: The fishery is not conducted under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement. Principle 3, Criterion B14: The fishery does not use destructive fishing practices such as poisons or dynamite.

3.1.2 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries

This is not an enhanced fishery. 3.1.3 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF

Northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) is not an introduced species. 3.1.4 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Risk Based Framework (RBF).

The Risk Based Framework (RBF) is designed for use with the default assessment tree specifically with Principle 1 and was adopted by the MSC to enable scoring of fisheries in data-deficient situations. There are sufficient data available to estimate stock status for Northern shrimp and the impact of the fishery on ecosystem components (retained species, discarded species and habitats). Therefore the Northern shrimp fishery under assessment is not considered a data deficient fishery and the use of the Risk Based Framework is not invoked in this assessment.

3.1.5 Unit of certification

The unit of certification is defined as: Species: Northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis)

Geographical range ICES divisions IIIa and IVa East (Skagerrak, Kattegat and the Norwegian of fishing Deep) in Norwegian and EU waters. operations: Method of capture: Bottom trawl

Stock: Northern shrimp in Skagerrak, Kattegat and the Norwegian Deep

Management The stock is managed according to EU-Norway agreement, Swedish National management systems and advised by ICES.

Client group All fishing operators targeting Northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) in the ICES Divisions IIIa West and IVa East (Skagerrak, Kattegat and the Norwegian Deep) using bottom trawl as harvesting method and operating under quota issued by authorities of Sweden.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 10

Distribution map of Pandalus borealis showing Norwegian Deep and Skagerrak. Kattegat is the area south-east of the Skagerrak.

3.1.6 Rationale for unit of certification

According to the MSC Certification Requirements v1.3, the proposed unit of certification shall include the target stock (s), the fishing method or gear and the practice (including vessels) pursuing that stock. The MSC Certification Requirements Guidance V1.1 specifies that the unit of certification is “The fishery or fish stock (= biologically distinct unit) combined with the fishing method/gear and practice (= vessel(s) pursuing that stock”.

Rationale for choosing the unit of certification The UoC covers all fishing operators targeting Northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) in the ICES Divisions IIIa and IVa East (Skagerrak, Kattegat and the Norwegian Deep) using bottom trawl as harvesting method and operating under quota issued by authorities of Sweden.

3.1.7 Other eligible fishers

UoC covers all Swedish fishing operators targeting Northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) in the ICES Divisions IIIa and IVa East (Skagerrak, Kattegat and the Norwegian Deep) using bottom trawl as harvesting method and operating under quota issued by authorities of Sweden.

There are no other Eligible Fishers and the Certificate Sharing Mechanism is not applicable.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 11

3.2 Overview of the fishery 3.2.1 Client name and contact information

Gothenburg Fish Auction, Gothenburg Sweden Fiskhamnen, 414 58 Göteborg

Contact person: Bengt Gunnarsson Mobile phone: +46 705 36 55 01 E-mail: [email protected]

3.2.2 Client group

All Swedish fishing operators targeting Northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) in the ICES Divisions IIIa and IVa East (Skagerrak, Kattegat and the Norwegian Deep) using bottom trawl as harvesting method and operating under quota issued by authorities of Sweden.

Approximately 60 registered trawlers in 2014. The size of the vessels ranges between 12-34 m with an average of 22 m. GRT varies from 18 to 343, with an average of 118 GRT. The average engine power is around 409 kW (92-738 kW).

3.2.3 History and general background of the fishery

The shrimp fishery in the Norwegian Deep and Skagerrak has been exploited by Norwegian and Swedish vessels since the end of the 19th century and by Danish vessels since the 1930s. The fishery expanded in the 1960s and by 1970 landings had reached 5,000 tonnes. In 1981 landings exceeded 10,000 tonnes after which landings fluctuated but steadily increased to a peak of around 16,000 tonnes in 2004 (Figure 1, Table 1). From 2004 to 2010 landings declined significantly, most likely due to poor recruitment, but are now showing signs of increasing particularly in the light of the 2014 recruitment index which is the highest level of recruitment in the recent time series (NAFO/ICES, 2014). Landings and estimated total catches by Swedish vessels are shown in Table 1. A very small component of the Swedish fleet’s activity is undertaken in the westernmost area of the Kattegat, and consequently the Kattegat is included within the Unit of Certification.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 12

Figure 1. Northern shrimp in Skagerrak and Norwegian Deep: Total landings by all fleets, total catch including discards from 2008 to 2013, and TAC (source: NAFO/ICES, 2014).

Table 1. Northern shrimp in the Skagerrak and Norwegian Deep: TACs, landings and estimated catches (source: NAFO/ICES, 2014).

The Swedish shrimp fleet (defined as those vessels that catch more than 10 tonnes of shrimp per year) shows a slightly decreasing trend in number and has been at around 40-50 vessels during the last decade according to logbooks (Figure 2). There has been little change in trawl design, except that the percentage of landings from twin trawlers has increased from 7% to over 50% since 2006 (Ulmestrand et al., 2014; Figure 3). Twin trawlers have 40-80% higher catch rates compared with single trawls.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 13

Figure 2. Number of total Swedish Pandalus vessels during 1995 to 2013. Vessels landing ≥10 tonnes are considered as specialised Pandalus trawlers (source: M. Ulmestrand et al. 2014) .

Figure 3. Swedish Pandalus logbook landings per trawl type 1990-2013. (source: M. Ulmestrand et al. 2014) .

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 14

In comparison, the Danish and Norwegian fleets have changed significantly over the last 25 years. In Denmark the shrimp fleet has decreased from 138 vessels in 1987 to only 10 vessels in recent years (Ulmestrand et al., 2014) all of which now use twin trawls, and in Norway the shrimp fleet has declined by more than 50% from 423 vessels in 1995 to 188 vessels in 2013, with more than half of the large vessels using twin trawls (Søvik and Thangstad, 2014b).

Shrimp landed by Swedish vessels are separated into high value large shrimp boiled on board and smaller low value shrimp landed raw to the industry for further processing. The ratio of boiled to raw shrimp in the Swedish fishery has remained at 1:1 over the last few years (Figure 4). In comparison in the Danish fleet, the majority of landings are of fresh raw shrimp, although the proportion of the landings that are boiled has been increasing in recent years (Ulmestrand et al., 2014). In the Norwegian fleet 57% of the landings were raw fresh shrimp and 43% boiled shrimp in 2013, although in previous years the percentage of shrimps landed as boiled has been higher (Søvik and Thangstad, 2014b).

Figure. 4. Total Swedish landings 1963 to 2013 separated into boiled and fresh fractions (upper graph) and proportion of boiled Pandalus (lower graph) (source: M. Ulmestrand et al. 2014) .

Discarding of shrimp in the Skagerrak and Norwegian Deep may occur because the shrimp are smaller than the commercial size of 15 mm carapace length (CL) or through high-grading which is the practice of discarding small to medium size low value shrimp and replacing with larger, higher value shrimp. High- grading is most likely to occur in fisheries where the TAC is restricting the activity of the fleet. The Swedish quota had previously been limiting the Swedish Pandalus fishery and in order to distribute landings over the year the fishers have voluntarily introduced rations per fisher per week. Since 2013,

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 15

the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (SwAM) took over the ration allocation from the Swedish fishers’ organisation and a monthly allocation for each vessel (with permission to fish Pandalus) was decided. The monthly rations are based on historical landings (2005-2010) and are not transferable between months. These individual monthly vessel quotas can be smaller than the vessels’ fishing opportunities in a given month with the result that smaller shrimp are discarded.

Observer sampling of total catch composition has been carried out by both Swedish and Danish scientists under the European Commission’s Data Collection Framework (DCF). Discard rates in the Swedish fleet based on observer data were estimated at between 12 and 31% of the total catch in 2008-2013, whereas the discard rate in the Danish fleet was only 2 to 8%. There are no observer data for the Norwegian fleet, so Norwegian discards in the Skagerrak are estimated by applying the Danish discards to landings ratio to Norwegian landings, and in the Norwegian Deep where no observer data are available, discarded shrimp are assumed to be primarily shrimp under 15 mm CL and are estimated from length distributions of the catch. The overall estimated discard rate by weight for the three fleets combined was 12% in 2012 and 10% in 2013, although there is some uncertainty surrounding these estimates particularly for the Norwegian fleet (NAFO/ICES, 2014; Munch-Petersen et al., 2013; Søvik and Thangstad, 2014b). A multi-agency project, the NORDEN project, is currently researching methods of reducing catches of small shrimp. Initial results from the project are very encouraging; experimental fishing using a mesh size of 47mm instead of the standard 35 mm mesh shows a significant reduction in the capture of small shrimp, particularly in the “lus” (very small) category. Work within the project is currently focussing on the efficiency of different types of grid in reducing the capture of small shrimp (Bengt Gunnarsson, pers. comm.).

In order to address this issue in Sweden (and to increase profitability of vessels) new rules are established for the year 2015 by the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (SwAM). Under these new rules, the transfer of a vessel’s monthly quota to another vessel is allowed so that the quota of two vessels can be pooled on one vessel. It is expected that this change in management will result in a reduction of discarding smaller shrimps. At this moment however it is uncertain whether the new rules will be effective.

The fishery has been managed primarily through a TAC since 1992. The TAC reached 16,600 in 2007- 2009, but has since been reduced, and was set at 9,500 for 2013 and 2014 (Figure 1, Table 1). The TAC is shared amongst the three countries based on historical landings with Norway, Denmark and Sweden receiving 60%, 26% and 14% respectively in 2011-2014. Initially the TACs were based on catch predictions from a cohort-based analytical assessment, but since that assessment method was discontinued, the TAC has been based on perceived stock development in relation to recent landings (NAFO/ICES, 2014). Whilst there is no formally agreed harvest control rule (HCR) for this fishery, the TAC is implicitly modified therefore in response to the annual stock assessments undertaken by NIPAG.

In addition to the TAC, management measures include restricted entry licensing, a minimum mesh size of 35mm(although most vessels voluntarily use a larger mesh size to reduce the catch of undersized shrimp), restrictions in the amount of landed by-catch and the mandatory use of a grid with a maximum bar spacing of 19mm in the fishery in the Skagerrak.

Whilst there is a series of management measures in place for the shrimp fishery in the Norwegian Deep, Skagerrak and Kattegat, there is currently no formal management plan agreed between the nations that participate in the fishery. The NIPAG meeting held in Nuuk, Greenland in September 2014 reported that Norway has taken the first steps in developing a management plan for the shrimp stock in Skagerrak

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 16

and Norwegian Deep, and intends to solicit cooperation from the EU in relation to the Danish and Swedish fleets (NAFO/ICES, 2014). During the Fisheries Consultations between the EU and Norway on the regulation of fisheries in Skagerrak and Kattegat in 2015 held in Ireland in December 2014, the Delegations agreed to continue developing a management strategy for shrimp during the first quarter of 2015. It is being led by Norway working alongside their EU counterparts in Denmark and Sweden and in conjunction with Norwegian scientists at IMR in Bergen. The management plan including a scientific evaluation is likely to be completed in 2015/16, following which it will be signed by the respective delegations from the EU and Norway (Ann Kristin Westberg, Norwegian Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries, pers. comm.). At a meeting in Lofoten Islands, Norway in May 2015, the EU-Norway consultations considered a proposal by Norway to request ICES advice on various components of a joint management plan including a TAC determined by an explicit harvest control rule, in-year revisions of the TAC based on the January stock survey, inter-annual quota flexibility, and the sensitivity of TAC calculations to uncertainty about discard rates. No agreement was reached at the meeting on the request to ICES for advice, and the joint management plan remains therefore under development (Geir Ervik, Norwegian Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries, pers. comm.).

3.2.4 Fishing practices and gear used

The net is an otter (single or twin-rig) trawl net, which is held open by trawl doors. As stated above around 50 % of the vessels use single trawl and the other 50 % use twin-trawl (Figure 3).

In case of twin-rigged trawl a clump is used in the middle to keep the net near the bottom. The weight of the doors is between 0.5 and 1.0 tons and the weight of the clump is around 1.0 to 2.0 tons. The ground rope is prevented from making contact with the sea bottom primarily by plastic bobbins of 20 cm in diameter.

The minimum mesh size in this fishery is 35 mm. However almost all Swedish vessels voluntarily use 45 mm mesh size in order to avoid catching small shrimp.

The standard trawl may have significant bycatch other than Pandalus borealis, and all vessels in the UoC use a Nordmore selective grid incorporated into the standard trawl to target shrimps providing a relatively clean catch of shrimp with very little bycatch. The Nordmore grid has a bar spacing of 19mm which excludes the capture of fish that are approximately 20 mm or more and has been shown to reduce bycatch significantly (Richards and Hendrickson, 2006; Isaksen and Solvdal, 1997, SLU observer data for 2011/2012). The selective grid became mandatory for all Swedish vessels on 1 February 2013 in Skagerrak, Kattegat and Norwegian Deep. If vessels have a fish quota, then within the grid trawl they are permitted to use a fish retention device or “tunnel”, a 120mm square mesh tunnel at the grid’s fish outlet. The tunnel retains larger commercial fish, but may also prevent the escape of non-commercial species.

Fishing gear used in the shrimp fishery and the catch compositions may be the subject of inspection by the Coastguard in each country. In Sweden in 2013 and 2014, the Coastguard carried out 28 inspections (target 25) and 40 inspections (target 30) of shrimp vessels respectively (Andreas Jonsson, Swedish Coastguard, pers. comm.). The Danish Coastguard also carries out inspection of shrimp vessels, but only a few inspections every year because most Danish fishing activity occurs in Swedish or Norwegian waters. However some Swedish inspections are undertaken as joint operations with Danish fisheries inspectors on board the Swedish inspection vessels (Jacob Handrup, Danish AgriFish Agency, pers. comm.). The Norwegian Coastguard conducted a total of 41 inspections of vessels fishing for shrimp in the North Sea and Skagerrak, and the regional branch of the Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries carried out 19 inspections of shrimp vessels between January 2014 and April 2015 (Modulf

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 17

Overvik, Directorate of Fisheries, pers. comm.) Following a joint Swedish Government commission in 2014 to review the control of the shrimp fishery and to develop a common approach to controls, the Swedish Coastguard issued new instructions on 16 March 2015 for the inspection of shrimp vessels.

Figure 5. Sorting grid used in the fishery.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 18

3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background

Principle 1 of the Marine Stewardship Council standard states that:

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

In the following section the key factors which are relevant to Principle 1 are outlined.

3.3.1 Taxonomy and geographic range

The cold water prawn Pandalus borealis (Krøyer, 1838), also known as the pink or northern shrimp, is a caridean shrimp of the family Pandalidae. It is distributed across the North Atlantic around the Barents Sea, Svalbard, Iceland and Greenland and south to the North Sea and Massachusetts, and across the North Pacific from the Bering Sea south to Japan and Oregon (Holthuis, 1980). The Skagerrak represents one of the warmest parts of the species’ range. In all these areas there are important commercial fisheries for Pandalus borealis.

3.3.2 Stock Structure

As noted above, Pandalus borealis is distributed widely across the North East Atlantic, and within the North Sea for management purposes ICES currently considers that shrimps from the Farn Deeps, Fladen Ground and the Norwegian Deep/Skagerrak belong to three separate stocks based on geographic locations and ocean currents and differences in length frequency distributions between the areas. Life history characteristics of P. borealis suggest that there is likely to be some connectivity between populations within the main fishing areas. Migration of egg-carrying females into shallower waters in connection with egg-hatching has been observed (Horsted, 1978), juveniles may migrate from shallower to deeper water (Smidt, 1981), and particle tracking models reveal that the larvae of P. borealis may be transported as far as 300km during the pelagic phase (Pedersen et al. 2003). Studies of genetic structure of P. borealis in the North East Atlantic confirm that there is little genetic difference between populations over wide geographical areas. Martinez et al. (2006) analysed variation in the genomic DNA by random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) markers, and concluded that the populations of the Barents Sea and Svalbard can be considered to be a single population. A recent study by Knutsen et al. (2014) using microsatellite DNA analyses showed that spatial genetic structure among oceanic samples from the Skagerrak and eastern North Sea was weak and non-significant. However there was some clear genetic differentiation between samples from the Skagerrak fjords and the oceanic samples. Knutsen et al. (2014) concluded that the lack of genetic differentiation between oceanic samples coupled with information on 30 years of survey and commercial catch data is consistent with the current management assumption that the shrimp fishery in the Norwegian Deep and Skagerrak is a single stock. Genetic and time-series data together with ocean current information suggests that the Fladen Ground shrimp constitute a separate population from both Norwegian Deep and Skagerrak shrimp (Knutsen et al. 2014).

3.3.3 Biology and Life Histories

Northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) is a cold water species living on soft mud or sand/silt on the continental shelves in the North Atlantic, usually at depths between 50 and 500 m (Shumway et al.,

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 19

1985). P. borealis is a protandric hermaphrodite (Bergstrøm, 2000). Individuals start out as males, mature as males and mate for two years but, after about 3 to 4 years they change sex and complete their lives as females (NAFO/ICES, 2010). In Skagerrak and the North Sea, spawning and mating takes place in October/November and females carry the fertilized eggs under the abdomen until hatching takes place in March the following year (Bøhle, 1977). The species has five pelagic larval stages which drift with ocean currents for 45–90 days depending on the ambient sea temperature before settling on the bottom (Aschan and Ingvalsen, 2009; Shumway et al., 1985). Particle tracking models reveal that the larvae of P. borealis may be transported as far as 300km during the pelagic phase (Pedersen et al. 2003). Shrimp feed both on the ocean floor and in the water column. Their diet will therefore include both benthic and pelagic organisms. Recruitment of one year old shrimp appears to be dependent on spawning stock biomass, but it may also be affected by the timing and duration of the phytoplankton bloom (Aschan and Ingvalsen, 2009). Recruitment to the fishery when the shrimps are greater than 15 mm carapace length (6 cm total length) is influenced by temperature, competition with other species and predation.

Numerous fish and marine mammal species are predators of P. borealis (Parsons, 2005) and predation mortality is thought to be an important factor in shrimp stock dynamics.

3.3.4 Status of stocks

For management purposes Pandalus borealis in the Skagerrak and Norwegian Deep is assumed to constitute a single stock and this assumption is confirmed by recent genetic studies (Knutsen et al., 2014). The shrimp stock in the Skagerrak and Norwegian Deep area (ICES Divisions IIIa and IVa East) is assessed annually along with other Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) and International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) stocks by the joint NAFO/ICES Pandalus Assessment Group (NIPAG).

3.3.4.1 Stock assessment methods

The stock assessment of shrimps in the Skagerrak and Norwegian Deep underwent an ICES Benchmark from 2011 to 2013. The aim of benchmarking is to reach a consensus agreement on an assessment methodology that is to be used in future assessments and the process is reviewed by independent experts and is open to stakeholders. The main objectives of the Benchmark were to establish the genetic basis for the unit stock and to select an appropriate assessment method for providing information on the past and present state of the stock, reference points and projections. The benchmark evaluated two assessment models - a stochastic length-based assessment model (Neilson et al., 2013) and a Bayesian surplus production model (Hvingel, 2014). Both models were evaluated as capable of delivering a full analytical assessment, but the preferred model was the analytical length-based model as it applies more detailed biological information in the assessment and therefore provides more immediate responses to change (ICES, 2013). Nevertheless the Benchmark advised that the surplus production model should still be used initially to provide verification on the performance of the length-based model. In 2013, the length-based model was not fully operational to produce sufficient output for the ICES advice and in 2014, various inconsistencies were identified in the fitting of the model, and so the advice in 2014 was based on the surplus production model.

The stock assessment model used by NIPAG is a stochastic version of a surplus production model. The model is formulated in a state-space framework and Bayesian methods are used to derive posterior likelihood distributions of the parameters (Hvingel and Kingsley, 2006). The surplus production model

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 20

synthesises information from input priors including initial biomass ratio, carrying capacity and survey catchability, a series of shrimp catches, and four independent series of shrimp biomasses (Hvingel, 2014).

Total reported catch from all vessels in the fishery from 1970 to 2013 is used as yield data. The four series of shrimp biomasses are two series of standardised annual commercial catch rates from Danish (1987-2013) and Norwegian (2000-2013) vessels and two Norwegian trawl survey biomass indices from 1984-2002 and 2000-2014. ICES has stated that “Making the electronic logbooks introduced in the Norwegian fishery in 2011 compulsory for all vessels, instead of only the larger ones, would improve the data available for the assessment.” The assessment team notes hwoever that an increasing proportion of the fishing activity of the Norwegian fishing fleet is covered by log books, and Søvik and Thangstad (2014b) show that in 2013 most of the landings in the Norwegian Deep and about 50% of the landings in the Skagerrak are recorded in log books. These log books are considered to provide representative indices of LPUE even though the whole fleet is not covered. Although log book records on catch and effort are not completed by all Norwegian vessels, all vessels must make landings declarations, so data on landings from the Norwegian fleet are complete.

Standardised LPUE calculated from Danish, Norwegian and Swedish catch and effort data from log books (Søvik and Thangstad, 2014b; Ulmestrand et al., 2014) increased from 2000 to 2007, declined until 2010, and has remained stable from 2010 to 2014 (Figure 6). (Note that only Danish and Norwegian data are used in the assessment model.) Harvest rates estimated from landings and corresponding biomass indices from the Norwegian stock survey were at a low level until 2009, increased to 2012, but have since declined (Figure 7). Standardized effort has been fluctuating without trend since the mid- 1990s (Figure 7).

Figure 6. Northern shrimp in Skagerrak and Norwegian Deep: Danish, Norwegian and Swedish standardized LPUE. 2014 data are preliminary. Each data series is standardized to its final year. Source: NAFO/ICES 2014

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 21

Figure 7. Northern shrimp in Skagerrak and Norwegian Deep: Harvest Rate (total catches / survey indices of biomass) and estimated standardized effort. Each data series is standardized to its final year. The harvest rate in 2014 is TAC / survey biomass index. Source: NAFO/ICES 2014

Due to large changes in vessel, gear and timing in 2003-2006, Norwegian survey data are shown as three time series (Søvik and Thangstad, 2014b), although the assessment model uses only data from series 1 and 3. Biomass estimates from the survey peaked in 2007, declining to a minimum in 2012, but

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 22

has since shown a slight increase (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Northern shrimp in Skagerrak and Norwegian Deep: Estimated survey biomass indices in 1984 to 2014. For more details see NAFO/ICES, 2014. Source: NAFO/ICES 2014

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 23

The recruitment index (abundance of age 1 shrimp) estimated from the Norwegian stock survey decline from 2007 to 2010, increased in 2011 and 2012, declined slightly in 2013, but was at the highest level in the time series in 2014 (Figure 9.). As there is a good correlation between abundance of age 1 shrimps in year t with age 2 shrimps in year t+1 and age 3 shrimps in year t+2, the high recruitment index in 2014 indicates that the recent observed increase in stock biomass will continue in future years (Søvik and Thangstad, 2014b). Preliminary analysis from the Norwegian trawl survey in 2015 suggests that there has been an increase in stock biomass following the high recruitment in 2014, although recruitment in 2015 appears to have declined to the level observed in recent years (G. Søvik, IMR Bergen, pers. comm.) The spawning stock biomass (SSB) index, calculated as the number of berried females, follows the same trend as the total biomass index (Figure 10). There appears to be no relationship between SSB and recruitment (Søvik and Thangstad, 2014b).

Figure 9. Northern shrimp in Skagerrak and Norwegian Deep: Estimated recruitment index from Norwegian stock surveys from 2006-2014. Source: NAFO/ICES 2014

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 24

Figure 10. Northern shrimp in Skagerrak and Norwegian Deep: SSB index from the Norwegian stock surveys from 2006-2014. Error bars are 1 SE (Source: NAFO/ICES 2014) Length frequencies of the catches from 1985 to 2013 have been obtained by sampling. The samples also provide information on sex distribution and maturity. Numbers at length are input data to the newly developed length-based analytical assessment model for this stock (NAFO/ICES, 2014). Although predation is an important source of mortality for shrimp, predator abundance indicators varied little over the last nine years of surveys (NAFO/ICES, 2014) and was found not to hold any information regarding shrimp stock dynamics (Hvingel, 2005). In consequence, predation was not included as an explicit variable in the assessment model (Hvingel, 2014).

Absolute biomass estimates have relatively high variances, and therefore to cancel out the uncertainty of the catchability parameters (which scale biomass indices to real biomass), in the assessment model shrimp biomass (B) is measured relative to the yield that would yield Maximum Sustainable Yield (Bmsy), and the fishing mortality (F) is scaled to the fishing mortality at MSY (Fmsy).

3.3.4.2 Reference points

In addition to estimating biomass in relation to Bmsy and fishing mortality in relation to Fmsy, the assessment also considers two other reference points that ICES uses within its MSY framework for providing advice: Btrigger, a biomass encountered with low probability if Fmsy is implemented, and set by NIPAG at 50% of Bmsy corresponding approximately to the 10th percentile of the Bmsy estimate, and Blim (30% of Bmsy), the biomass below which recruitment is expected to be impaired. The assessment also considers Flim (170% of Fmsy), the fishing mortality that would drive the stock to Blim.

3.3.4.3 Results of assessment

The surplus production model was fitted by Bayesian methods using fishery catch and effort data and Norwegian trawl survey data. The time series of relative biomass estimated from the model shows that the stock biomass has been above MSY Btrigger since the early 1990s (Figure 11). Stock biomass declined between 2006 and 2011, but has increased from 2011 to 2014, and the 2014 median estimate

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 25

is above Bmsy (Table 2). The median estimate of fishing mortality has remained below Fmsy since the early 1990s (Figure 12).

Figure 11. Estimated time series of relative biomass (B/Bmsy). Solid black line is the median estimate, boxes represent quartiles, and the whiskers cover the central 90% of the distribution. Dashed black line represents Blim, and the solid green line represents MSY B trigger (Source: NAFO/ICES 2014)

Figure 12. Estimated time series of relative fishing mortality (F/Fmsy). Solid black line is the median, boxes represent quartiles, and the whiskers cover the central 90% of the distribution. Green line represents Fmsy. (Source: NAFO/ICES 2014)

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 26

Table 2. Risk analysis of stock and fishing mortality exceeding reference points. Source: NAFO/ICES 2014

The assessment estimates the risk associated with exceeding the various reference points. In 2014, the risk of stock biomass falling below Btrigger and Blim is 4% and 1% respectively, the risk of stock biomass being below Bmsy was 39%, and the risk of fishing mortality exceeding Fmsy was 17% (Table 2). Plots of annual relative biomass against annual relative fishing mortality estimated by the model confirm that throughout the history of the fishery, the stock has remained above MSYBtrigger, and that for many of those years the stock has been above Bmsy (Figure 13). Apart from two years, fishing mortality has remained below Fmsy. The assessment also provides model predictions of risk associated with a range of catch levels in 2015 from 6,000 to 16,000 tonnes per annum assuming a catch in 2014 of 9500 tonnes (TAC). For all options, the risk of stock biomass falling below Blim is 1%, and the risk of falling below Btrigger is 4%. Catch options of up to 14,000 tonnes have a less than 50% risk of exceeding Fmsy.

Figure 13. Annual median estimates of relative biomass and relative fishing mortality from 1970 to 2014. Btrigger and Fmsy are denoted by green lines and the dotted line represents Blim. Source: Hvingel 2014

The alternative length-based model presented at the NIPAG meeting in 2014 estimates that spawning stock biomass has declined significantly since 2006, and that fishing mortality has increased steeply since 2007. Whilst such an increase in fishing mortality is consistent with estimates of harvest rates, it

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 27

is not consistent with recent trends in fishing effort. Estimated recruitment levels declined from 2005 to 2008, remained stable until 2012, and then increased very significantly. Whilst there is general agreement from the two assessment models that stock biomass has declined significantly in recent years, there are some clear differences between the outcomes of the two assessment models presented at the NIPAG meeting in 2014. The length-based model estimates that there has been a significant recent increase in fishing mortality which is not evident from the output of the surplus-production model, and the length-based model estimates stock biomass to be much lower than that estimated from the surplus- production model. At its meeting in September 2014, NIPAG concluded that the length-based model needs further development before it can be used as the basis for advice. The model has now undergone further development including the calculation of conventional reference points, and preliminary results (which require confirmation at the 2015 NIPAG meeting) suggest that the revised model produces a similar assessment of stock status as the stock production model (O. Eigaard, DTU Aqua, pers.comm.). Nevertheless the significant differences in outcome between the length-based model and the surplus production model presented in 2014 suggest that there is some uncertainty surrounding the assessment of stock status using the surplus production model. The 2014 assessment estimated fishing mortality to be 0.65 Fmsy whereas the 2013 assessment estimated F to be 0.95 Fmsy, suggesting some instability in the surplus production model. Such uncertainty is taken into account by ICES in setting its advice for the 2015 quota (see section 3.3.4.4).

Table 3. Reference points used in provision of advice on shrimp stocks in the Skagerrak and Norwegian Deep. Source: ICES 2014a

The stock assessments of Pandalus borealis in the Skagerrak and Norwegian Deep are effectively peer reviewed at NIPAG meetings by scientists from various nations, and the annual NIPAG reports are peer- reviewed within ICES by an ICES Review Group. The Review Group involves stock assessment scientists not involved with the P. borealis assessments and, from time to time, scientists who are outside the ICES assessment process. The Group may query aspects of the assessment model, the current assessment and the presentation of the results. The Review Group will then recommend to ACOM, the ICES Advisory Committee, that the assessment could be accepted as the basis for advice.

3.3.4.4 Management advice based on assessment of stock status

The management advice for the Skagerrak and Norwegian Deep stock based on the NIPAG assessment is formulated by the ICES Advisory Committee (ACOM) on behalf of the Council of ICES. The annual ICES Advice Book contains a general section (Book 1) which contains the conceptual framework for the assessments and advice including the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) concept and the setting of

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 28

reference points under the precautionary approach (PA) to fisheries management. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/2014/1.2_Advice_basis_2014.pdf In addition there are a series of books containing regional reports on the various marine eco-regions. Book 6 covers the North Sea and Skagerrak and includes advice on the Pandalus borealis stock in the Skagerrak and Norwegian Deep. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/2014/pand-sknd.pdf

The ICES advice for the Skagerrak and Norwegian Deep Pandalus borealis stock, based upon the stock assessment described within the 2014 NIPAG report, is that catches should be no more than 10,900 tonnes in 2015, and assuming discard rates similar to those observed in the last three years, this implies landings of no more than 9777 tonnes (ICES, 2014a). The advice lists the various reference points that are used to assess the status of the stock (Table 3) and confirms that within the MSY approach, the stock is well above Btrigger and that F is below Fmsy, and that within the Precautionary Approach there is a low risk in 2015 of the stock falling below Blim or of F exceeding Flim. The assessment considered a range of catch options for 2015 from 6,000 to 16,000 tonnes and concluded that application of the MSY approach would imply that catches of up to 14,800 tonnes would ensure that fishing mortality remained below Fmsy and that stock biomass would remain above Bmsy (Table 4). Due to concerns about lack of robustness of the surplus production model, ICES advised that it would not be wise to increase the fishing mortality from current levels to achieve catches of up to 14,800 tonnes, and that it would be precautionary to limit fishing mortality to the average level of the last three years, which corresponds to catches of no more than 10,900 tonnes.

Table 4. Outlook for 2015 based on a range of catch options Source: ICES 2014a

Annual ICES advice for this stock over recent years is shown in Table 5.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 29

Table5. Northern shrimp in the Skagerrak and Norwegian Deep: Historical trend in ICES advice, management, discards, landings and catches. Source: ICES 2014a

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 30

3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background

Principle 2 of the Marine Stewardship Council standard states that:

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

This section of the report highlights some of the key characteristics of the fishery under assessment with regard to the wider impact of the fishery on the ecosystem.

3.4.1 Types of gear used in the shrimp fishery

Any impact depends primarily on the nature of the fishing gear used in the fishery. Three types of trawl have been used over the last few years in the Swedish fishery for shrimp in the Skagerrak, Kattegat and Norwegian Deep - the standard Pandalus trawl (gear code 315), the standard Pandalus trawl incorporating a Nordmore selective grid (gear code 303), and the standard Pandalus trawl incorporating a Nordmore selective grid and a fish retention device or “tunnel” (gear code 337). The catch composition varies significantly between the three types of gear and therefore in relation to retained and bycatch species, each gear must be considered separately. Traditionally trawls are fished singly, but increasingly in recent years a double trawl has been fished. From 2005 to 2012, the percentage of total shrimp landings by Swedish vessels using double trawls increased from 7% to over 50% (Ulmestrand et al., 2014)

The standard Pandalus trawl used traditionally in the fishery is regulated through a minimum stretched mesh size of 35mm. The standard trawl may have significant bycatch other than Pandalus borealis, and a Nordmore selective grid is incorporated into the standard trawl to target shrimps when a relatively clean catch of shrimp with very little bycatch is required. The Nordmore grid has a bar spacing of 19mm which excludes the capture of fish that are approximately 20 mm or more and has been shown to reduce bycatch significantly (Richards and Hendrickson, 2006; Isaksen and Solvdal, 1997, SLU observer data for 2011/2012). The grid became mandatory in Gullmarsfjorden and Kosterfjorden only in 1999, and uptake by Swedish vessels elsewhere in Swedish waters was gradual; of total landings across the whole fishery by the Swedish fleet, only 9% were taken by grid trawls in 2002 although this increased to approximately 50% in 2012. Following the mandatory use of grids introduced on 1 February 2013, only 2% of landings of Swedish vessels were taken by trawls without grids in 2013 (Ulmestrand et al., 2014, SwAM official landings statistics). However there may still be discarding of both shrimp and other species when the grid trawl is used. Shrimp may be discarded for two reasons, either because they are shrimps that are less than 15mm carapace length (CL) for which there is no market, or because of “high- grading”, which occurs because the Swedish share of the TAC is limiting within the Swedish fishery and vessels may discard medium-sized or lower value shrimp in order to utilise their quota by landing only larger, high value shrimps. The price obtained for larger shrimps may be 10-15 times the price for smaller shrimps (Mats Ulmestrand, SLU, pers. comm.) which emphasises the incentive to “high-grade”. The practice of high-grading has not been permitted within the Swedish fishery since 2009, but it is recognised by all stakeholders that the practice continues and the regulations are not adequately enforced. If vessels have a fish quota, then within the grid trawl they are permitted to use a fish retention device or “tunnel”, a 120mm square mesh tunnel at the grid’s fish outlet. The tunnel retains larger commercial fish, but may also prevent the escape of non-commercial species. In some areas, modifications to the standard gear regulations have been made on a voluntary basis to increase the

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 31

selectivity of the gear. For example almost all vessels now use a 45 mm mesh size, instead of the 35 mm required by the current regulations.

The selective grid became mandatory for all Swedish vessels on 1 February 2013, and so the assessment team has not considered the standard Pandalus trawl without a grid as part of the UoC, although information relating to the catch composition of the standard trawl gear may be given in this assessment primarily to emphasise the selectivity of the trawl types permitted currently in the Swedish fleet. The grid is also mandatory for all nations’ vessels in the Skagerrak except in the Norwegian coastal zone out to 4nm, but there is currently no similar regulation in the North Sea (Norwegian Deep) area of the fishery. 3.4.2 Landings and catch compositions

The NIPAG 2013 report (NAFO/ICES, 2013) provides summary landings (retained) data aggregated across the Swedish, Norwegian and Danish fleets for 2012 (the last full year for which data are available for the standard trawl without grid in the Skagerrak). These data show only 5% of total landings with the grid trawl are other fish and shellfish species in the Skagerrak, but 21% in the standard trawl, and similarly 22.5% in the North Sea using the standard trawl. Based on these data the only likely main retained species would be saithe and cod. The report acknowledges that other non-commercial species including deep sea species will also be caught in the grid trawl with a tunnel but does not provide any quantitative data.

The Client provided total landings composition for 2013 for all three types of gear (Table 6) and for all three geographical areas, Skagerrak, Kattegat and Norwegian Deep (Table 7) (Bengt Gunnarsson, pers. comm., source SwAM official landings based on log book returns).

Gear Landings % of total (tonnes) landings

Grid 541.0 48.6

Grid + tunnel 551.3 49.5

Standard trawl 21.0 1.9

Total 1111.3 100.0

Table 6. Landings by Swedish vessels of Pandalus borealis in 2013 by gear.

Source: SwAM official landings statistics.

Area Landings % of total (tonnes) landings

Skagerrak 961.3 86.3

Kattegat 47.1 4.2

Norwegian Deep 104.9 9.4

Total 1113.3 100.0

Table 7. Landings by Swedish vessels of Pandalus borealis in 2013 by geographical area.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 32

Source: SwAMofficial landings statistics.

It should be noted that only a very small amount of data is available for the standard trawl (315) in 2013 as after 1 February 2013, a grid was mandatory on all Swedish vessels to reduce bycatch, although a fish retention device was permitted with a grid if the vessel had quota for fish.

In terms of usage of the different gear types across area, the landings in tonnes and percentage landings by gear are shown in Table 8.

Skagerrak Kattegat Norwegian Deep

Landings % of total Landings % of total Landings % of total (tonnes) landings (tonnes) landings (tonnes) landings

Grid 517.8 53.9 15.0 31.8 8.1 7.7

Grid + tunnel 430.0 44.7 30.5 64.8 90.8 86.6

Standard trawl 13.4 1.4 1.6 3.4 6.0 5.7

Total 961.3 100.0 47.1 100.0 104.9 100.0

Table 8. Landings by Swedish vessels of Pandalus borealis in 2013 by gear and by geographical area. (Source: SwAM official landings statistics)

In summary, the vast majority of the shrimp landings by Swedish vessels comes from the Skagerrak, with less than 5% coming from the Kattegat. Across the whole fishery the total landings from the trawl with a grid are very similar to the landings from the trawl with a grid and a fish tunnel. However there was considerable variation across areas with more landings in the Skagerrak from the trawl with a grid than from the trawl with gird and tunnel, but in both the Kattegat and Norwegian Deep, landings come predominantly from the trawl incorporating both a grid and fish tunnel.

The data provided by the Client also show how the percentage of total landings that is shrimp varies between gear types and area (Table 9).

Skagerrak Kattegat Norwegian Deep

Grid 98.3 96.6 92.9

Grid + tunnel 62.3 71.0 55.6

Standard trawl 60.4 57.6 48.8

Table 9. Percentage of total landings in 2013 that is shrimp by gear and by geographical area

(Source: SwAM official landings statistics)

For the trawl with a grid in the main fishery in the Skagerrak, over 98% of the total landings are shrimp. The equivalent figures for the Kattegat and Norwegian Deep are 97% and 93% respectively. So the retained catch in the trawl with a grid is almost all shrimp. For the trawl with a grid which incorporates a fish tunnel, as expected there is a significant component of the landings (30-45%) that is fish in all three geographical areas. There are no data on discards from this source (SwAM), so these data cannot be used to identify ‘main’ retained or bycatch species as defined in the MSC Certification Requirements v1.3.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 33

Information on discards is available for the shrimp fishery. NIPAG report that discarding of shrimp in the Swedish fishery was estimated to be between 12 and 31% from 2008 to 2012 based on on-board observer sampling. Previously high-grading was estimated through comparison of length distributions of the Swedish landings with those from the Danish fleet where high-grading does not occur, but this practice was discontinued when observer data became available.

An extensive dataset on catch composition from log books and observer sampling from 2011, 2012 and 2013 was provided to the assessment team by SLU following the site visit (Katja Ringdahl, SLU, pers. comm.). Observer sampling of total catch composition has been carried out under the European Commission’s Data Collection Framework (DCF). The target is to carry out 12 sampling trips on vessels using the grid and tunnel, and 16 sampling trips on vessels using the grid without the tunnel. These targets represent around 1% of the total trips in the Skagerrak each year, and the targets have been reached in most years (Katja Ringdahl, SLU, pers. comm.) Landings data are recorded from log books, and discard data are collected from observer samples and raised up to the whole fleet to provide an estimate of total discards in the fishery. The dataset allows the identification of main retained and bycatch species and provides an empirical evaluation of the efficacy of the grid through comparison of discard rates for the standard Pandalus trawl with the trawl incorporating a grid. The data up to 2013 cover only the Skagerrak component of the fishery. In theory observer trips may occur within the Kattegat region, but observer trips are allocated on a random basis and as only 4% of landings originate from the Kattegat, none of the sampling trips in the last three years took place by chance in the Kattegat (Katja Ringdahl, pers. comm.). Until recently, SLU had not carried out observer sampling in the Norwegian Deep area of the fishery because only 10% of fishing effort from the Swedish fleet has traditionally been undertaken in the Norwegian Deep. However, this area is becoming increasingly important for the Swedish fleet, and in 2015, observer sampling has been implemented in the Norwegian Deep (Katja Ringdahl, SLU, pers. comm.).

As noted above, since 1 February 2013, Swedish vessels must use a grid within the trawl, so the standard Pandalus trawl without a grid is not part of the UoC. However, the SLU observer sampling data allow a direct comparison of the catch rate of species other than shrimp in the standard trawl and that incorporating a grid. For the years 2011 and 2012, the percentage of the total catch that is fish is over 50% in both years for the standard trawl in comparison with only 12% for the trawl incorporating a grid (Table 10) providing empirical evidence of the efficacy of the grid in reducing the fish bycatch in the trawl.

(A) Standard trawl

Year Landed Discarded Fish landings Total catch Fish as Shrimps shrimps and discards (Tonnes) percentage of (Tonnes) (Tonnes) (Tonnes) total catch

2011 1258.6 358.9 2070.0 3687.5 56.1%

2012 920.0 405.8 1371.3 2697.1 50.8%

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 34

(B) Trawl with grid

Year Landed Discarded Fish landings Total catch Fish as Shrimps shrimps and discards (Tonnes) percentage of (Tonnes) (Tonnes) (Tonnes) total catch

2011 351.1 100.1 63.9 515.1 12.4%

2012 463.6 204.5 98.0 766.1 12.8%

Table 10. Estimate of fish landings and discards as a percentage of total catch for standard trawl and the trawl with grid. (Source: SLU observer programme)

3.4.3 Identification of ‘main’ retained and bycatch species

As Table 9 above demonstrates, the landings from the trawl incorporating the grid are over 90% shrimp in all three fishing areas, and so it is unlikely that any main retained species (as defined in the MSC Certification Requirements v1.3) will be identified from this gear as a consequence of any individual species being over 5% of the total catch. However the trawl incorporating the grid (with or without a tunnel) does catch a significant amount of fish and shellfish which is discarded. A wide range of fish and shellfish species are caught in the shrimp trawls, and the most commonly observed species are shown in Table 11.

Common name Latin name

American plaice Hippoglossoides platessoides

Angler fish Lophius piscatorius

Blackmouth cashark Galeus melastomus

Blue whiting Micromesistius poutassou

Bony fish (class of) Osteichthyes

Cod Gadus morhua

Common skate Dipturus batis

Crimson pasiphaeid shrimp Pasiphaea tarda

Glass/White shrimp Pasiphea multidentata

Greater argentine Argentina silus

Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus

Norway pout Trisopterus esmarkii

Norwegian shrimp Pontophilus norvegicus

Pale ray Dipturus linteus

Pink shrimp Pandalus montagui

Saithe Pollachius virens

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 35

Shrimp Pandalus borealis

Spurdog Squalus acanthias

Squat lobsters Munida spp.

Thornback ray Raja clavata

Thorny skate Amblyraja radiata

Velvet belly Etmopterus spinax

Whiting Merlangius merlangus

Witch Glyptocephalus cynoglossus

Table 11. List of most common Fish and Shellfish species caught in shrimp trawls in the Skagerrak.

(Source: SLU observer programme)

Summary data for the two types of gear in the Skagerrak demonstrate that there is a very high discard rate in both types of gear: 26 to 39% in the trawl with grid and 22% in the trawl with grid and tunnel (Table 12). Not surprisingly, the percentage discards in the grid with tunnel are actually lower than the percentage discards in the trawl with grid only. This occurs because essentially the tunnel is designed to retain the larger fish that would have passed through the grid in the absence of a tunnel. (A) Grid – no tunnel

2011 2012 2013

Total catch (tonnes) 515.57 766.08 752.85

Total landings (tonnes) 356.05 470.15 553.87

Total discards (tonnes) 159.52 295.93 198.98

% discards 30.9 38.6 26.4

% landings 69.1 61.4 73.6

(B) Grid + tunnel

2013

Total catch (tonnes) 940.61

Total landings (tonnes) 736.68

Total discards (tonnes) 203.93

% discards 21.7

% landings 78.3

Table 12. Estimates of the percentage landings and discards of the total catch from the trawl with grid and the trawl with grid and tunnel (Source: SLU observer programme)

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 36

Identification of individual species in the total catch during the SLU observer sampling trips allows an estimate of the percentage of the catch that are landings and discards for each species, and an estimate of the catch of each species as a percentage of the total catch, enabling identification of any ‘main’ retained or bycatch species as defined in the MSC Certification Requirements v1.3. Tables 13, 14 and 15 provide these estimates for the trawl with grid for each of the last three years, and Table 16 provides the estimates for the trawl with grid and tunnel for the single year of 2013.

Species Landings % of Discards % Total % of Total (tonnes) Landings (tonnes) Discards catch catch (tonnes)

Shrimp 351.06 98.60 100.11 22.19 451.17 87.51

White shrimp 27.52 100.00 27.52 5.34

Cod 0.32 0.09 6.18 95.08 6.50 1.26

Norway pout 6.26 100.00 6.26 1.21

American plaice 5.29 100.00 5.29 1.03

Nephrops 1.95 0.55 1.66 45.98 3.61 0.70

Whiting 2.72 100,00 2.72 0.53

Pasiphaea spp. 1.75 0.49 0 0 1.75 0.34

Saithe 0.65 0.18 0 0 0.65 0.13

Other species 0.32 0.09 9.78 96.83 10.10 1.96

Total 356.05 100.00 159.52 30.94 515.57 100.00

Table 13. Trawl with grid for Skagerrak 2011. Estimates of the discard rates for each species and the percentage of the total catch. The species are presented in descending percentage of the total catch. (Source: SLU observer programme)

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 37

Species Landings % of Discards % Total % of Total (tonnes) Landings (tonnes) Discards catch catch (tonnes)

Shrimp 463.63 98.61 204.50 30.61 668.13 87.21

Glass/white 20.83 100.00 20.83 2.72 shrimp

Crimson shrimp 15.19 100.00 15.19 1.98

American plaice 13.68 100.00 13.68 1.79

Nephrops 3.62 0.77 2.84 43.96 6.46 0.84

Atlantopandalus 6.04 100.00 6.04 0.79 propinqvus

Norwegian 5.81 100.00 5.81 0.76 shrimp

Pink shrimp 0.01 0.00 5.30 99.81 5.31 0.69

Norway pout 0.00 0.00 4.09 !00.00 4.09 0.53

Witch 0.31 0.07 2.42 88.64 2.73 0.36

Pasiphaea spp. 1.72 0.37 0 0 1.72 0.22

Cod 0.04 0.01 0.76 95.00 0.80 0.10

Bony fish 0.57 0.12 0 0 0.57 0.07

Other species 0.25 0.05 14.47 98.30 14.72 1.92

Total 470.15 100.00 295.93 38.63 766.08 100.00

Table 14. Trawl with grid for Skagerrak 2012. Estimates of the discard rates for each species and the percentage of the total catch. The species are presented in descending percentage of the total catch. (Source: SLU observer programme)

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 38

Species Landings % of Discards % Total % of Total (tonnes) Landings (tonnes) Discards catch catch (tonnes)

Shrimp 544.76 98.36 107.62 16.50 652.38 86.65

Norway pout 0.09 0.02 26.14 99.66 26.23 3.48

Glass/white 14.24 100.00 14.24 1.89 shrimp

Crimson shrimp 10.09 100,00 10.09 1.34

Greater 9.78 100.00 9.78 1.30 argentine

Squat lobsters 8.99 100.00 8.99 1.19

Nephrops 5.56 1.00 0.44 7.33 6.00 0.80

Blue whiting 4.77 100.00 4.77 0.63

Whiting 3.90 100.00 3.90 0.52

American plaice 2.55 100.00 2.55 0.34

Saithe 0.80 0.14 0.18 18.37 0.98 0.13

Cod 0.86 0.16 0.09 9.47 0.95 0.13

Pasiphaea spp. 0.60 0.11 0 0 0.60 0.08

Other species 1.20 0.22 10.38 91.13 11.39 1.51

Total 553.87 100.00 198.98 26.43 752.85 100.00

Table 15. Trawl with grid for Skagerrak 2013. Estimates of the discard rates for each species and the percentage of the total catch. The species are presented in descending percentage of the total catch.

(Source: SLU observer programme)

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 39

Species Landings % of Discards % Total % of Total (tonnes) Landings (tonnes) Discards catch catch (tonnes)

Shrimp 466.46 63.32 92.15 16.50 558.61 59.39

Saithe 159.96 21.71 1.07 0.66 161.03 17.12

Cod 53.08 7.21 4.34 7.56 57.42 6.10

Witch 22.53 3.06 8.76 28.00 31.29 3.33

Norway pout 0.58 0.08 28.26 97.99 28.84 3.07

Blue whiting 16.68 100.00 16.68 1.77

Greater 11.20 100.00 11.20 1.19 argentine

*Pale ray / 5.32 0.72 5.34 50.09 10.66 1.13 Common skate

Angler fish 8.54 1.16 0.26 2.95 8.80 0.94

Haddock 6.41 0.87 1.09 14.53 7.50 0.80

Crimson shrimp 6.02 100.00 6.02 0.64

Glass/white 5.99 100.00 5.99 0.64 shrimp

Other species 13.80 1.87 22.77 62.26 36.57 3.89

Total 736.68 100.00 203.93 21.68 940.61 100.00

Table 16. Trawl with grid and tunnel for Skagerrak 2013. Estimates of the discard rates for each species and the percentage of the total catch. The species are presented in descending percentage of the total catch.

(Source: SLU observer programme)

(*Landings are probably all Pale ray, D. linteus. Common skate, D. batis, may not be landed, so any recorded landings are likely to be misidentification of D. linteus. All discards in 2013 were D.linteus.)

For the trawl with grid, based on three years’ data from the Skagerrak (Tables 13-15), there were no retained species in addition to shrimp that were above the threshold of 5% of the total catch, and so no species could be considered as a ‘main’ retained species based on its contribution to the total catch. However the assessment team concluded that cod should be considered a main retained species in the Skagerrak because of its vulnerability.

For the Kattegat and Norwegian Deep, currently we do not have a breakdown of the landings by species for the Swedish fleet. However SwAMofficial landings statistics show that shrimps comprise 96.6% and 92.9% of the landings in the standard trawl with grid in the Kattegat and the Norwegian Deep respectively (Table 9), so it is unlikely that there will be any main retained species other than cod, designated as such because of its vulnerability.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 40

Based on the single year’s data only that are available for the trawl with grid and tunnel, the main retained species are shrimps, saithe and cod (Table 16).

For the trawl with grid, there is a large number of species which are caught and discarded without any individuals retained, but based on the catch compositions for the years 2011 to 2013, the average annual catch of all other bycatch species equates to less than 5% of the total catch. In the standard trawl with grid in the Skagerrak in 2011, the catch of the glass or white shrimp, Pasiphea multidentata represented 5.34% of the total catch, but the average catch of this species over the period 2011 to 2013 represented only 3.32 % of the total catch, and so the assessment team concluded that there were no main bycatch species for the trawl with grid (Tables 13-15).

In the trawl with grid and fish tunnel, there are only two species, saithe and cod, which constitute more than 5% of the total catch (Table 16), and as these two species are already designated as main retained species, the team concluded that there were no main bycatch species for the trawl with grid and fish tunnel.

3.4.4 Retained species

3.4.4.1 Stock status and management of main retained species

Cod

In 2004 the EU and Norway “agreed to implement a long-term management plan for the cod stock, which is consistent with the precautionary approach and is intended to provide for sustainable fisheries and high yield leading to a target fishing mortality of 0.4.” This management plan was renewed in 2008, and was reviewed in February 2013, but no modification was implemented. ICES evaluated the plan in 2009 and considered the plan to be consistent with the precautionary approach in the short term (< 4 years). The EU adopted a long-term plan for this stock with the same aims (Council Regulation (EC) 1342/2008; Annex 6.4.3). In addition to the EU–Norway agreement, the EU plan also includes effort restrictions, reducing kW-days available to community vessels in the main metiers catching cod in direct proportion to reductions in fishing mortality until the long-term phase of the plan is reached, for which the target F is 0.4 if SSB is above Bpa. No reduction in effort ceilings was applied between 2012 and 2014.

ICES 2014 advice for cod in the North Sea, Eastern Channel and the Skagerrak (ICES, 2014b) shows that there has been a gradual improvement in the status of the stock since 2007. SSB has increased from the historical low in 2006 and in 2014 is now in the vicinity of Blim (Figure 14), but target reference points are not reached yet. Fishing mortality declined from 2000 and is now estimated to be around 0.4, between Fpa and the FMSY proxy. Recruitment since 2000 has remained poor. ICES estimates the total catch in 2013 at around 45.5 kt, with 32.6 kt estimated landings (65% demersal trawls and seines >100 mm, 18% gillnets, 8% Nephrops trawls 70-99mm, 5% beam trawls, and 7% other gears) and 12.9 kt estimated discards.

ICES advises on the basis of the EU–Norway management plan that catches in 2015 should be no more than 35 486 tonnes, and if discards rates do not change from those in 2013, this implies landings of no more than 26 713 tonnes. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/2014/cod-347d.pdf

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 41

Figure 14 Historical trend of Spawning Stock Biomass for cod in the North Sea, Eastern Channel and Skagerrak

Source: http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/2014/cod-347d.pdf

In comparison to the cod stock in the Skagerrak, the cod stock in the Kattegat is in a much poorer condition (Figure 15). Spatial and temporal fishing area closures were implemented in the Kattegat in January 2009 to reduce fishing mortality on cod. Three closed areas were introduced in the Kattegat Sea, where fishing is prohibited (seasonally or during the whole year) in order to protect fish stocks, although these closed areas are in the south east of the Kattegat and this shrimp fishery operates only in the north west of the Kattegat on the border of the Skagerrak. ICES 2014 advice for cod in the Kattegat states that new catch and survey data available for this stock do not change the perception of the stock. The advice for this fishery in 2015 is therefore the same as the advice for 2013 and 2014: “ICES advises on the basis of precautionary considerations that there should be no directed fisheries and bycatch and discards should be minimised” (ICES, 2014c). In 2013, landings were only 92 tonnes but discards were estimated to be 351 tonnes, representing a high discard rate. ICES recommends action to reduce discards should be implemented but cautions that reported landings and estimated discards do not represent total removals, and that an unknown proportion of removals are due to fishing and biology- driven factors such as migration out of the area.

Figure 15. Historical trend of Spawning Stock Biomass for cod in the Kattegat. Black line represents model including discards, red line represents model estimating total removal, grey and dashed lines show 95% confidence intervals.

(Source: ICES, 2014c)

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 42

In summary the assessment team concludes that the current SBB of cod is in the vicinity of Blim in the Skagerrak Sea, which would mean that measures taken under the framework of the management plan have resulted in a gradual improvement of the status of the stock in this region. For the Kattegat Sea, measures have not been as effective as expected as SBB is still below Blim, and ICES advises on the basis of precautionary considerations that there should be no directed fisheries and bycatch and discards should be minimised.

Saithe

Saithe in the North Sea and Skagerrak

In 2013, EU and Norway renewed the existing agreement on “a long-term plan for the saithe stock in the Skagerrak, the North Sea and west of Scotland, which is consistent with a precautionary approach and designed to provide for sustainable fisheries and high yields.”

ICES 2014 Advice for saithe in the North Sea and Skagerrak shows that SSB increased above Bpa in 1997, but has declined since 2005 and has been slightly below Bpa (same value as MSY Btrigger) for the last three years (Figure 16). Fishing mortality has fluctuated around Fmsy since 1997. Recruitment has been below average since 2006, but does not appear to be linked to SSB, but may be related to changes in the environment.

ICES 2014 Advice for saithe in the North Sea and Skagerrak advises on the basis of the EU–Norway management plan and since SSB at the beginning of 2014 is below Bpa, paragraph 3 of the harvest control rule applies, resulting in a F of 0.28 and that catches should therefore be no more than 80 097 tonnes. Assuming that discard rates do not change, this implies landings of no more than 72 854 tonnes in 2015 for the whole assessment area (ICES, 2014d). This is expected to lead to an SSB of 178 867 tonnes in 2016, which is below Bpa (same value as MSY Btrigger, 200 000 tonnes).

Figure 16. Historical trend of Spawning Stock Biomass for saithe in the North Sea and Skagerrak.

(Source: http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/2014/sai-3a46.pdf)

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 43

3.4.5 Bycatch species

3.4.5.1 Stock status and management of main bycatch species Analysis of the SLU observer data from 2011 to 2013 concluded that there were no main bycatch species when using the trawl with grid and the trawl with grid and fish tunnel.

3.4.6 ETP species

According to MSC methodology, ETP species are defined as those that are recognised as such by national legislation and/or binding international agreement (e.g. CITES) to which the jurisdictions controlling the fishery under assessment are party. Species that appear exclusively on non-binding lists such as ASCOBANS, IUCN Red List, OSPAR, HELCOM or that are only the subject of intergovernmental recognition (such as FAO International Plans of Action) and that are not included under national legislation or binding international agreement are not considered as ETP under MSC protocols.

During the assessment of the Swedish shrimp fishery, the assessment team considered species listed under the following legislation (Table 17) in the context of the potential interactions with the UoC:

» CITES Appendix II

» EC Regulation 43/2014 fixing for 2014 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, to Union vessels, in certain non-Union waters, and which prohibits landing of certain species (therefore protecting them)

Species CITES Appendix Council II Regulation 43/2014

Cetorhinus maximus (Basking shark) X X

Carcharodon carcharias (White shark) X

Dipturus batis (Common skate) X

Lamna nasus (Porbeagle) X

Manta birostris (Giant manta ray) X

Phocoena phocoena (Harbour porpoise) X

Rhinobatidae (Guitarfishes) X

Squatina squatina (Angel shark) X

Table 17. Protection of species and determination of inclusion within ETP category.

During the assessment of the Swedish shrimp fishery, the assessment team have considered the above list of species in the context of the potential interactions with shrimp trawls. The result of this analysis determined the Outcome Status score. To score well, a fishery must be conducted in a manner that ensures ETP impacts fall within acceptable limits (as defined under legislation and / or binding

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 44

agreements that are in place). In addition to the above species, previous versions of the EU Regulations also included spurdog (Squalus acanthias), and the Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas (ASCOBANS), the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn Convention), and the Bern Convention list harbour seal (Phoca vitulina), grey seal (Halichoenus grypus) and ringed seal (Phoca hispida).

In addition to the above international agreements, the Swedish Finfo 2007:7 Action Plan for Endangered fish and shellfish has been developed in accordance with the 2005 Swedish Red List of species which are considered as threatened and where fishing makes up a significant part of this threat. (https://www.havochvatten.se/download/18.64f5b3211343cffddb2800018319/1348912834692/finfo200 7_7.pdf)

Most capture fisheries have at least some potential to interact with Endangered, Threatened or Protected species. The ETP interaction profile for each gear type varies and is greatly influenced by the manner in which it is utilised. Factors such as frequency of use, duration of deployment, season, and location, all play a role in defining the ETP interaction profile of a gear type.

Shrimp trawls are considered to have varying degrees of potential to interact with ETP species. In general, populations of endangered, threatened and protected (ETP) species are well studied in the North Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat, with considerable levels of work undertaken in relation to the regular monitoring of fisheries interaction through the deployment of on-board observers, capture of anecdotal information, focused national study/research programmes and a range of EU funded research programmes.

Sampling for endangered species captured by the trawl with grid and the trawl with grid and tunnel has been undertaken in the Skagerrak by SLU in 2012 and 2013 (Tables 18-21).

Species Number Total Kg in the Average Average Number of hauls number of sampled number of weight of hauls sampled fish in hauls individuals per haul where sampled / haul (kg) the hauls species occurred

Velvet belly 2 0.26 0.11 0.01 2

Thorny skate 18 4 0.25 0.22 0.01 1

Table 18. ETP species sampling in the trawl with grid fishery in Skagerrak 2012. (Source: SLU observer programme)

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 45

Velvet belly 18 1.16 0.72 0.05 7

Thorny skate 25 106 2.00 4.24 0.08 11

Spurdog 49 1.40 1.96 0.06 5

Table 19. ETP species sampling in the trawl with grid fishery in the Skagerrak 2013.

Velvet belly 288 35.0 12.00 0.5 21

Blackmark 24 1 0.07 0.04 0.003 1 cashark

Thorny skate 346 165.0 14.41 6.88 2

Thornback ray 2 16.4 0.08 0.68 2

Spurdog 27 15.7 1.13 0.65 7

Table 20 ETP species sampling in the trawl with grid + tunnel fishery in the Skagerrak 2012

Velvet belly 47 5.50 1.88 0.22 5

Thorny skate 25 34 14.28 1.36 0.57 1

Spurdog 5 0.52 0.2 0.02 3

Table 21. ETP species sampling in the trawl with grid + tunnel fishery in the Skagerrak 2013.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 46

In addition to observer sampling by SLU of ETP species caught in shrimp trawls, vessels have been required to record the capture of ETP species in their log books since 2011, and are aided by the use of identification guides. The presence of common skate in the catch is unlikely and may be recorded as ‘skate’ rather than ray, but uncertainties over the accurate identification and reporting of skates and rays means that there is the potential for misidentification of common skate and other species.

Common skate

The common skate, Dipturus batis, was formerly widely distributed over much of the North Sea but has declined throughout its range and is now only found rarely, mainly in the northern North Sea (ICES Advice 2008, Book 6: 6.4.30). It is the largest of the European batoid fish, reaching lengths of 285cm and weights of 100kg. It is a demersal species and frequently inhabits coastal areas and shelf seas. Fisheries independent surveys that have informed ICES Working Group reports found the distribution of common skate to occur across depths of 85-1000m.

There is a low probability of interactions between common skate and the shrimp fishery. The common skate was assessed by IUCN as ‘Endangered’ in 2000 and upgraded to ‘Critically Endangered’ in 2006, suggesting it “is facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild”. Common skate, which were once commonly found in shallow waters of the European shelf, are now generally concentrated in waters of the shelf edge, outside of the main trawling areas, and in deeper waters of the Norwegian trench where the fishery does not take place to any significant degree.

The fishing, retention on board, transhipment or landing of common skate is prohibited by CR 43/2014. Common skate may be landed only where specimens are taken outside of European waters (according to Council Regulation 57/2011). This Regulation also establishes the obligation to report some species of ray separately. If skate are taken within European waters, such as the Skagerrak or Kattegat, they must be returned to the water immediately. If returned quickly there is a high probability for that individuals of these species will survive (Mandelman and Farrington 2007, Revill et al.2005, Enever et al 2009, Enever et al. 2010).

Spurdog

Spurdog is seriously depleted in the OSPAR Area and the stock may be in danger of collapse as a result of unsustainable removal in former target fisheries (ICES WGEF 2008). The aggregating habit of spurdog made the species highly vulnerable to localised, seasonal fisheries, although most target fisheries for spurdog have collapsed over the past decade. Previously retention of by-catch from mixed fisheries has also been unrestricted. Recent stock assessments for spurdog in the North- East Atlantic (e.g. Heesson 2003, Hammond and Ellis 2004) estimated very low stock status for this previously highly abundant species. Continued target fishing and retention of bycatch in the decade since the above stock assessments are likely to have reduced the stock further and the North-East Atlantic population is presently listed as Critically Endangered in the IUCN Red List (Fordham et al. 2006). Recovery requires fishing pressure on this stock to be minimised. The Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for spurdog is set at zero and there is no provision for landing bycatch as in previous years. Accordingly, a directed spurdog fishery is no longer permitted and all spurdog must be returned alive to the sea in European waters, while the discard ban in Norwegian waters requires the retention on board of all catches.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 47

Harbour porpoise

The harbour porpoise is listed in Annex II of the CITES listing, and is the flagship species in the “Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas” (ASCOBANS). A number of Natura 2000 sites are designated on account of significant use of the areas by Harbour porpoise. Sweden are signatories to the ASCOBANS agreement, which was concluded in 1991 under the auspices of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS or Bonn Convention) and entered into force in 1994. The agreement seeks to formalise and coordinate efforts to conserve the small cetacean species shared between member countries in the ASCOBANS Area, conscious that the management of threats to their existence, such as bycatch, habitat deterioration and other anthropogenic disturbance, requires concerted and coordinated responses, given that migrating cetaceans regularly cross national boundaries. A Conservation and Management Plan forming part of the Agreement obliges parties to engage in habitat conservation and management, surveys and research, pollution mitigation and public information. Other recent projects have focussed on mapping small cetacean in North East Atlantic waters (often focussing on the North Sea). A recent notable example has been the Small Cetaceans in the European Atlantic and North Seas project (SCANS & SCANS II). Today, the most significant threat for harbour porpoise in most areas is incidental catches in fishing gear, primarily gill nets. However, it is highly unlikely that marine mammals and cetaceans interact with trawling gears. Northridge (1988) provided several reasons why this species normally avoids demersal gears. According to the DTU Aqua Report Nº 250-2012, on the Danish sampling of commercial fishery (with special attention to discards. 2010 data), no interaction with harbour porpoise were recorded during the 250 hauls analysed.

The European Union has adopted a regulation aimed at reducing the incidental catch of small cetaceans in fisheries in European Union waters. The regulation includes measures restricting Baltic Sea drift net fisheries, providing for mandatory use of acoustic deterrent devices (pingers) in some EU gillnet fisheries in the North and Baltic Seas, and the use of onboard observers on gill net vessels of over 15 m in length.

The assessment team received no reports of harbour porpoises becoming entangled in shrimp trawls.

3.4.7 Habitats

MSC Principle 2 requires that the fishery under assessment does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function. This is particularly relevant where sensitive, vulnerable or protected habitats and (usually benthic) species have been identified in the fishing area. As demonstrated by the VMS data for the Swedish fleet (Figures 17), the Swedish fishery for shrimp targets the same grounds each year (Figures 17 a-c), although fishing with a grid without a tunnel is often in shallower waters than when fishing with a tunnel (Figures 17d,e). The shrimp fishery occurs primarily within the Skagerrak (86% of total landings for 2013) with some fishing activity in the eastern Norwegian Deep (9-10% of landings) and a very small proportion of activity in the northern part of the Kattegat (4%). The emphasis in this section is therefore on the potential effect of the fishery on the habitat in the Skagerrak, but the sensitivity of various habitat features in the Kattegat requires at least an assessment that the shrimp fishery does not occur in those areas.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 48

(a) VMS data for 2012; all vessels

(b) VMS data for 2013; all vessels

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 49

(d) VMS data for 2012; trawls with grid only

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 50

(e) VMS data for 2012; trawls with grid and tunnel only

Figure 17. VMS data for the Swedish shrimp fleet for three years (a) 2012, (b) 2013, (c), 2014 and (d) trawl with grid only in 2012, and (e) trawl with grid and tunnel only in 2012. For all figures, each circle represents the start of an individual tow: the data points therefore represent fishing activity only. (source: SwAM/HAV)

In the Skagerrak and Kattegat sensitive, vulnerable or protected habitats have been identified and designated by the Natura Directive (http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/#), the OSPAR Commission (www.ospar.org) and the Mapping European Seabed Habitats portal (www.searchmesh.net).

The bathymetric map of the Skagerrak and Kattegat shows that the Skagerrak is generally deeper than the Kattegat with some canyons that can reach 500m depth, whereas the Kattegat is shallow with depths never exceeding 100m and a mean depth of less than 50 metres (Figure 18).

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 51

Figure 18. Bathymetric map of the Skagerrak and Kattegat Seas (source: www.navionics.com)

Sediment maps show the abundance of mud substrates in the Skagerrak seabed and muddy sands in the Kattegat seabed (Figure 19). There are also some reported rocky areas reported by fishermen and marked on their plotters along the Swedish coast in the Skagerrak Sea.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 52

Figure 19. Aggregated sediment for Skagerrak and Kattegat. (Source: Digital Atlas of the North Sea)

OSPAR has identified various threatened or declining habitats (see general description of these habitats below) and their distribution within the Skagerrak and Kattegat is shown in Figures 20 and 21. Information contained in these maps has been derived from MESH Atlantic web GIS data (www.searchmesh.net/weGIS), which received funding from the ERDF-Atlantic Area Programme.

The coloured code given in www.searchmesh.net has been maintained. 1. Deep sea sponge aggregations 2. Coral gardens

4. Seapen and burrowing megafauna communities 5. Lophelia pertusa reefs 6. Maerl beds 7. Modiolus modiolus horse mussels beds 8. Intertidal mudflats

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 53

Figure 20. OSPAR threatened or declining habitat points in the Skagerrak

(Source: : http://www.searchmesh.net/default.aspx?page=1974)

Figure 21. OSPAR threatened or declining habitat points in the Kattegat.

(Source: http://www.searchmesh.net/default.aspx?page=1974)

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 54

The habitats listed by OSPAR have specific characteristics. (1) Deep sea sponge aggregations serve to increase both the physical heterogeneity of a habitat and the number of available microhabitats, creating additional space for fish and invertebrate at their different life stages. They may be found both on soft and hard substrata. (2) Coral gardens can also occur on a wide range of soft and hard seabed substrata. They are formed by aggregations os colonies or individuals of one or more coral species. These communities host a high biological diversity. (3) Zostera beds are formed by eelgrass that form sea grass meadows which serve as a shelter to numerous benthic animals. (4) Seapen with burrowing megafauna communities are communities characterized by plains of fine mud in deeper waters that are heavily mixed by burrowing megafauna, which typically form a prominent sediment surface feature that creates a complex habitat, providing oxygen penetration to the sediment. (5) Lophelia pertusa is a cold water, reef-forming coral in the deep sea and in shallower waters, which builds reef structures with other hard corals. These reefs provide complex structural habitats that lead to a much higher biodiversity of Lophelia pertusa reefs relative to surrounding areas. (6) Maerl beds are benthic habitats consisting of unattached particles of calcified red algae that occur mostly in coarse clean sediments of gravels, sand or muddy/mixed sediments. (7) Modiolus modiolus horse mussels form beds which have a stabilising effect to the seabed and attract a range of species which attach to the top of its shell. (8) Intertidal mudflats are highly productive areas which support communities such as polychaetes, bivalves and oligochaetes. These areas provide feeding and resting to a large number of birds and fish.

Haploops communities are formed by crustacean amphipods that live inside tubes in the deep mud bottoms. These communities serve as feeding grounds for different fish species. They are not listed under the OSPAR Commission but their vulnerability is recognised by the HELCOM Commission.

The fishing gear used on the Swedish shrimp vessels is a relatively light otter trawl gear, which operates on or near the bottom, and may thus cause some damage to benthic habitats. The contact of the trawl doors with the bottom causes a clear trail, and the clump of the gear deployed by twin-rigged trawlers can cause impact on muddy sediments but is likely to have a relatively minor impact on sandy habitats. Bottom trawl gears are known to impact on habitat structure and function, and areas with biotic habitats generated by aggregations or colonial growth of single species are particularly vulnerable. Maerl and seagrass beds are also considered to be vulnerable to the effects of trawling gears. Habitat-generating species are represented by a wide range of taxonomic groups, e.g. Porifera, Polychaeta, Cnidaria, Mollusca and Bryozoa (e.g., reviews in Løkkeborg, 2005; Kaiser and de Groot, 2000; Moore and Jennings, 2000, Collie et al., 2000). In already disturbed areas, where the fauna comprise opportunistic, short- lived organisms, the trawl damage is less than in more pristine areas (Olsgard et al., 2008). In general, the response of benthic organisms to disturbance differs with substrate, depth, gear, and type of organism (Collie et al., 2000).

There are several areas designated to protect habitats in the Skagerrak and Kattegat. The main Natura2000 sites in the Skagerrak are shown in Figure 22 and in the Kattegat in Figure 23. These areas have been designated to protect mainly birds, marine mammal or reefs.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 55

1. Skagens gren; 2. Bratten; 3. Varedofjorden; 4. Store rev; 5. Lonstrup rodgrund; 6. Gule rev; 7. Gullmasfjorden; 8 Herthas flak.

Figure 22. Main Natura2000 sites in the Skagerrak

(source: http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/#)

1: Anholt; 2: Stradenge pa laeso og havet syd herfor; 3: Havetomkring nordre runner; 4: Laesotrindel og tonneberg banke; 5: Kims top og den kinesiske mur; 6: Fladen; 7: Lilla middelgrund; 8: Stora middelgrund och rode bank; 9: Lysegrund; 10: Hesselo; 11: Morups bank

Figure 23. Main Natura2000 sites in the Kattegat (Source: http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/# )

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 56

Marine Protected Areas which are close to the shore (less than 4 n.m.) are protected from Swedish trawl vessels by the general trawl boundary, and the regulation to protect reefs inside this boundary, established at the Board of Fisheries Regulations (FIFS 2004:36) on fishing in the Skagerrak, Kattegat and Baltic Sea. There are however two areas where shrimp trawling is permitted: in the Väderöfjorden and Kosterhavets nationalpark (Kosterfjordens) (area 3 in Figure 22), and in the Gullmarsfjorden (area 7 in Figure 22) where the shrimp fishery is closely regulated. The Väderöfjorden (Kosterfjorden) is one of Sweden's most diverse marine environments and was the first Swedish marine national park to be established in the area in 2009. Although shrimp trawling is permitted, since autumn 2000 there has been an agreement between the authorities and the fishermen with the aim of ensuring that the shrimp fishery poses no threat to biodiversity. The agreement includes a ban on trawling in the most sensitive environments, and a framework for developing knowledge and providing education on the potential impacts of shrimp trawling in the national park. In addition the fishermen introduced their own initiatives to reduce the potential impact of the trawl through a reduction in the weight of the trawl doors and the introduction of grids. Gullmarsfjorden is a deep water fjord with a rich marine flora and fauna. The shrimp fishery was previously closed for ten years before being opened again in 1999 but with tight restrictions of gears and fishing restricted to only 5 vessels with a total of 100 trawling days permitted.

Although a large number of Natura2000 sites have been designated in both the Skagerrak and Kattegat, management measures in many of these areas are still being developed and have yet to be clearly specified. Within the Skagerrak, the coral reefs in the Skagens Gren area (area 1 on Figure 22) have been protected since 2011 and there are current meetings about the future zoning boundaries to protect sensitive habitats for trawling. The Bratten area (area 2 on Figure 22) is also an important Natura 2000 site. The area has steep, deep hard bottoms with the presence of horn corals and many other rare species. It is also an important fishing area for Swedish and Danish vessels but also Norwegian, coastal small fishing vessels and Swedish sport fishing when the weather permits. In order to ensure that species and habitats are maintained, fishing in the area needs to be regulated. In 2013 a working group between Sweden, Denmark and Norway was set up, and the working group formulated a management plan for regulation of the fishery which was sent in 2014 by the County of Västra Götaland to SwAM for ratification. The component of the fishing plan that relates to the commercial fishery will need to be ratified by the EU so that it applies to vessels of all nations fishing within the Bratten area.

The proposed management plan consists of following parts:

- Zones with no fishing. In some areas sport fishing can be allowed.

- Extended control with AIS – mandatory for all vessels including the sport fishing.

- Reduced fishing effort with limitations on time of fishing activity

- No anchoring in the no-fishing zones even if sport-fishing should be allowed here.

- Other measures (which not are included in the proposed rules but will be included in the management)

If these proposals are ratified, the zones where fishing is not permitted will encompass a total area of 32 741 ha (327 km2), which is 27 % of the total area of the Natura 2000 site. All known occurrences of horn corals, sponges and medusahead are covered by the protection and the large part of all known occurrences of soft corals, brittlestars (Asteronys loveni) and endangered species. The Swedish commercial fishing would lose approximately 5,6 % of the bottom-surface trawled today, while the sport fishing would lose 56 % of their fishing positions. To ensure that the fishing effort does not increase outside the no-fishing areas, it is proposed to limit shrimp trawling inside the Natura 2000 area to Monday to Thursday only.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 57

The proposed closed areas in relation to the distribution of corals, sponge aggregations and seapens and burrowing megafauna are shown in Figures 24 to 26.

Figure 24. Distribution of horn corals in relation to proposed closed areas in the Bratten Natura 2000 site. Black boxes represent areas closed to all forms of fishing, and the red boxes represent additional areas closed to commercial fishing but where sport fishing is permitted. (Source: Kilnӓs, 2013)

Figure 25. Distribution of sponge aggregations in relation to proposed closed areas in the Bratten Natura 2000 site. Black boxes represent areas closed to all forms of fishing, and the red boxes represent additional areas closed to commercial fishing but where sport fishing is permitted. (Source: Kilnӓs, 2013)

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 58

Figure 26. Distribution of seapens (yellow) and brittlestar Asteronyx loveni (red) in relation to proposed closed areas in the Bratten Natura 2000 site. Black boxes represent areas closed to all forms of fishing, and the red boxes represent additional areas closed to commercial fishing but where sport fishing is permitted. (Source: Kilnӓs, 2013)

The distribution of current fishing activity in relation to these proposed closed areas in the Bratten shows that whilst raw, unscreened VMS data from vessels suggests significant fishing activity in the proposed closed areas (Figure 27), the VMS data screened to exclude vessel speeds greater than 3 knots, suggests that there is very little current fishing activity in the proposed closed areas (Figure 28).

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 59

Figure 27. VMS data for 2010-2012 showing all movements of vessels in relation to proposed closed areas in the Bratten. (Source: Kilnӓs, 2013)

Figure 28. VMS data for 2010-2102 (screened to exclude vessel speeds greater than 3 knots) in relation to proposed closed areas in the Bratten. (Source: Kilnӓs, 2013)

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 60

Other measures within the proposed management plan for the Bratten area include:

- Release of elasmobranchs

- Protection of halibut during the spawning-period

- Fishing charts

- Catch registration

- Education/knowledge transfer

- Development of gentler gears

- Fishery monitoring

In 2009 three closed areas were introduced in the Kattegat, where fishing is prohibited (seasonally or during the complete year) in order to protect fish stocks, especially cod (Figure 29). However as the VMS data for Swedish shrimp vessels show (Figure 17), the shrimp fishery does not overlap with the three closed areas in the Kattegat. OCEANA NGO has presented a proposal for a new marine protected area in the Kattegat trench, that would include marine protected areas 1 to 8 from Figure 23 under a single and bigger protected area, but at present this is only a proposal.

Figure 29. Closed areas in the Kattegat and bathymetry

(Source: Evaluation of closed areas in Kattegat to promote the rebuilding of the cod stock)

The general regulations under which the shrimp fishery operates provides a baseline level of habitat protection. Swedish fisheries also operate a partial strategy that seeks to minimize the impacts of the fishery on seabed habitats. Sweden is committed to operating within the terms of the Common Fisheries Policy, and Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 (31) provides that the Common Fisheries Policy is to apply the precautionary approach in taking measures to minimise the impact of fishing activities on marine ecosystems. The CFP imposes a range of restrictions and requirements on national fishing fleets and individual vessels which indirectly limit the impact that fisheries may have on EU seabed habitats. Some key elements of the CFP regulations include:

» a requirement for all vessels to be registered on the national register

» all vessels >12 m in length must carry a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) - this measure provides a clear means for monitoring and spatial management of fishing activity of the fleet

» regulations that set clear limits in terms of fishing effort (KW hours), fishery removals (TACs, national quotas) and fleet capacity.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 61

Under EU Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, both Denmark and Sweden have created an ecologically coherent network of protected areas within which the most sensitive and /or vulnerable habitats and species are protected.

3.4.8 Ecosystems

Fisheries can impact on the ecosystem in a variety of different ways. Fisheries can remove the target species, other retained and bycatch species and ETP species, and fishing gear can impact on the habitat. These impacts have been considered previously under previous sections of P1 and P2, and the two potential impacts of the fishery to consider that have not been covered previously are the impact on trophic relationships of removal of shrimps, and the impact on benthic community structure of fishing for shrimps.

A guiding principle of EU fisheries policy is that the precautionary and ecosystem approach should be incorporated within fisheries management to facilitate the long‐term sustainability of fish stocks (EC Fisheries 2006). To help co‐ordinate the provision of scientific advice on marine ecosystems, and research on the ecosystem effects of exploitation of marine resources in North Western Europe and the eastern Atlantic, ICES formed the Advisory Committee on Ecosystems (ACE).

ICES provides an annual overview of the state of the North Sea Ecosystem. ICES Mixed fisheries advice report for the North Sea (which includes Skagerrak, but not the Kattegat) gives an overview of the stocks of different species and marks a path towards ecosystem management (ICES, 2104e). http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/2014/mix-nsea.pdf

Food webs and trophic relationships of the North Sea are the subject of ongoing research and investigation, and much of this research is reported in ICES Working Group reports and used by those Working Groups.

There is considerable knowledge of the habitats and ecosystem of the Skagerrak and Kattegat Seas, based on a century of regular monitoring and research, the intensity of which has accelerated in recent decades. There has been a wide range of studies examining the fish community structure particularly in the North Sea and these studies confirm that shrimp is a low level trophic species. Numerous fish and marine mammal species are predators of P. borealis (Parsons, 2005) and predation mortality is thought to be an important factor in shrimp stock dynamics.

There are a wide range of measures in place that should minimise the impact of the fishery on the ecosystem. There are catch quotas for the shrimp fishery, fishing effort is closely regulated and fishing regulations enforced, the use of selective gears is mandatory, Swedish, Danish and Norwegian fisheries agencies collaborate and Natura2000 sites have been established.

The Mackinson & Daskalov (2007) Ecopath model of the North Sea (which includes the Kattegat) http://www.cefas.defra.gov.uk/publications/techrep/tech142.pdf is able to answer questions such as the response of the ecosystem to changes, and can be used as a basis in the design of policies aimed to implement ecosystem management principles, and can provide testable insights into changes that have occurred in the ecosystem over time.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 62

Data continue to be collected in Sweden through SLU, SwAM, and the various NGOs who have an interest in the Skagerrak and Kattegat ecosystems. Analysis of these data contributes to the detection of any change or increase in the risk level to the main ecosystem components.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 63

3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background

The Swedish Northern shrimp fishery takes place in ICES Area IVa (Northern North Sea) and ICES Area IIIa (Skagerrak and Kattegat). Since Sweden is a member state of the European Union the fishery is regulated not only through national regulations but also by the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). Under the management arrangements that regulate fisheries in the North Seas, Skagerrak and Kattegat EU vessels can fish in the Norwegian part of these waters. In the framework of the annual agreement between the EU and Norway a total allowable catch (TAC) is agreed on major fish stocks in both North Sea and Skagerrak/Kattegat and shared between the EU and Norway. The EU share is then further divided through historic keys over the EU member states. This applies also to Northern shrimp and annually a TAC for the Skagerrak/Norwegian Deep stock is set for this species.

Sweden is a parliamentary democracy with a well-developed and effective national legal system. The Swedish management system is compliant with relevant international conventions and agreements such as the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, the fisheries-related provisions of which states that fisheries are to be managed sustainably, that they should be optimally used, and that states shall cooperate on the management of shared stocks.

At the international level the fishery is managed through the Common Fisheries Policy of the EU (http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/index_en.htm) and the bilateral agreements between the EU and Norway on the fisheries in the North Sea and the Skagerrak and Kattegat (EU & Norway, 2014a & b). The latter are based on the Framework Agreement between the EU and Norway Council Regulation ((EEC) 2214/80 of 27 June 1980). Both within the EU CFP and the (annual) bilateral agreements parties cooperate in order to agree on sustainable exploitation of the fisheries resources available.

At the international level, a state can institute proceedings against another state through mechanisms such as the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Within the EU cases can also be referred to the European Court of Justice.

3.5.1 Management objectives

Long-term objectives are explicit within and required by the Swedish fisheries management system and the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy and they are consistent with the MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach.

The Swedish programme for the fisheries sector for 2007-2013 (Swedish Government, 2007) aims to promote an ecologically, economically and socially sustainable fisheries sector in Sweden by:

• creating a balance between fishery resources and fleet capacity,

• increasing profitability in the fisheries sector,

• promoting employment in rural areas associated with the fisheries sector,

• decreasing the negative environmental impact of fishing, and

• ensuring environmental sustainability and sustainable natural fish stocks.

At the EU level, clear over-arching long term objectives are set out in the EU common fisheries policy. These objectives have been formulated in the Council Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy. Article 2 of the basic regulation lays down the objectives of the CFP and states that the sustainable

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 64

exploitation of living aquatic resources shall be pursued by adopting the precautionary approach as well as an ecosystem based approach to fisheries management.

Management objectives for EU fisheries policies are also formulated in Article 15 of Council Regulation EC 1198/2006 on the European Fisheries Fund. This Regulation requires that all member states:

“Shall adopt, following appropriate consultation... a national strategic plan covering the fisheries sector (which) ...sets out the priorities, objectives, the estimated public financial resources (in accordance with the CFP) ...for:

(a) ... adjustment of fishing effort / capacity with regard to the evolution of fisheries resources, promotion of environmentally‐friendly fishing methods and sustainable development of fishing activities;…

(e) the sustainable development of fisheries areas,…

(g) preserving human resources in the fisheries sector, through upgrading professional skills, securing sustainable employment and enhancing the position and role of women;

(h) protection and enhancement of the aquatic environment related to the fisheries sector”.

The 2002 Basic Regulation has been replaced by a new basic regulation that is based on the outcomes of the CFP reform. At 10 December 2013 , the European Parliament has approved the CFP reform and the new Basic Regulation came into effect in 2014. . The new basic regulation holds some additional objectives on sustainable fisheries in EU waters including a ban on discards.

3.5.2 Decision making process

Organisations involved in the management of the fishery include the European Commission (EC), relevant Swedish government ministries, scientific organisations (ICES) and research institutes (SLU), fishery industry organisations and NGOs. Their functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction.

Organisation and functions identified are:

• EU: European Commission, European Parliament & Council of Ministers; Common Fisheries Policy (Structural policy, Surveillance)

• Swedish Ministry of Rural Affairs

• Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (SwAM) (fisheries management, part of Ministry for Rural Affairs)

• Swedish Ministry of Environment (habitat protection, liaison with EU Commission)

• Swedish National Food Agency (Livsmedelsverket; food safety)

• Swedish Coast Guard (Kustbevakningen; control and enforcement)

• Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) (research)

Precautionary approach

The precautionary approach is used and specifically mentioned in the Swedish and EU management systems.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 65

In Sweden’s National Strategy for Sustainable Development 2002 it is laid down that fisheries should be put on a sustainable footing by applying the precautionary principle, adopting an ecosystem approach and securing biological diversity.

The precautionary approach is mentioned in article 2 of the Basic Regulation 2371/2002 where it is stated that: “the Community shall apply the precautionary approach in taking measures designed to protect and conserve living aquatic resources, to provide for their sustainable exploitation and to minimise the impact of fishing activities on marine eco-systems.

Also in the OSPAR Convention, that is signed by Sweden and the EU, the precautionary approach is mentioned: Article 3 (ii) reads: “to develop means, consistent with international law, for instituting protective, conservation, restorative or precautionary measures related to specific areas or sites or related to particular species or habitats.”

3.5.3 Consultation

There are strong traditions of stakeholder consultation in the Swedish management processes and in the CFP. In Sweden a consultation process takes place whereby stakeholders are invited for consultative meetings when changes of management are considered.

In the EU for every renewal of the Common Fisheries policy there is an extensive consultation process that provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved. In 2009, the European Commission launched a wide-ranging public debate on the way EU fisheries are managed. It published a Green paper on reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. The Green paper expressly states that its purpose is “to trigger and encourage public debate and to elicit views on the future CFP. The Commission invites all interested parties to comment on the questions set out in this Green Paper”. After 4 years of deliberation the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) reform was approved in a final plenary vote by the European Parliament on Tuesday 10 December 2013. The European Union’s new Basic Regulation that will replace the existing one is currently being negotiated.

3.5.4 Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS)

Sweden and the EU maintain robust and effective control and surveillance regimes. Vessels can be, and are, warned, fined, have gear confiscated and licenses suspended or withdrawn for non-compliance.

Throughout the fishing zones there is a rigorous enforcement regime to ensure a high degree of compliance across all fishing fleets participating in this fishery. All vessels over 12 meters must be equipped with VMS and maintain up to date logbooks which are subject to regular at sea inspections by Swedish, Norwegian and Danish inspection vessels. These inspections also ensure that technical measures are being complied with and the catches tally with log book records and quota allocations. Vessels must also report when they intend to enter or leave the coastal states waters and may have to await inspection before commencing fishing or leaving a coastal state’s waters.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 66

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms include the following:

 VMS: all vessels longer than 12 meters are equipped with VMS;

 AIS: all vessels are equipped with AIS (only vessels over 15 meters are required to use AIS but under 15 meter vessels use AIS voluntarily);

 ERS/Catch control/e-log books : All vessels have to complete a paper logbook or electronically report their catches (ERS);

 EFCA: The European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA) is a European Union body established in 2005 to organise operational coordination of fisheries control and inspection activities by the Member States and to assist them to cooperate so as to comply with the rules of the Common EU Fisheries Policy in order to ensure its effective and uniform application;

 Inspections at sea by Swedish, Norwegian and Danish Coast Guard.

The EU has implemented a point system for infringements (Control regulation 2009/1224; 2011/404). Cross checks of fishing activity recorded on the VMS system and ERS and landings data did not identify any cases of systematic non-compliance within the fishery. Vessels have been inspected at sea by Norwegian, Swedish and Danish coast guards and inspections demonstrate that the fishery generally complies with gear and reporting regulations. Cross checks of fishing activity recorded on the VMS system and ERS and landings data did not identify any cases of systematic non-compliance within the fishery. There are however indications from other sources (observer trips) that high grading takes place in this fishery a practice that is difficult to detect by regular inspections at sea. The assessment team has formulated a condition under PI 3.2.3 to address this issue.

3.5.5 Research

The North Sea and Skagerrak marine ecosystems are a well-studied. Research conducted by research institutes in Sweden ,Norway and Denmark has resulted in the publication of countless scientific publications on different aspects of the ecosystem. At national level the Swedish government funds the national (fisheries) research institute (SLU). This funding of research projects automatically involves planning and selecting research areas that require further information

Research is planned by Sweden in the framework of the financing of SLU’s scientific research programme by SWAM. It is decided by SWAM which research projects should be undertaken to address relevant fisheries management issues. Research is also planned within SLU on the basis of allocation of available budgets and meeting the EU requirements of data collection. The research projects undertaken includes: investigations on fish and shrimp stocks, incl. stock size, structure and distribution, -fishing technology and selectivity of fishing gear, sustainable harvesting of commercial species and the monitoring of the populations of marine mammals and birds.

ICES establishes Working Groups based on information requirements identified by national delegates, including through industry representations.

3.5.6 Management Evaluation

Within the Swedish and EU management systems there are mechanisms in place to periodically evaluate the effectiveness of regulations and policies.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 67

Within the Swedish Management system internal review within the Ministries of Rural Affairs and Environment takes place on a regular basis. For instance recently the new Programme for the Fisheries sector 2014-2020 is being drafted, incorporating evaluation of the existing management system. SLU has also had several scientific reviews over the last decade by independent committees.

The EU management system is subject to regular internal review (as required by the CFP). This occurs at every level of the system with policy documents formulated at a European Commission level as a result of initiatives at national, sub-national and European levels. These policies and resulting operational plans and practices are then subject to wide consultation before ratification, and prescribed monitoring and evaluation processes after ratification. These systems also include formal consultation and review processes involving all EC Member State fisheries administrations, and committees such as ACFM (the body through which ICES provides formal advice), STECF (the committee by which the European Commission seeks expert opinion on fisheries), the Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (ACFM) dealing with industry concerns at a European / “horizontal” level), and the Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) dealing with regionally specific technical issues.

A wide range of normative monitoring of fisheries practice and the work of the various management institutions takes place. This includes data collection on vessels (vessel register), fleet activity (days at sea, VMS), landings, catches (through scientific observer programmes), and operating economics (costs and earnings surveys). In terms of institutional performance, regular monitoring against performance targets is undertaken in respect of statistics collection, quota management, aerial, at sea, and on-shore inspections, checks across the audit trail, fisheries enforcement (including prosecutions),and the nature and extent of development support to the sector.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 68

4 EVALUATION PROCEDURE

4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment

MSC certification requirements require CABs to harmonize with fisheries that overlap with the fishery under certification both in the case of already certified fisheries or fisheries under assessment.

There are several fisheries targeting Pandalus borealis which are already MSC Fisheries certified or undergoing the certification process. Several of these fisheries take place in the North West Atlantic and do not intersect with the Swedish cold water prawn fishery which takes place in the North East Atlantic. In the North East Atlantic an important fishery for cold water prawn takes place in the Barents Sea. The Norwegian, Estonian and Faroese fisheries for cold water prawn in the Barents Sea have been certified. The team has considered that there is not much overlap between Barents Sea and North Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat cold water prawn fisheries. The fishing area and the management systems are different which implies that scores for P1 and P3 could remarkably differ. For P2 the fact that the bycatch species, habitats and ecosystem of the Barents Sea are different from the North Sea also implies that there is no need for harmonisation with the fisheries in the Barents Sea.

When the current full assessment was started there was however one other fishery for cold water prawn in the Skagerrak, Kattegat and Norwegian Deep that was undergoing MSC full-assessment. This was the Denmark Skagerrak, Kattegat and Norwegian Deep cold water prawn fishery. The assessment team has been in contact with the assessment team of this fishery in order to harmonize the assessments. However in December 2014 the Danish fishery was withdrawn from MSC assessment because the PCDR could not be published within the required timeframe.

The conclusion is therefore that the Swedish cold water prawn fishery is now the first cold water prawn fishery in the Skagerrak, Kattegat and Norwegian Deeps undergoing assessment. Recently however (in February 2015) the Denmark cold water prawn fishery has re-entered the MSC full-assessment process. In March 2015 also the Norwegian cold water prawn fishery entered this process. Both fisheries contracted DNV to conduct these assessments. This of course strongly facilitates the harmonisation process. With the start of the certification processes for the Danish and Norwegian harmonisation has immediately started so that complementary assessment trees are used, information is shared and conclusions with respect to evaluation, scoring and conditions will be consistent as is required under CI3.2.3.2.

4.2 Previous assessments There have been no previous assessments for this fishery.

4.3 Assessment Methodologies

The basis for the MSC-certification is the standard denoted as the MSC Fishery Standard - Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing, v 1.1, organised in three main principles.

 Principle 1 concentrates on the need to maintain the target stock at a sustainable level;

 Principle 2 draws attention to maintaining the ecosystem in which the target stock exists;

 Principle 3 addresses the requirement for an effective fishery management system in order to fulfil Principles 1 and 2. In addition Principle 3 takes into account national and international regulations. The Principles 1-3, with pertaining criteria, are presented below.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 69

The assessment was carried out using MSC Certification Requirements v1.3. The assessment team used the default assessment tree without adjustments as defined in the MSC Certification Requirements v1.3. The MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 is used as basis for this report.

PRINCIPLE NUMBER 1

A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery1:

Intent:

The intent of this principle is to ensure that the productive capacities of resources are maintained at high levels and are not sacrificed in favour of short term interests. Thus, exploited populations would be maintained at high levels of abundance designed to retain their productivity, provide margins of safety for error and uncertainty, and restore and retain their capacities for yields over the long term.

Criteria:

 The fishery shall be conducted at catch levels that continually maintain the high productivity of the target population(s) and associated ecological community relative to its potential productivity.

 Where the exploited populations are depleted, the fishery will be executed such that recovery and rebuilding is allowed to occur to a specified level consistent with the precautionary approach and the ability of the populations to produce long-term potential yields within a specified time frame.

 Fishing is conducted in a manner that does not alter the age or genetic structure or sex composition to a degree that impairs reproductive capacity.

PRINCIPLE NUMBER 2

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

Intent:

The intent of this principle is to encourage the management of fisheries from an ecosystem perspective under a system designed to assess and restrain the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem.

Criteria:

 The fishery is conducted in a way that maintains natural functional relationships among species and should not lead to trophic cascades or ecosystem state changes.

 The fishery is conducted in a manner that does not threaten biological diversity at the genetic, species or population levels and avoids or minimises mortality of, or injuries to endangered, threatened or protected species.

1 The sequence in which the Principles and Criteria appear does not represent a ranking of their significance, but is rather intended to provide a logical guide to certifiers when assessing a fishery. The criteria by which the MSC Principles will be implemented will be reviewed and revised as appropriate in light of relevant new information, technologies and additional consultations.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 70

 Where exploited populations are depleted, the fishery will be executed such that recovery and rebuilding is allowed to occur to a specified level within specified time frames, consistent with the precautionary approach and considering the ability of the population to produce long-term potential yields.

PRINCIPLE NUMBER 3:

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

Intent:

The intent of this principle is to ensure that there is an institutional and operational framework for implementing Principles 1 and 2, appropriate to the size and scale of the fishery.

Part A: Management System Criteria

 The fishery shall not be conducted under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement.

 The management system shall:

 Demonstrate clear long-term objectives consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and contain a consultative process that is transparent and involves all interested and affected parties so as to consider all relevant information, including local knowledge. The impact of fishery management decisions on all those who depend on the fishery for their livelihoods, including, but not confined to subsistence, artisanal, and fishing-dependent communities shall be addressed as part of this process.

 Be appropriate to the cultural context, scale and intensity of the fishery – reflecting specific objectives, incorporating operational criteria, containing procedures for implementation and a process for monitoring and evaluating performance and acting on findings.

 Observe the legal and customary rights and long term interests of people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood, in a manner consistent with ecological sustainability.

 Incorporates an appropriate mechanism for the resolution of disputes arising within the system2.

 Provide economic and social incentives that contribute to sustainable fishing and shall not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing.

 Act in a timely and adaptive fashion on the basis of the best available information using a precautionary approach particularly when dealing with scientific uncertainty.

 Incorporate a research plan – appropriate to the scale and intensity of the fishery – that addresses the information needs of management and provides for the dissemination of research results to all interested parties in a timely fashion.

2 Outstanding disputes of substantial magnitude involving a significant number of interests will normally disqualify a fishery from certification.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 71

 Require that assessments of the biological status of the resource and impacts of the fishery have been and are periodically conducted.

 Specify measures and strategies that demonstrably control the degree of exploitation of the resource, including, but not limited to:

- Setting catch levels that will maintain the target population and ecological community’s high productivity relative to its potential productivity, and account for the non-target species (or size, age, sex) captured and landed in association with, or as a consequence of, fishing for target species.

- Identifying appropriate fishing methods that minimise adverse impacts on habitat, especially in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning and nursery areas.

- Providing for the recovery and rebuilding of depleted fish populations to specified levels within specified time frames.

- Mechanisms in place to limit or close fisheries when designated catch limits are reached.

- Establishing no-take zones where appropriate.

 Contains appropriate procedures for effective compliance, monitoring, control, surveillance and enforcement which ensure that established limits to exploitation are not exceeded and specifies corrective actions to be taken in the event that they are.

Part B: Operational Criteria

Fishing operation shall:

 Make use of fishing gear and practices designed to avoid the capture of non-target species (and non-target size, age, and/or sex of the target species); minimise mortality of this catch where it cannot be avoided, and reduce discards of what cannot be released alive.

 Implement appropriate fishing methods designed to minimise adverse impacts on habitat, especially in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning and nursery areas.

 Not use destructive fishing practices such as fishing with poisons or explosives.

 Minimise operational waste such as lost fishing gear, oil spills, on-board spoilage of catch, etc.

 Be conducted in compliance with the fishery management system and all legal and administrative requirements.

 Assist and co-operate with management authorities in the collection of catch, discard, and other information of importance to effective management of the resources and the fishery.

The MSC Principles and Criteria presented above set the requirements for the fishery that undergoes certification. MSC’s certification methodology is based on a structured hierarchy of Sub-criteria and Performance indicators. The overall performance is decided on the basis of the scoring criteria that the fishery gets during assessment. These sub-criteria and performance indicators have been developed by the MSC in the form of a default assessment tree.

When a fishery is evaluated the performance indicators (normally specific statements or questions) are checked out, and each performance indicator has three different “scoring guideposts” that can be defined. MSC characterises these scoring points as follows:

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 72

 Perfect practice, representing the level of performance that would be expected in a theoretically ‘perfect’ fishery (100 points).

 Exemplary or best practice (80 points).

Minimum sustainable practice (60 points).

4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques 4.4.1 Site Visits

Relevant stakeholders have been identified and stakeholder meetings were scheduled and carried out as planned in Gothenburg and Lysekil in May 2014. Persons consulted and key issues discussed during these site-visits are outlined in Table 22. Information gathered was used as a basis for this report and is presented throughout several chapters and in the scoring tables.

Table 22. Site visits conducted and key issues discussed  Name  Affiliation  Date  Key issues Bengt Client 05.05.2014 Info about client and the fishery Gunnarsson, representatives  History and organizational structure Fishing operations: Gothenburg Fish Gothenburg Fish Fishing season Auction Auction and  Fishing area fishermen  Henrik  UoC Fleet Johansson,  Fishing practices: Gothenburg Fish o Gears used Auction o Fishing area o Fishing depth Mathias Ivarsson, o Historical fishing levels (quotas and fisherman landings) o Composition of catch o Info on discarding o Sampling and weighting on board o Closed areas o Loss of fishing gear Impact on eco system:  List of all by-catch of fish species: (species and quantities)  By-catch of marine mammals, ETP species, birds  List of commercial/non-commercial species which are usually discarded (quantities/if known)  Protecten or sensitive habitats within geographical range of target stock  Natura 2000 sites  Effect of gear used on the habitat  Reporting & registration of by-catch/discards  Sorting/separation of by-catch  Sampling Management, compliance with rules and regulations  Fishery management plans  Disputes with national/ international authorities for the last 5 years.  Records of sanctions and penalties in 2013, 2014 (if any).  Control & surveillance:

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 73

o VMS system o Landing control o Quota control o Inspections on board  Participation in research projects  Amount and type of information provided to management bodies  Cooperation with management bodies  Management evaluation

Chain of Custody start:  Review of traceability system on board and at landing  Labelling of products  First point of landing  First point of sale  Main products  Main markets

Bengt Kårmark, Authorities: 07.05.2014  Fisheries Management & Regulations Consultation and decision-making process (Analyst, SWAM (Swedish  Mechanisms for resolution of legal disputes Department for Agency for  Review of regulations for shrimp in ICES Fisheries Marine and Water  Management Management) division IIIa West and IVa East  Harvest strategy for shrimp  Long-term objectives for Swedish fisheries  Strategy for minimising or eliminating ETP by-catch  Strategy in scientific research.  Research programmes for shrimp fishery under assessment  Strategy and plans for protection of sensitive habitats, Natura 2000  Control, surveillance and monitoring routines/regulations applied to Swedish (and Norwegian shrimp fishery in ICES division IIIa West and IVa East  Logbooks: recording of landings and discards (of non-commercial species)  Significant discrepancies found at landing control for shrimp fisheries in 2011/2014.  Observed fishing patterns (gear used, fishing area, number of boats, fishing season).  Level of slipping/discards in shrimp fisheries.  Fishermen’s compliance with laws and regulations  Research planning  Evaluation of management system

Mats Ulmestrand, Scientists: 09.05.2014  Stock status, stock structure and recruitment (Scientist, SLU (Swedish Review of Limit and Target reference points Havfiske- University of  established for the stock laboratoriet in Agricultural Approach to stock assessments Lysekil) Sciences,  Sampling programmes and level of sampling Institute of  Marine Research)  Level of discards (composition of species, quantities)  Level of by-catch (composition of species, quantities)

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 74

 Monitoring programmes for ETP species. Can extent of interactions with ETP species be quantified?  Impact of fisheries on ecosystem  Impact of fisheries on marine habitats Research planning .

4.4.2 Consultations

Information on the assessment process was made publicly available through www.msc.org at given stages of the assessment as outlined in Table 23. In addition to that, all relevant stakeholders identified at the beginning of the assessment (over 40 stakeholders) were reached through direct e-mails and given a possibility to monitor the assessment process and provide a feedback to the assessment team.

Stakeholder comments were submitted from WWF Sweden during the period of the site visit, and are referred in Annex 3. Other information gathered during the site visits and through contact with the stakeholders after the site visit formed the main basis of the stakeholder consultancy for this assessment (ref. section 4.4.1 above).

Table 23: Consultations during assessment process Date Information Media

4 February 2014 Notification of Full assessment Notification on MSC website (4 Feb 2014) Direct E-mail

4 February 2014 Notification of Assessment Notification on MSC website Team Direct E-mail

4 March 2014 Confirmation of Assessment Notification on MSC website Team Direct E-mail

4 March 2014 Announcement of use of Notification on MSC website Default Assessment Ttree Direct E-mail

28 April 2014 Confirmation of use of Default Notification on MSC website Assessment Tree Direct E-mail

Week 13 2014 Advertisement of certification Advertisement on + Invitation to contribute to www.intrafish.com assessment process Week 13 2014 Advertisement of certification Advertisement in Yrkesfiskaren + Invitation to contribute to assessment process 25 March 2014 Stakeholder Notification: Site Notification on MSC website Visit scheduled Direct E-mail

13 May 2014 Stakeholder Notification: Notification on MSC website Change in role in Assessment Direct E-mail Team members 3 June 2014 Variation request: Extension of Notification on MSC website UoC Direct E-mail

3 June 2014 Variation response: Extension Notification on MSC website of UoC Direct E-mail

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 75

17 July Revised timeline Notification on MSC website Direct E-mail

17 October 2014 Revised timeline Notification on MSC website Direct E-mail

20 January 2015 Nomination of peer reviewers Notification on MSC website Direct E-mail

3 February 2015 Confirmation of peer reviewers Notification on MSC website Direct E-mail

10 March 2015 Notification of Public Comment Notification on MSC website Draft Report Direct E-mail

21 May 2015 Revised timeline Notification on MSC website Direct E-mail

1 September 2015 Notification of Final Report Notification on MSC website Direct E-mail

4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques

The full assessment was publicly announced on 4 February 2014 through www.msc.org and supplemented with advertisements on www.intrafish.com and in Yrkesfiskaren week 13, 2014. Assessment team chose to announce the assessment in English on www.intrafish.com to secure worldwide coverage of potential stakeholders and in Swedish language in a local Swedish newspaper edited by the Swedish Fishermen´s Association.

At the beginning of the assessment, the assessment team compiled a stakeholder list based on guidance from the client and team member experience with other assessments of Swedish fisheries. The list covers over 40 stakeholders and has been used at every stage of the consultation process undertaken for Swedish Skagerrak, Kattegat and the Norwegian Deep cold water prawn fishery.

The site visit took place from 5 to 9 May 2014 in Gothenburg (with one meeting in Lysekil), Sweden. All members of the assessment team specified in section 2.1. were present at all meetings held. Stakeholder consultations were performed in the form of direct meetings. Information on meetings participants and issues discussed can be found in Table 22. Some additional information was received from the stakeholders and the client after the site visit. Since the period from the last site visit until finishing the PDCR has exceeded 9 months, new information has been reviewed by the assessment team. This included new information from ICES on stock status and management which became available since the site visit. The new information increased the score for PI 1.1.1 to 80, so that it was no longer necessary to score PI 1.1.3. Also reviewing the 2015 agreement between EU and Norway on regulations of shrimp fisheries in Skagerrak and Kattegat, which was more in line with ICES advice than earlier years, supported the justification of the scoring of PI 1.2.2 at 65.

The performance indicators and the pertaining scoring systems were evaluated jointly by the assessment team and all scoring was based on unanimous conclusions by the entire team during the scoring meetings which took place in skype meetings on 11 June, 2 September 2014, 26 January 2015, 6 July 2015 and 17 August 2015.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 76

In order to fulfil the requirements for certification the following minimum scores are required:

 The fishery must obtain an average score of 80 or more for each of the three MSC Principles, based on the weighted aggregate scores for all Performance Indicators under each Criterion in each Principle.  The fishery must obtain a score of 60 or more for each Performance Indicator under each Criterion in each Principle.

Even though a fishery fulfils the criteria for certification, there may still be some important potential risks to future sustainability that are revealed during assessment. These are performance indicators that score less than 80, but more than 60. In order to be granted a MSC fishery certificate the client must agree to do some further improvements regarding these points and describe the actions that will be taken in a client action plan. The certification body (here DNV GL) sets a timescale for the fishery to improve the relevant areas. The Sweden Skagerrak, Kattegat and the Norwegian Deep cold water prawn fishery achieved a score of 80 or more for each of the three MSC Principles, and did not score under 60 for any of the set MSC Criteria. The assessment team therefore recommends the certification of the Sweden Skagerrak, Kattegat and the Norwegian Deep cold water prawn fishery for the client Gothenburg Fish Auction.

In the assessment process a number of PIs scored more than 60 but less than 80. For these PIs the team has drafted conditions. Full explanation of these conditions is provided in Appendix 1.2 of the report

Default performance indicators and the scores allocated in the evaluation are enclosed in section 6.2. The set of scoring elements that have been considered in each outcome PI in Principle 2 are included in Table 24.

Table 24. Scoring elements Component Scoring elements Main/not main Data-deficient or not Retained species Cod Main Not DD Saithe Main Not DD Habitat Coral gardens N/A N/A Habitat Deep sea sponge aggregations N/A N/A Habitat Zostera beds N/A N/A Habitat Lophelia pertusa reefs N/A N/A Habitat Seapen and burrowing megafauna N/A N/A

4.4.4 Risk Based Framework

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 77

5 TRACEABILITY

5.1 Eligibility Date

The actual eligibility date (ATED) is the same as the lates target eligibility date (TED) - 1 November 2014.

TED was changed from the originally estimated TED - 1 August 2014 - to 1 November 2014. Fishing is all year around, and the selection of the TED was based on the maximum allowed period from TED to the PCDR (earliest date possible). The traceability and segregation systems in the fishery has been in place from this date

5.2 Traceability within the Fishery 5.2.1 Description of the tracking, tracing and segregation systems within the fishery.

Traceability up to the point of first sale (in a fish auction) has been scrutinised as part of this assessment and it is concluded that the system of tracking and tracing in the Sweden Skagerrak, Kattegat and the Norwegian Deep Cold Water Prawn fishery is adequate to ensure that all shrimps originating from the certified fishery, and sold as certified, could be identified prior or at the point of sale.

All the shrimps landed from Swedish boats in Sweden are originating from vessels having a licence from the Swedish authorities and are included in the unit of certification. The vessels only have quota for the area included in UoC. In the EU and thus in Sweden vessels larger than 12 meters are required to have a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) in place. Since 31 May 2014 vessels over 15 meters are also required to have an AIS system on board. In the fishery there are also vessels smaller than 12 meters. Although not compulsory all of these vessels have AIS on board. All vessels are required to complete a log book, for those bigger than 12 meters must fill in an electronic logbook as well. The information from the log book (catch and weight) is sent to the authorities; SWAM in Sweden and the Directorate of Fisheries in Norway when fishing in Norwegian waters.

The catch is packed, either raw or boiled, in boxes on board and stored in the cold room. The boxes, 15 or 20 kilos, are labelled with type (boiled or raw), vessel identification, catch area, catch date, weight, size, production date and other information. When landing the catch the fishermen must fill out a fish harbour report (landing log sheet) with the vessel identification number, number of boxes of either boiled and raw shrimps (and other information that matches the information on the package labels).

From the landing points the loads are transported to the fish auctions of either Gothenburg or Smøgen. Transport takes place in a cooling van when the port of landing is located near the fish auction or on a truck with refrigerated container when the harbour is located further away. The fish harbour report shall follow the load. A small part of the catch is landed in Danish fishing ports but the same requirements regarding documentation are in place.

By arrival the fish auction controls the compliance between the report and the load. The fish auctions are also reporting daily about their product sale and associated vessel identification to the fishery authorities (SWAM). SWAM is doing regularly inspections at the auctions and cross checks the information against the fishermen’s log books.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 78

The fish auctions are chain of custody certified in accordance with MSC.

5.2.2 Risk of the possibility of vessels fishing outside the unit of certification

There is no elevated risk of vessels fishing outside the UoC. The vessels only have quota for the area included in UoC (Skagerrak, Kattegat and Norwegian Deep). All Swedish vessels larger than 12 meters have Vessel Monitoring System (VMS). AIS is required for vessels larger than 15 meters but also vessels smaller than 15 meters have AIS system on board so the location of the vessels can be traced at all times. Besides that the large sea areas included in the UoC cover the whole area where the relatively small UoC vessels could possibly fish for cold water prawn. These smaller vessels cannot operate a distant water fishery outside the areas included in the UoC. This ensures that vessels only fish inside the unit of certification.

5.2.3 Risk of substitution of certified fish with non-certified fish prior to and at the point of sale

There is no risk of substitution of certified with non-certified catch. All the cold water shrimps caught by the Swedish vessels will be MSC certified and all Swedish vessels targeting cold water prawn are included in the UoC. Thus there is no risk that non-certified cold water prawn will be on board of UoC vessels that could be mixed with certified cold water prawn. There might be landings of cold water shrimps from Norwegian vessels in Swedish ports but the system of tracking and tracing that is in place prevents that these shrimps could be sold as MSC certified product in the Swedish auctions. The chain of Custody certification processes will address risks of substitution taking place later in the supply chain.

Due to the strict system of control, monitoring and enforcement, there is no opportunity for the client fleet to substitute certified shrimp products with non-certified prior to or at the point of sale. All Swedish shrimp catches taken in the UoC are properly reported, labelled and recorded.

5.2.4 At-sea processing of catch

All the shrimps are graded and packed on board. Prior to packing part of the catch is boiled (estimated at 40-70 %) while the rest is packed in raw condition. The boxes are stored in cold room on board, for maximum 5 days.

The client vessels are required to have hygiene procedures in place according EU´s regulations of food safety. The enforcement of the regulations are enforced by the National Food Agency in Sweden. The labels on the boxes are required to have an approval number issued by the Food Agency.

Otherwise the labels have a bar-code and provide information including:  Product  Vessel identification number  Catch area  Size  Net weight  Production date

Figure 30 illustrates the packaging and labelling of the pandalus shrimps.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 79

Figure 30 Packaging and labelling of pandalus borealis

Sometimes the vessels catch a limited amount of king shrimps and white shrimps together with the target species Pandalus borealis. These are however small amounts and are separated from the cold water prawn on board. The king shrimps amounts to less than 0,2 % of the total catch and white shrimps even less than that, and they are sorted out on board. Both species look quite different from pandalus; king shrimps are much bigger, darker red and have another shape while white shrimps are all white. White shrimps are not landed and if king shrimps are to be landed and sold they are packed in separate boxes which are labelled with name of species, vessel, area, date etc. (ref. figure 32). The fish auction could not mix the pandalus boxes with king shrimp boxes. These other species could never be mixed with the landed cold water prawn since they look different (ref. figure 31) and a product with a mix of different species could never be sold.

Figure 31 King shrimp and pandalus

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 80

Figure 32 Packaging and labelling of king shrimps

5.2.5 Trans-shipment There are no transhipment activities in this shrimp fishery.

5.2.6 Number and/or location of points of landing

There are 10 landing points at the west coast of Sweden and 3 in Denmark.

Sweden: Gothenburg (fish auction) Björnhuvudet Rönneng Lysekil Kungshamn Smögen (fish auction) Hamburgsund Grebbestad Strömstad Resö

Denmark: Hirtshals Skagen Hanstholm

All of the shrimps end up in the fish auctions in either Smögen or Gothenburg for further sale.

5.2.7 Robustness of the management systems related to traceability. The management system supporting traceability comprises:

 Mandatory use of VMS or AIS on larger vessels and voluntary use of AIS on smaller vessels that ensures that the vessels are operating inside the UoC  Mandatory to use electronic or manual log books for reporting to the authorities (prior notification of landings)  Mandatory to prepare a fish harbour report at landing which is to follow the associated loads to the fish auction  The fish auction controls the compliance between the report and the load and are reporting to the authorities  Also regular inspections from the authorities  The system allows for cross-checking declared landings, intake and sale

The systems in place are comprehensive and mandatory, and the enforcement give a robust system that support full traceability for the landed product.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 81

5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody

Pandalus borealis products landed by Swedish vessels having a licence from the Swedish authorities and originating from Sweden Skagerrak, Kattegat and the Norwegian Deep cold water prawn fishery conducted by bottom trawlers in ICES divisions IIIa and IVa East, and operating under shrimp quota issued by authorities in Sweden, will be eligible to enter Chain of Custody and carry MSC logo once the fishery is certified.

The Chain of Custody will commence following sale of raw or boiled Pandalus borealis products at the fish auctions.

5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practically Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody

MSC TAB Directive-030 v1 concerns the use of the MSC eco-label on catches of inseparable stock(s). It applies when catches of the target stock (in this case Pandalus borealis, assessed under P1) are inseparable or practicably inseparable (IPI) from catches of stocks assessed under Principle 2, but for which there is no separate certification of the species considered to be IPI and which might enter into further certified CoC.

For the purposes of this TAB Directive, ‘inseparable’ refers to situations where the target stock and non- target stock cannot be distinguished during normal fishing operations.

As described above the other shrimp species caught by the UoC vessels can be easily distinguished from Pandalus borealis by the crews on board of the vessels. These shrimp are sorted from the catch on board and processed and packed separately.

Therefore in this fishery there are no Inseparable or Practically Inseparable species in this fishery.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 82

6 EVALUATION RESULTS

6.1 Principle Level Scores Table 25 Final Principle Scores. Final Principle Scores

Principle Score

Principle 1 – Target Species 80.6 PASS

Principle 2 – Ecosystem 80.3 PASS

Principle 3 – Management System 84.6 PASS

6.2 Summary of Scores

Table 26 Performance indicator scores Component PI No. Performance Indicator (PI) Score

Outcome 1.1.1 Stock status 80 1.1.2 Reference points 80 1.1.3 Stock rebuilding NA Management 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 80 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 65 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 90 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 90 Retained species 2.1.1 Outcome 80 2.1.2 Management 95 2.1.3 Information 85 Bycatch species 2.2.1 Outcome 80 2.2.2 Management 80 2.2.3 Information 75 ETP species 2.3.1 Outcome 80 2.3.2 Management 80 2.3.3 Information 80 Habitats 2.4.1 Outcome 75 2.4.2 Management 75 2.4.3 Information 75 Ecosystem 2.5.1 Outcome 80 2.5.2 Management 80 2.5.3 Information 85 Governance and 3.1.1 Legal & customary framework 100 policy 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibilities 95 3.1.3 Long term objectives 90 3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing 80 Fishery specific 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 80 management 3.2.2 Decision making processes 80 system 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 70 3.2.4 Research plan 80 3.2.5 Management performance evaluation 80

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 83

6.3 Summary of Conditions and Recommendations Table 27 Summary of Draft Conditions Condition Condition Performance Related to number Indicator previously raised condition? (Y/N/N/A) 1 Well defined harvest control rules (HCRs) shall 1.2.2 N/A be implemented for the shrimp stock to ensure that the exploitation rates are reduced as limit reference points are approached. The HCRs should take into account the uncertainties underlying the assessment of stock status and the uncertainties in estimates of discard rates.. 2 Observer sampling should be continued on an 2.2.3 N/A annual basis in both the Skagerrak/Kattegat and the Norwegian Deep for both the trawl with grid and the trawl with grid and tunnel. 3 Full protection for coral gardens and deep sea 2.4.1 N/A sponge aggregations should be in place through legislation, providing evidence that the shrimp fishery is highly unlikely to reduce these habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. 4 Specific management measures which minimize 2.4.2 N/A the impact of fishing activities on habitat within designated protected areas should be implemented. 5 Information on interactions of fishing operations 2.4.3 N/A with VME habitats should be collected on a continuous basis, and where necessary appropriate management responses should be implemented. 6 Measures should be implemented to stop 3.2.3 N/A discarding of smaller shrimp

6.3.1 Recommendations

Recommendation 1

The assessment team recommends the client to liaise with research scientists and gear technologists in the framework of the NORDEN project. This would better ensure that the project is carried out on a practical basis in a way that fishers could easily implement any desirable technical gear modifications to significantly reduce the capture of small shrimp. The clients could also offer assistance with gear trials on their vessels.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 84

Recommendation 2

The length-based model and the surplus production model provide similar estimates of stock biomass but, in some years, significantly different estimates of fishing mortality.

The assessment team therefore recommends that further research is undertaken to resolve the differences in fishing mortality generated by the length-based and surplus production assessment models.

Recommendation 3

The assessment team recommends that action is taken to remove the uncertainty over identification of skate species in log book records through, for example, further education of fishermen.

6.4 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 85

7 REFERENCES

Aschan, M. and Ingvalsen, R. 2009. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography. Volume 56, Issues 21-22, October 2009, pp. 2012-2022.

Bergström, B., 2000. Biology of Pandalus. Advances in Marine Biology, 38:55-256.

Bøhle, B. 1977. Vekst og utvilking av larver og postlarver av dypvannsreke (Pandalus borealis Krøyer) ved eksperimentelle forhold. Fisken og Havet, Serie B 1977 Nr. 10. 33 pp.

Collie, J.S., Hall, S.J., Kaiser ,M.J., and Poiner, I.R. 2000. A quantitative analysis of fishing impacts on shelfsea benthos. Journal of Animal Ecology, 69: 785-798.

Dinmore, A., Duplisea, D.E., Rackham, B.D., Maxwell, D.L. and Jennings, S. 2004. Impact of a large- scale area closure on patterns of fishing disturbance and the consequences for benthic communities. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 60: 371–380. 2003.

Duplisea, D. E., Jennings, S., Warr, K. J., and Dinmore, T. 2002. A size-based model of the impacts of bottom trawling on benthic community structure. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 59: 1785–1795.

Enever, R., Catchpole, T.L, Ellis, J.R. and Grant, A. 2009. The survival of skates (Rajidae) caught by demersal trawlers fishing in UK waters. Fisheries Research, Volume 97, Issues 1-2, April 2009, Pages 72-76

Enever, R. Revill, A. Caslake, R. and Grant, A. 2010. Discard mitigation increases skate survival in the Bristol Channel. Fisheries Research, Volume 102, Issues 1-2, February 2010, pp. 9-15.

European Commission, 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 organismshttp://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/eur18268.pdf

European Commission, 2002. Common Fisheries Policy Basic Regulation. Council Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy.

European Commission, 2006. Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006 on the European Fisheries Fund.

European Commission, 2009. Green Paper of 22 April 2009 - Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy [COM(2009) 163 final. http://eur- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0163:FIN:EN:PDF

European Comission, 2010. Commission Staff Working Document Synthesis of the Consultation on the Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/reform/sec(2010)0428_en.pdf

European Commission, 2014. BASIC REGULATION ON THE CFP - FINAL COMPROMISE TEXT, June 2014. ttp://cfp-reformwatch.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2013-06- 14_Basic_regulation_on_the_CFP_final_compromise_text.pdf

EU Cod Recovery Programme - Council Regulation (EC) 1342/2008 Annex 6.3.3

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 86

EU Council Regulation No. 43/2014 fixing for 2014 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, to Union vessels, in certain non-Union waters.

EU & Norway, 2014. Agreed record of conclusions of Fisheries Consultations between the European Union and Norway on the Regulation of Fisheries in Skagerrak and Kattegat for 2014. http://www.regjeringen.no/pages/38649625/2014Skagerrakavtalen12March.pdf

Fordham S , Fowler SL , Coelho R , Goldman KJ , Francis M. 2006 . Squalus acanthias. In: IUCN 2009. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2009.2. Available from: http://www.iucnredlist.org Flyttrålsrapport 2004 Uppskattning av bifångster i flyttrålsfisket på svenska västkusten. Flyttrålsrapport_20041104.pdf

Government Sweden, 2007. National Strategic Plan for the fisheries sector 2007-2013. http://www.government.se/sb/d/10352/a/99599

Government Sweden, 2007. Swedish Programme for the fisheries sector 2007-2013. http://www.government.se/sb/d/10352/a/99593

Government Sweden, 2009. Ministry of the Environment. A coherent Swedish maritime policy. http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/12/40/65/311a8c1f.pdf

Government Sweden, 2014. Swedish Legislation relating to commercial fishing (website): https://www.havochvatten.se/hav/fiske--fritid/yrkesfiske/regler-/lagstiftning-for-yrkesfisket.html

Hall-Spencer, J.M. and Stehfest, K.M. 2009. Assessment of Lophelia pertusia reefs in the OSPAR region. OSPAR Background Document.

Hammond, T.R. and J.R.Ellis 2005. Bayesian assessment of North-east Atlantic spurdog using a stock production model, with prior for intrinsic population growth rate set by demographic methods. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science 35:299–308.

Hav möter Land, Länsstyrelsen i Västra Götalands län. Förslag til fiskeregleringar i Bratten. Rapport från prosjekt Hav möter Land. Rapportnr. 2013:103. http://www.lansstyrelsen.se/vastragotaland/SiteCollectionDocuments/Sv/publikationer/2013/2013- 103.pdf Heessen, H.J.L. (editor) 2003. Development of Elasmobranch Assessments DELASS. European Commission DG Fish Study Contract 99/055, Final Report, January 2003. Government Sweden, 2003. Swedish Ministry of the Environment. THE SEA- time for a new strategy. Final report by the Commission on the Marine Environment. http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c4/17/16/88d37695.pdf

Holthuis, L.B. 1980. FAO Species Catalogue. Vol. 1 Shrimps and prawns of the world. An annotated catalogue of species of interest to fisheries. FAO Fish. Synop. (125) Vol. 1: 271pp.

Horsted, S.A. 1978. Life cycle of the shrimp, Pandalus borealis, in Greenland waters in relation to the potential yield. ICNAF Selected Papers, 4: 51-60.

Hvingel, C. 2005. Deriving Quantitative Biological Advice for the Shrimp Fishery in Skagerrak and Norwegian Deep (ICES Divisions IVa east and IIIa). NAFO SCR Doc. 05/84.

Hvingel, C. 2014. An assessment of the North Sea shrimp stock using a Bayesian surplus production model. NAFO SCR Doc. 14/56.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 87

ICES. 2008. Report of the Working Group on Elasmobranch Fishes (WGEF), 3-6 March 2008, ICES CM 2008/ACOM:16. ICES. 2013. Report of the Inter-Benchmark Protocol on Pandalus in Skagerrak and Norwegian Deep (IBPPand), 12–19 September 2013, Dartmouth, NS, Canada. ICES CM 2013/ACOM:71. 21 pp.

ICES, 2014a. Northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) in Divisions IIIa West and IVa East (Skagerrak and Norwegian Deep). ICES Advice 2014 Book 6 ICES, 2014b. Cod in Sub-Area IVb (North Sea), and Divisions VIId (Eastern Channel) and IIIa West (Skagerrak). ICES Advice 2014 Book 6.3.3.

ICES, 2014c. Cod in Division IIIa East (Kattegat). ICES Advice 2014 Book 6.3.2.

ICES, 2014d. Saithe in Sub-Area IV (North Sea), Divisions IIIa West (Skagerrak). And Sub-Area VI (West of Scotland and Rockall). ICES Advice 2014 Book 6.3.21.

ICES, 2014e. Mixed fisheries advice for ICES Subarea IV (North Sea) and Divisions IIIa North (Skagerrak) and VIId (Eastern Channel). ICES Advice 2014 Book 6.3.2.

Isaksen, B. & A.V. Solvdal, 1997. Selection and survival in the Norwegian shrimp trawl fisheries. Proceedings of the 7& Russian/Norwegian Symposium: Gear Selection and Sampling Gears. Murmansk, 23-24 June 1997.

Jennings, S., Dinmore, T.A., Duplisea, D.E., Warr, K.J., Lancaster, J.E., 2001. Trawling disturbance can modify benthic production processes. J. Animal Ecol. 70, 459-475.

Kaiser, M. J., Edwards, D. B., Armstrong, P. J., Radford, K., Lough, N. E. L., Flatt, R. P., and Jones, H. D. 1998. Changes in megafaunal benthic communities in different habitats after trawling disturbance. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 55: 353–361.

Kaiser, M.J., Clarke, K.R., Hinz, H., Austen, M.C.V., Somerfield, P.J., Karakassis, I. 2006. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Volume 311. Global analysis of response and recovery of benthic biota to fishing.

Kaiser, M.J., and De Groot, S.J. 2000. Effects of Fishing on non-target Species and Habitats. Blackwell, Oxford. Kilnӓs, M., 2013. Proposal for regulation of the fishery in the Bratten area. Report from the project “Sea meets the Land”.

Knutsen, H., Jorde, P. E., Blanco Gonzalez, E., Eigaard, O. R., Pereyra, Ricardo T., Sannæs, H., Dahl, M., Andre´, C., and Søvik, G. Does population genetic structure support present management regulations of the northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) in Skagerrak and the North Sea? – ICES Journal of Marine Science, doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsu204.

Løkkeborg S. 2005. Impacts of trawling and scallop dredging on benthic habitats and communities. FAO fisheries technical paper 472, 69 p.

Lutchman, I & C. Adelle, 2008. EU Fisheries Decision Making Guide; Commissioned by the Fisheries Secretariat http://www.fishsec.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/1245774155_75275.pdf Martinez, I., Aschan, M., Skerjdal, T. and Aljanabi, S.M. 2006. The genetic structure of Pandalus borealis in the Northeast Atlantic determined by RAPD analysis. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 63: 840-850.

Mackinson, S. and Daskalov, G., 2007. An ecosystem model of the North Sea to support an ecosystem approach to fisheries management: description and parameterisation. Sci. Ser. Tech Rep., Cefas Lowestoft, 142: 196pp

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 88

Mandelman, J.W., and M.A. Farrington. 2007a. The estimated short-term discard mortality of a trawled elasmobranch, the spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias). Fisheries Research 83 (2007) 238–245.

Moore, G., and Jennings, S. 2000. Commercial fishing: the wider ecological impacts. British Ecological Society, Blackwell Science, Cambridge.

Munch-Petersen, S., Ulmestrand, M., Søvik, G.,and Eigaard, O. 2013. Discarding in the shrimp fisheries in Skagerrak and the Norwegian Deep (ICES Divs. IIIa and IVa east). NAFO SCR Doc. 13/68.

NAFO/ICES. 2010. NAFO/ICES Pandalus Assessment Group Meeting, 20–27 October 2010. ICES CM 2010/ACOM:14.

NAFO/ICES, 2013. Report of the NAFO/ICES Pandalus Assessment Group Meeting, 12-19 September, 2013, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada. ICES 2013/ACOM:14. 74pp.

NAFO/ICES, 2014. NAFO/ICES Pandalus Assessment Group Meeting, 10-17 September 2014, Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, Nuuk, Greenland. ICES CM 2014/ACOM:14.

Neilsen, A., Munch-Petersen, S., Eigaard, O., Søvik, G., and Ulmestrand, M. 2013. A stochastic length- based model for the Pandalus stock in the Skagerrak and Norwegian Deep. NAFO SCR Doc. 13/74.

Parsons, D.G., 2005. Predators of northern shrimp, Pandalus borealis, (Pandalidae) throughout the North Atlantic. Marine Biology Research, 1: 59 – 67.

Northridge, S. 2008. An updated world review of interactions between marine mammals and fisheries. FAO fisheries technical paper, 251.

Olsgard, F., Schaanning, M.T., Widdicombe, S., Kendall, M.A., and Austen, M.C.. 2008. Effects of bottom trawling on ecosystem functioning. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 366:1-2:123-133. OSPAR Commission, 2010a. Background Document for Deep Sea Sponge Aggregations.

OSPAR Commission, 2010b. Background Document for Seapens and Burrowing Megafauna Communities.

Pedersen, O. P., Aschan, M., Rasmussen, T., Tande, K. S., and Slagstad, D. 2003. Larval dispersal and mother populations of Pandalus borealis investigated by Lagrangian particle-tracking model. Fisheries Research, 65: 173-190. Popescu, I., 2010. Fisheries in Sweden, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2010/438579/IPOL- PECH_NT(2010)438579_EN.pdf

Revill, A.S., N.K. Dulvy, R. Holst. 2005. The survival of discarded lesser-spotted dogfish (Scyliorhinus canicula) in the Western English Channel beam trawl fishery. Fisheries Research 71 (2005) 121–124.

Richards, A, and Hendrickson, L. 2006. Effectiveness of the Nordmore grate in the Gulf of Maine northern shrimp fishery. Fisheries Research. 81(1): 100-106.

Schratzberger, M., T.A. Dinmore and S. Jennings, 2002. Impacts of trawling on the diversity, biomass and structure of meiofauna assemblages. Mar. Biol. 140:83-93. Shumway, S. E., Perkins, H. C., Schick, D. F., and Stickney, A. P. 1985. Synopsis of biological data on the pink shrimp, Pandalus borealis, Krøyer, 1838. NOAA Technical Report NMFS 30. FAO Fisheries Synopsis No. 144. 57 pp.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 89

Smidt, E. 1981. Environmental conditions and shrimp stocks at Greenland. In: Frady T., editor. Proceedings of the International Pandalid Shrimp Symposium; February 13–15; Kodiak, Alaska. Kodiak, Alaska: University of Alaska. pp. 391-392.

Søvik, G. and Thangstad, T.H. 2014a. Results of the Norwegian Bottom Trawl Survey for Northern Shrimp (Pandalus borealis) in Skagerrak and the Norwegian Deep (ICES Divisions IIIa and IVa east) in 2014. NAFO SCR Doc. 14/54.

Søvik, G. and Thangstad, T.H. 2014b. The Norwegian Fishery for Northern Shrimp (Pandalus borealis) in Skagerrak and the Norwegian Deep (ICES Divisions IIIa and IVa east), 1970-2014. NAFO SCR Doc. 14/63.

Ulmestrand, M., Munch-Petersen, S., Søvik, G. and Eigaard, O. 2014. The Northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) Stock in Skagerrak and the Norwegian Deep (ICES Divisions IIIa and IVa East). NAFO SCR Doc. 14/65.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 90

APPENDIX 1 SCORING AND RATIONALES

Appendix 1a – MSC Principles

Figur A1 – Graphic of MSC Principles and Criteria

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 91

Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1

The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low PI 1.1.1 probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a It is likely that the It is highly likely that There is a high degree of stock is above the the stock is above the certainty that the stock is point where point where above the point where recruitment would be recruitment would be recruitment would be impaired. impaired. impaired. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y Y N The surplus production model described in the NAFO/ICES Pandalus Assessment Group (NIPAG) report for 2014 estimated that stock biomass (despite a significant decline from 2006 to 2011) has been significantly above MSY Btrigger and Blim in recent years and that fishing mortality (F) is below Fmsy and well below Flim. It is highly likely therefore that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. Recruitment indices (estimated abundance of 1 year old shrimp) derived from Norwegian research surveys showed a significant decline from 2007 to 2010, modest increases from 2011 to 2013, but the recruitment index for 2014 was the highest observed in the time series. The assessment model estimates that stock biomass will be above Btrigger in 2015, with the probability of biomass falling below Blim estimated at 1%. With catches of up to 14,800 tonnes in 2015, F is expected to remain below Fmsy, with stock biomass consequently forecast to be above Bmsy in 2015, so catches of up to 14,800 tonnes are consistent with the MSY approach. With current stock biomass estimates above Bmsy, it would normally be concluded that there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. However ICES advice recognises that the surplus production Justification model is not fully sensitive to year-to-year changes, and that there is some evidence of instability in the model. ICES advice therefore is that fishing mortality in 2015 should not be higher than the estimated value for the last three years implying a total catch of no more than 10,900 tonnes. In addition an alternative length-based assessment model estimated stock biomass to be lower and fishing mortality higher than the values estimated by the surplus production model. On the basis that further understanding of the performance of the assessment models is required, the assessment team were precautionary in their scoring of this PI and concluded that SG100 is not met. Preliminary analysis of the Norwegian survey results from January 2015 (which requires confirmation at the 2015 NIPAG meeting) suggests that stock biomass has increased in 2015, but that recruitment returned to levels seen in recent years. b The stock is at or There is a high degree of fluctuating around its certainty that the stock has target reference point. been fluctuating around its target reference point, or has been above its target reference point, over recent

Guidepost Guidepost years. Met? Y N

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 92

The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low PI 1.1.1 probability of recruitment overfishing A specific target reference point has not been defined explicitly for this fishery. However a key output of the assessment of stock status is an estimate of the current level of biomass in relation to Bmsy. NIPAG estimates stock biomass in 2013 and 2014 to be 1.04 x Bmsy and 1.1 x Bmsy respectively. Current fishing mortality (F) is estimated to be below Fmsy, and with a TAC of approximately 11,000 tonnes, the assessment model predicts that F will remain below Fmsy and stock biomass will remain above Bmsy in 2015. It can be concluded that the stock is currently at or fluctuating around its target reference point. ICES identified some evidence of instability in the model and advised that a better understanding of the retrospective performance of the assessment should be

Justification gained before advice is provided next year. In addition an alternative length- based assessment model estimated stock biomass to be lower and fishing mortality higher than the values estimated by the surplus production model. It cannot be concluded with a high degree of certainty that the stock has been fluctuating around its target reference point in recent years and therefore the SG100 is not met.

Guldborg Søvik, IMR, Norway (pers. comm.) Hvingel, C. 2014. An assessment of the North Sea shrimp stock using a Bayesian surplus production model. NAFO SCR Doc. 14/56. NAFO/ICES, 2014b. NAFO/ICES Pandalus Assessment Group Meeting, 10-17 September 2014, Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, Nuuk, Greenland. References ICES CM 2014/ACOM:14. Neilsen, A., Munch-Petersen, S., Eigaard, O., Søvik, G., and Ulmestrand, M. 2013. A stochastic length-based model for the Pandalus stock in the Skagerrak and Norwegian Deep. NAFO SCR Doc. 13/74. Søvik, G. and Thangstad, T.H. 2014a. Results of the Norwegian Bottom Trawl Survey for Northern Shrimp (Pandalus borealis) in Skagerrak and the Norwegian Deep (ICES Divisions IIIa and IVa east) in 2014. NAFO SCR Doc. 14/54.

Stock Status relative to Reference Points

Type of reference Value of reference Current stock status point point relative to reference point Target No specific target Specific values of the In 2014, B/Bmsy = 1.10 reference reference point has reference points are point been defined explicitly not provided in the for the fishery, assessment reports. although Bmsy can Measures of stock be considered to be biomass are given as an implicit TRP. relative (B/Bmsy) rather than as absolute values.

Limit Fmsy Specific values of the In 2014, B/Bmsy = 1.10, i.e. reference Flim (1.7 x Fmsy) reference points are current biomass is higher than point not provided in the Blim and Btrigger. Blim (0.3 x Bmsy) assessment reports. In 2013, F/Fmsy = 0.62, i.e. Btrigger (0.5xBmsy) Measures of stock current F is lower than Fmsy biomass and fishing and Flim. mortality are given as relative (B/Bmsy, F/Fmsy) rather than as absolute values.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 93

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

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 94

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.2

PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock

Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Generic limit and Reference points are target reference appropriate for the points are based on stock and can be justifiable and estimated. reasonable practice appropriate for the

Guidepost Guidepost species category. Met? Y Y Reference points are derived within the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) framework adopted generically within ICES and are consistent with the Precautionary Approach (PA). The current stock assessment uses a stock production model which evaluates stock status in relation to the MSY reference points Btrigger and Fmsy and the PA reference points Blim and Flim. Bmsy is used as an implicit target reference point.

Justification b The limit reference The limit reference point is set point is set above the above the level at which there level at which there is is an appreciable risk of an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive impairing reproductive capacity following capacity. consideration of precautionary

Guidepost Guidepost issues. Met? Y N

The stock assessment evaluates the stock biomass in relation to two reference points, Btrigger and Blim, above which there is no appreciable risk of impairing recruitment. Btrigger is the biomass encountered with low probability if Fmsy is implemented. It is set at 50% of Bmsy (the 10th percentile of the Bmsy estimate) which is significantly above Blim (30% of Bmsy) below which recruitment is expected to be impaired. The 2014 NIPAG report concluded that the stock has remained above Btrigger throughout the history of the fishery and will remain so in 2015. Flim (defined as 170% of Fmsy) is the value of F which would drive the stock to Blim and the 2014 assessment concluded that F has been below Fmsy in recent years. The ecological role of the shrimp stock in the Skagerrak, Kattegat and Norwegian Deep has not been taken into account in the Justification setting of limit reference points. For example, predation is an important source of mortality for shrimp, but predator abundance has not been considered in the setting of the limit reference points. Thus SG100 is not achieved.

c The target reference The target reference point is point is such that the such that the stock is stock is maintained at maintained at a level a level consistent with consistent with BMSY or some BMSY or some measure measure or surrogate with or surrogate with similar intent or outcome, or a similar intent or higher level, and takes into

Guidepost Guidepost outcome. account relevant precautionary issues such as the ecological role of the stock with a high degree of certainty.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 95

PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock

Met? Y N

Although a target reference point is not defined explicitly, the assessment of stock status estimates stock biomass relative to Bmsy, and implicit within the harvest strategy is that biomass should be maintained at or above Bmsy. The assessment calculates the risk of biomass falling below Bmsy, Btrigger (50% of Bmsy) and Blim (30% of Bmsy). The ecological role of the shrimp stock in the Skagerrak and Norwegian Deep has not been taken into account in the setting of a target reference point. For example, predation is an important source of mortality for shrimp, but predator abundance has not been considered in the Justification setting of the target reference point. Thus SG100 is not achieved. d For key low trophic level stocks, the target reference point takes into account the ecological role of the

Guidepost Guidepost stock. Met? Not relevant

Pandalus borealis is not a key trophic level species, as it does not meet all the criteria set out in paragraph CB2.3.13 of the MSC Certification Requirements v1.3. In particular, shrimp do not form dense schools. Whilst shrimp are potentially a major source of prey for cod, saithe and other predators, research to date has not yet identified a clear predator/prey relationship between shrimp and cod in the Skagerrak, Kattegat and Norwegian Deep.

Justification General context of ICES Advice, 2014 http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/2014/1.2_Ad vice_basis_2014.pdf

Hvingel, C. 2014. An assessment of the North Sea shrimp stock using a References Bayesian surplus production model. NAFO SCR Doc. 14/56. ICES, 2014a. Northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) in Divisions IIIa West and IVa East (Skagerrak and Norwegian Deep). ICES Advice 2014 Book 6. NAFO/ICES, 2014. NAFO/ICES Pandalus Assessment Group Meeting, 10-17 September 2014, Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, Nuuk, Greenland. ICES CM 2014/ACOM:14.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 96

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.3

Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within PI 1.1.3 a specified timeframe Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Where stocks are Where stocks are depleted, depleted rebuilding strategies are demonstrated to strategies, which have be rebuilding stocks a reasonable continuously and there is expectation of strong evidence that rebuilding success, are in place. will be complete within the

Guidepost Guidepost specified timeframe. Met? N/A N/A The stock is not considered to be depleted.

Justification b A rebuilding A rebuilding timeframe The shortest practicable timeframe is specified is specified for the rebuilding timeframe is for the depleted stock depleted stock that is specified which does not that is the shorter of the shorter of 20 years exceed one generation time 30 years or 3 times its or 2 times its for the depleted stock. generation time. For generation time. For cases where 3 cases where 2 generations is less generations is less Guidepost Guidepost than 5 years, the than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe rebuilding timeframe is is up to 5 years. up to 5 years.

Met? N/A N/A N/A

[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this scoring issue] Justification c Monitoring is in place There is evidence that to determine whether they are rebuilding the rebuilding stocks, or it is highly strategies are likely based on effective in rebuilding simulation modelling the stock within a or previous specified timeframe. performance that they Guidepost Guidepost will be able to rebuild the stock within a specified timeframe. Met? N/A N/A

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 97

Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within PI 1.1.3 a specified timeframe [Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this scoring issue]

Justification [List any references here] References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: N/A

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 98

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.1

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

Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a The harvest strategy The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is is expected to achieve responsive to the state responsive to the state of the stock management of the stock and the stock and is designed to objectives reflected in elements of the achieve stock management the target and limit harvest strategy work objectives reflected in the reference points. together towards target and limit reference achieving points.

Guidepost Guidepost management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. Met? Y Y N

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 99

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

The harvest strategy is underpinned by the Common Fisheries Policy of the European Union in accordance with the basic fisheries regulation (EC. 2371/2002), and by annual agreements between the EU and Norway on the regulation of fisheries in the North Sea and the Skagerrak and Kattegat as defined by the Framework Agreement between the EU and Norway Council Regulation ((EEC) 2214/80 of 27 June 1980). The overarching principle of the Swedish programme for the fisheries sector is that fishing capacity should match fishing opportunities. Fisheries management in Sweden is based on Total Allowable Catches and a quota system, accompanied by other measures such as effort regulation, technical conservation measures, management/recovery plans and stock enhancement operations. Sweden has a number of rights-based management systems in place: Individual Quotas and Individual Transferable Quotas, territorial use rights in fisheries, and limited non-transferable permits/licences. The stock management objective for the whole Skagerrak, Kattegat and Norwegian Deep shrimp fishery is to maintain the fishery within agreed limits based on annual stock assessments. The harvest strategy includes restrictions on fishing effort through limited entry, annual quotas (TACs), technical measures for the shrimp fishery (mesh sizes, bycatch rules) as set out in EU Regulation 850/1998, a minimum landing size of 16 mm carapace length in Norway, a prohibition on high-grading, which is the practice of discarding small to medium size low value shrimp and replacing with larger, higher value shrimp, and the mandatory use of bycatch reduction devices. A selective grid became mandatory in all shrimp fisheries in the Skagerrak in 2013, although currently grids are not mandatory within the 4 nautical mile zone in Norwegian waters or in the North Sea. Most vessels fishing in the North Sea voluntarily use grids, and most Norwegian vessels use grids all the time as they fish both within and outside the 4 nm baseline. There are ongoing discussions regarding the introduction of grids in these areas, but no regulation has yet been

Justification introduced. There are strict monitoring requirements for shrimp vessels in all the national fleets through log books and electronic recording, all larger vessels must carry VMS, and vessels must also report when they intend to enter or leave the coastal states’ waters and may have to await inspection before commencing fishing or leaving a coastal state’s waters. All elements of the harvest strategy work together to ensure that the exploitation rate is consistent with maintaining stock biomass at levels reflected in the target and limit reference points and that juvenile shrimps and bycatch species are afforded protection. The assessment of the status of the stock in relation to reference points ensures that the harvest strategy can be responsive to the state of the stock. TACs, levels of fishing effort and technical conservation measures can all implicitly be modified in response to changes in the state of the stock. However there is no formal management plan agreed between Norway, Sweden and Denmark within which a harvest strategy has been designed to meet the management objectives, and there is no clear statement of how the strategy is modified in response to stock changes. Norway is currently leading the development of a shrimp management plan in the Skagerrak and Norwegian Deep working alongside their EU counterparts in Denmark and Sweden and in conjunction with Norwegian scientists at IMR in Bergen. The management plan is not expected to be implemented until 2015/2016, and until then it cannot be concluded that the harvest strategy is designed to achieve stock management objectives and the SG100 is not met therefore.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 100

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place b The harvest strategy The harvest strategy The performance of the is likely to work based may not have been harvest strategy has been fully on prior experience or fully tested but evaluated and evidence exists plausible argument. evidence exists that it to show that it is achieving its is achieving its objectives including being objectives. clearly able to maintain stocks

Guidepost Guidepost at target levels. Met? Y Y N

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 101

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

The Guidelines to the MSC Certification Requirements v1.3 (GCB2.5.2) state that “… the harvest strategy shall be appropriate to achieving the management objectives expressed in the target and limit reference points” and (GCB2.5.4) that “this PI scores the overall performance of the harvest strategy, particularly the way that the different elements work together to keep the stock at levels consistent with reference points.” The most recent stock assessment has concluded that despite recent declines, stock biomass has been above Btrigger throughout the history of the fishery and is likely to remain so under the current harvest strategy, and indeed is currently above Bmsy. It can be concluded therefore that the harvest strategy is achieving its objectives. In recent years TACs have often been set at levels higher than those recommended by ICES, but in practice in most years the TAC has not been taken up fully, and landings have been below the TAC advised by ICES. There is a rigorous monitoring programme in place including monitoring of fishing activity through the VMS system, accurate detailed recording of landings and completion of log books and electronic reporting of catches by all vessels, and all these elements appear to be working effectively. Cross checks of fishing activity recorded on the VMS system and electronic recording of catches and landings data in the various fleets did not identify any discrepancies. Vessel inspections confirm that there is compliance with management regulations, although there is some evidence that high-grading does occur within the Swedish fishing fleet, and that the prohibition is not effectively enforced, for which a condition has been raised against PI 3.2.3. Although there is evidence that the harvest strategy is achieving its overall objectives, some stakeholders expressed concern about the level of discarding of small shrimps either because the shrimp are smaller than the commercial size of 15 mm carapace length (CL) or through high-grading. There is particular concern about discarding of small shrimp in the Swedish fishery, and to a lesser extent in the Norwegian fishery, exemplified by the higher proportions of the total catch that are landed in Sweden as high value large shrimp boiled on board in comparison with similar data for the Danish fleet. Discard rates in the Swedish fleet based on observer data were estimated at between 12 and 31% of the total catch in 2008-2013, but the Swedish TAC is only 14% of the overall TAC, and the overall estimated discard rate

Justification by weight for the three fleets combined was 12% in 2012 and 10% in 2013, although there is some uncertainty surrounding these estimates particularly for the Norwegian fleet. Whilst this level of discarding is not hindering the harvest strategy from achieving its overall objective, and the discard rate is taken into account by ICES when providing TAC advice, the harvest strategy could be improved by reducing the discard rate of small shrimps. Measures currently being considered within the fishery include stronger ‘move-on rules’ or real-time closures when encountering areas of high densities of small shrimp, increases in the minimum landing size in Norway and improved selectivity of gear. A multi-agency project, the NORDEN project, is currently researching methods of reducing the catch of small shrimps. Initial results from the project are very encouraging; experimental fishing using a mesh size of 47mm instead of the standard 35 mm mesh shows a significant reduction in the capture of small shrimp, particularly in the “lus” (very small) category. The assessment team recommends the client to liaise with research scientists and gear technologists in the framework of the NORDEN project. This would better ensure that the project is carried out on a practical basis in a way that fishers could easily implement any desirable technical gear modifications to significantly reduce the capture of small shrimp. The clients could also offer assistance with gear trials on their vessels. Despite some concerns raised by stakeholders about the discarding of small shrimps noted above, the assessment team considers that the harvest strategy is achieving the overall management objectives of ensuring that the stock is maintained at levels consistent with reference points, and that the SG80 is met therefore. The harvest strategy has not been fully tested through, for example, a management strategy evaluation (MSE), and so SG100 is not met.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 102

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place c Monitoring is in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y

There is an effective monitoring system in place for all fleets including Swedish vessels exploiting the Pandalus stock, incorporating VMS on the larger vessels, log books, detailed recording of landings and inspection of vessels. There is also an annual stock survey carried out by Norway which provides estimates of stock biomass, recruitment and spawning biomass. All these elements of the monitoring system contribute to an assessment of the effectiveness of the harvest strategy, and provide evidence that the harvest strategy is maintaining stocks above MSY Btrigger.

Justification d The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. Guidepost Guidepost Met? N

Elements of the harvest strategy may be reviewed and modified on a regular basis, but there is no formal integrated fisheries management plan with agreed periodic reviews. Justification e It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of finning is not taking shark finning is not certainty that shark finning is place. taking place. not taking place. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

Justification Council Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy. National Strategic Plan for the fisheries sector 2007-2013. http://www.government.se/sb/d/10352/a/99599 References NAFO/ICES, 2014. NAFO/ICES Pandalus Assessment Group Meeting, 10-17 September 2014, Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, Nuuk, Greenland. ICES CM 2014/ACOM:14. MSC Certification Requirements v1.3

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 103

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

MSC Guidance on Certification Requirments v1.3 Ulmestrand, M., Munch-Petersen, S., Søvik, G. and Eigaard, O. 2014. The Northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) Stock in Skagerrak and the Norwegian Deep (ICES Divisions IIIa and IVa East). NAFO SCR Doc. 14/65.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 104

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.2

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

Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Generally understood Well defined harvest harvest rules are in control rules are in place that are place that are consistent with the consistent with the harvest strategy and harvest strategy and which act to reduce ensure that the the exploitation rate exploitation rate is as limit reference reduced as limit points are reference points are

Guidepost Guidepost approached. approached. Met? Y N Although there are no formally defined harvest control rules, the fishery is managed through a series of regulations including TACs, effort limitation and technical conservation measures, and it is generally understood that these regulations can be changed in order to reduce the exploitation rate if limit reference points are approached. In particular, TACs are reviewed annually and have been reduced significantly in recent years in response to declines in stock biomass. Whilst it is generally understood that fishery regulations can be changed in order to reduce the exploitation rate if limit reference points are approached, there are no explicit harvest control rules in place which define what management action will be invoked if the stock biomass declines to levels close to Btrigger or Blim, or if fishing mortality increases to levels close to Flim. In recent years TACs have been changed in line with declining stock biomass, but it cannot be concluded that TACs have always been set fully in line with ICES advice. In 2014, ICES advice was that catches of up to 14,800 tonnes in 2015 would ensure that F remained below Fmsy and stock biomass remained above Bmsy, but due to uncertainties within the assessment model and alternative model estimates of stock biomass and fishing mortality, ICES advised that total catches should be no more than 10,900 tonnes. Assuming that discard rates do not change from the average of the last three years, this implies landings of no more than 9,777 tonnes. At the meeting in December 2014 between the EU and

Justification Norway on the regulation of fisheries in the North Sea and the Skagerrak, the Norwegian and EU delegations accepted the ICES advice and set a TAC of 10,900 tonnes. The TAC represents landings and not total catch, so the TAC was set at a slightly higher level than the ICES advice. In 2013, ICES advised was that there were some uncertainties in the assessment process and that catches in 2014 should not therefore exceed 6000 tonnes. The Norwegian and EU delegations took note of the ICES advice, but agreed to a rollover of the 2013 TAC of 9500 tonnes. Whilst a TAC of 9500 tonnes would still have been consistent with managing the stock within an MSY Framework, the TAC decision in 2014 exemplifies the lack of a well-defined harvest control rule which links ICES advice based on the most recent stock assessment with changes in TAC. Whilst it is generally understood that the TAC is modified in relation to changes in stock biomass and therefore the fishery meets the SG60, if future TACs were set at levels significantly contrary to ICES advice, then the assessment team considers that the SG60 would no longer be met. As the SG80 is not met, a condition is raised. b The selection of the The design of the harvest harvest control rules control rules takes into takes into account the account a wide range of main uncertainties. uncertainties. Guidepost Guidepost

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 105

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

Met? N N

The key implicit harvest control rule is the revision of the TAC in response to changes in stock status. The implicit harvest control rule is responsive to changes in stock status identified by the assessment model which explicitly takes uncertainties into account. However ICES advice in the last two years has considered the major uncertainties underlying the assessment model’s estimate of stock status and has consequently advised TACs lower than the level that is fully consistent with the MSY approach. In addition, ICES has assumed that the discard rates have remained unchanged from those estimated for the last three years, and has consequently advised a TAC for for both total catch and landings that takes the discard rate into account. The annual EU and Norway negotiations on the regulation of fisheries in the North Sea and the Skagerrak have Justification considered the annual ICES advice but have not always set TACs in line with the ICES advice and have not therefore taken into account the main uncertainties in the assessment or any uncertainties in the estimation of discard rates. The SG80 is not met therefore. c There is some Available evidence Evidence clearly shows that evidence that tools indicates that the tools the tools in use are effective in used to implement in use are appropriate achieving the exploitation harvest control rules and effective in levels required under the are appropriate and achieving the harvest control rules. effective in controlling exploitation levels exploitation. required under the

Guidepost Guidepost harvest control rules. Met? Y Y N

Annual assessments of the status of the stock provide evidence that the management tools in place are appropriate to this fishery and over a long time scale appear to have been effective in controlling the level of exploitation. In some years the TAC has been set above that advised by ICES, and until the ICES advice is formally taken into account within an explicit harvest control rule, the SG100 will not be met. Justification Hvingel, C. 2014. An assessment of the North Sea shrimp stock using a Bayesian surplus production model. NAFO SCR Doc. 14/070. ICES, 2014a. Northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) in Divisions IIIa West and IVa East (Skagerrak and Norwegian Deep). ICES Advice 2014 Book 6. NAFO/ICES, 2014. NAFO/ICES Pandalus Assessment Group Meeting, 10-17 September 2014, Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, Nuuk, Greenland. ICES CM 2014/ACOM:14. References Agreed Record of Conclusion of Fisheries Consultations between the European Union and Norway on the Regulation of Fisheries in Skagerrak and Kattegat in 2014. London, March 2014. 8pp Agreed Record of Conclusion of Fisheries Consultations between the European Union and Norway on the Regulation of Fisheries in Skagerrak and Kattegat in 2015. Clonakilty, December 2014. 8pp.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 65

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 1

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 106

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.3

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Some relevant Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of information related to information related to information (on stock stock structure, stock stock structure, stock structure, stock productivity, productivity and fleet productivity, fleet fleet composition, stock composition is composition and other abundance, fishery removals available to support data is available to and other information such as the harvest strategy. support the harvest environmental information),

Guidepost Guidepost strategy. including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. Met? Y Y Y

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 107

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

A recent study by Knutsen et al. (2014) using microsatellite DNA analyses showed that spatial genetic structure among oceanic samples from the Skagerrak and eastern North Sea was weak and non-significant. However there was some clear genetic differentiation between samples from the Skagerrak fjords and the oceanic samples. Knutsen et al. (2014) concluded that the lack of genetic differentiation between oceanic samples coupled with information on 30 years of survey and commercial catch data is consistent with the current management assumption that the shrimp fishery in the Norwegian Deeps and Skagerrak (and the very small area of the northern Kattegat that the fishery encompasses) is a single stock. There is a comprehensive range of both fishery-dependent and fishery- independent data and environmental information available for this fishery. Catch and effort data are available from log books for the Norwegian, Danish and Swedish fleets and LPUE data are analysed and standardised for use in the assessment. Annual stock surveys of northern shrimp have been undertaken by Norway since 1984, but because of changes in the survey programme, data from 2006 onwards are considered most comparable with data from current surveys. The surveys provide biomass indices (with standard error), size, age and sex distribution, and a recruitment index based on the number of 1-year old shrimp (which produces a good correlation with abundance of 2 and 3 year old shrimp in the following two years), and a spawning stock biomass index based on the number of berried females. In addition the stock survey provides an index of shrimp predator biomass, bottom temperature and hydrographical (CTD) data. Harvest rates can be estimated from landings data and stock biomass indices from the Norwegian survey. On-board sampling by observer programmes in Sweden provides estimates of

Justification discard rate (proportion of total catch) in Skagerrak and have been implemented in the Norwegian Deep in 2015. Similar data are available from Danish vessels in both the Skagerrak and the Norwegian Deep. No such similar data are available for Norwegian vessels because there is no on-board observer programme although samples of unsorted catch are collected in both the Norwegian Deep and Skagerrak by local inshore Norwegian fishermen and the Norwegian Coastguard. For the stock assessment Norwegian discards in the Skagerrak are estimated by applying the Danish discards to landings ratio to Norwegian landings, based on the assumption that the total catch composition is similar for Norwegian vessels as Danish vessels. Søvik and Thangstad (2014b) compared length distributions of Danish and Norwegian catches from Skagerrak for 2009- 2012 and showed that the size structure of the shrimp stock was more or less similar, supporting the use of the Danish data to estimate Norwegian discards for the Skagerrak. In the Norwegian Deep where no observer data are available, discarded shrimp are assumed to be primarily shrimp under 15 mm CL and are estimated from length distributions of the catch. Stock structure in the form of size and sex distribution is understood from sampling of length frequency of the total catches, and these data are used as input data for the new length-based analytical assessment model which is currently still in development and not yet used to provide advice. Limited entry licensing with various categories and rigorous catch reporting procedures and the mandatory use of VMS means that fleet composition and behaviour are well known.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 108

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy b Stock abundance and Stock abundance and All information required by the fishery removals are fishery removals are harvest control rule is monitored and at regularly monitored at monitored with high frequency least one indicator is a level of accuracy and and a high degree of certainty, available and coverage consistent and there is a good monitored with with the harvest understanding of inherent sufficient frequency to control rule, and one uncertainties in the support the harvest or more indicators are information [data] and the

Guidepost Guidepost control rule. available and robustness of assessment and monitored with management to this sufficient frequency to uncertainty. support the harvest control rule. Met? Y Y N

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 109

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

Good information about abundance and fishery removals is available for the Skagerrak, Kattegat and Norwegian Deep stock and is used in the assessment model to evaluate the status of the stock in relation to reference points, and to evaluate the risk of various catch options. The assessment model incorporates a time series of catches from 1970 to 2014 and four independent series of shrimp biomasses (two standardised annual commercial catch rates from Danish and Norwegian vessels, and two time series of Norwegian stock survey indices), so stock abundance is regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule. Fishery removals are monitored for all vessels in the fishery through log books, mandatory catch declarations and observer sampling programmes and fishing activity is closely monitored by VMS and regular monitoring by the Coastguard in Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Cross checks of these data sets confirm the accuracy of the data. Log book records on catch and effort are not completed by all Norwegian vessels, but all vessels must make landings declarations, so data on landings from the Norwegian fleet are complete. Observer sampling of total catch composition is less comprehensive, although both Swedish and Danish scientists carry out discard monitoring under the European Commission’s Data Collection Framework (DCF). The data showed some annual variation in the proportion of the total shrimp catch that is discarded, but ICES uses average discard rates over the last three years when providing advice on the TAC. Until recently, SLU had not carried out observer sampling in the Norwegian Deep area of the fishery because only 10% of fishing effort from the Swedish fleet has traditionally been undertaken in the Norwegian Deep. However, this area is becoming increasingly important for the Swedish fleet, and in 2015, observer sampling has been implemented in the Norwegian Deep (Katja Ringdahl, SLU, pers. comm.). No such similar data are available for Norwegian vessels because there is no on- Justification board observer programme although samples of unsorted catch are collected in both the Norwegian Deep and Skagerrak by local inshore Norwegian fishermen and the Norwegian Coastguard. For the stock assessment Norwegian discards in the Skagerrak are estimated by applying the Danish discards to landings ratio to Norwegian landings, based on the assumption that the total catch composition is similar for Norwegian vessels as Danish vessels. Søvik and Thangstad (2014b) compared length distributions of Danish and Norwegian catches from Skagerrak for 2009-2012 and showed that the size structure of the shrimp stock was more or less similar, supporting the use of the Danish data to estimate Norwegian discards for the Skagerrak. In the Norwegian Deep where no observer data are available, discarded shrimp are assumed to be primarily shrimp under 15 mm CL and are estimated from length distributions of the catch. Whilst information on discards could be improved, the assessment team considers therefore that these observer trips in conjunction with log book returns and landings declarations ensure that fishery removals are monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule, and that therefore SG80b is met. There is however a lack of understanding of the inherent uncertainties in some of the data such as discard rates and estimates of fishing mortality, and the significant differences in estimates from the surplus production model and the new length-based model demonstrate that the assessment and management are not fully robust to these uncertainties. The SG100 is not met therefore. c There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 110

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

Swedish vessels trawling for fish land approximately 400 kg of shrimps annually, which is a very small volume relative to shrimps landed in the directed shrimp fishery (1413 tonnes in 2013). In Denmark, most fisheries use a mesh size which is too large to catch shrimps. There may be small amounts of shrimp caught in industrial fisheries which use a small mesh size, but of 1588 samples taken from industrial catches, only 76 contained shrimps, and on average shrimps constituted less than 1% shrimp (Jacob Handrup, Danish AgriFish Agency, pers. comm.). However all shrimp caught in other Danish fisheries will be taken off the quota, so any such catches will be taken into account in the overall assessment of stock status. In Norway, the Directorate of Fisheries confims that there are no catches of Pandalus borealis recorded in their fisheries statistics in other fisheries (primarily due to the large mesh size used in other fisheries).

Justification Søvik, G. and Thangstad, T.H. 2014a. Results of the Norwegian Bottom Trawl Survey for Northern Shrimp (Pandalus borealis) in Skagerrak and the Norwegian Deep (ICES Divisions IIIa and IVa east) in 2014. NAFO SCR Doc. 14/54. Søvik, G. and Thangstad, T.H. 2014b. The Norwegian Fishery for Northern Shrimp (Pandalus borealis) in Skagerrak and the Norwegian Deep (ICES Divisions IIIa and IVa east), 1970-2014. NAFO SCR Doc. 14/63. Ulmestrand, M., Munch-Petersen, S., Søvik, G. and Eigaard, O. 2014. The Northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) Stock in Skagerrak and the Norwegian Deep (ICES Divisions IIIa and IVa East). NAFO SCR Doc. 14/65. References Hvingel, C. 2014. An assessment of the North Sea shrimp stock using a Bayesian surplus production model. NAFO SCR Doc. 14/56. NAFO/ICES, 2014. NAFO/ICES Pandalus Assessment Group Meeting, 10-17 September 2014, Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, Nuuk, Greenland. ICES CM 2014/ACOM:14. Knutsen, H., Jorde, P. E., Blanco Gonzalez, E., Eigaard, O. R., Pereyra, Ricardo T., Sannæs, H., Dahl, M., Andre´, C., and Søvik, G. Does population genetic structure support present management regulations of the northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) in Skagerrak and the North Sea? – ICES Journal of Marine Science, doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsu204.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 111

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.4

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status

Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a The assessment is The assessment is appropriate appropriate for the for the stock and for the stock and for the harvest control rule and takes harvest control rule. into account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the Guidepost Guidepost nature of the fishery.

Met? Y N

The NAFO/ICES Pandalus Assessment Group (NIPAG) report provides the output from two assessment models, a stochastic length-based assessment model and a Bayesian surplus production model. The models were evaluated at the final session of the ICES benchmark assessment of this stock in 2013 and both models were considered capable of delivering full analytical assessments of the shrimp stock. The length-based assessment model was preferred to the surplus production model by the benchmark group because it uses more detailed biological information on size distribution of the stock and therefore responds more quickly to change in stock status, but the model was not fully operational at the 2013 NIPAG meeting, and so the benchmark recommended use of the surplus production model. The length-based model was still not fully operational at the 2014 NIPAG meeting, so ICES advice continues to be based on the output from the surplus production model. The surplus production model is appropriate for the stock because shrimps cannot be aged and the model has been used consistently in other shrimp stocks, and the model’s ability to estimate current stock biomass and fishing mortality in relation to MSY-based reference points ensures that the model is appropriate to the harvest control rule. The surplus Justification production model synthesises information from input priors such as initial biomass ratio, carrying capacity and survey catchability, and a time series of catches from 1970 to 2013, and four independent series of shrimp biomasses (two standardised annual commercial catch rates from Danish and Norwegian vessels, and two time series of Norwegian stock survey indices). The model takes into account some of the features of the biology of Pandalus borealis, but there is no information on predator abundance included in the model (as is the case for the Greenland shrimp assessment, where the inclusion of a predation component provided a better fit of the model to the data) because there is no clear link between historical survey estimates of predator biomass and shrimp biomass, so the assessment does not meet the SG 100. b The assessment estimates stock status relative to reference points. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y

The assessment estimates the status of the shrimp stock and calculates the stock biomass and level of fishing mortality in relation to the MSY reference points Fmsy and MSY Btrigger, and the ICES Precautionary Approach reference points Blim and Flim. The assessment model also estimates for a range of catch options the probability of the stock biomass falling below the various reference points and the fishing mortality exceeding the fishing mortality reference points. Justification

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 112

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status c The assessment The assessment takes The assessment takes into identifies major uncertainty into account uncertainty and is sources of account. evaluating stock status uncertainty. relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y Y Y

The surplus production model takes uncertainty into account in a probabilistic way. The assessment model is a Bayesian model which provides posterior distributions of parameter estimates, and which provides projections of estimated risk of falling below biomass reference points and of exceeding fishing mortality reference points. Justification d The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Guidepost Guidepost Met? N

The surplus production assessment model produced good predictions of the four independent biomass indices used as input to the 2014 assessment, and whilst the model provides a good description of trends in stock development, the lack of size structure information in the model results in the model being insensitive to large and rapid changes in recruitment. The development of a fully analytical assessment in 2013 is considered to be a significant improvement on previous assessment approaches which used the ICES approach to data-limited stocks and were based on the Norwegian survey biomass index.

An alternative newly-implemented stochastic length-based assessment model has also been applied to this fishery, but the model still requires some further development. The length-based model and the surplus production model provide

Justification similar estimates of stock biomass but, in some years, significantly different estimates of fishing mortality. The assessment team recommends therefore that further research is undertaken to resolve the differences in fishing mortality generated by the two assessment approaches. Predation is not explicitly incorporated into the stock assessment model, but in other P. borealis fisheries e.g. West Greenland, the model explicitly includes cod predation and the addition of this component provided a better fit than alternative models. e The assessment of The assessment has been stock status is subject internally and externally peer to peer review. reviewed. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y Y

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 113

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status

The stock assessment is undertaken by Norwegian scientists and presented at the NAFO/ICES Pandalus Assessment Group (NIPAG) along with assessments of other Pandalus stocks. There is therefore an inherent peer review by the various members of NIPAG, including scientists from Norway, Russian Federation, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Greenland, Sweden, Spain, France and Faroe Islands, and the NAFO Secretariat. The draft report is then peer reviewed by the ICES Review Group, whose members are stock assessment scientists not involved with the Pandalus borealis assessments and, from time to time, scientists who are outside the ICES assessment process. In addition in 2012/13

Justification the assessment has been subject to an ICES benchmark assessment. Finally, the assessment model (Hvingel and Kingsley, 2006) has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. The assessment methodology is therefore subject to regular internal and external peer review.

Nielsen et al. 2013. A stochastic length-based assessment model for the Pandalus stock in Skagerrak and the Norwegian Deep. NAFO SCR Doc. 13/074.

Hvingel, C. 2014. An assessment of the North Sea shrimp stock using a Bayesian surplus production model. NAFO SCR Doc. 14/56.

Hvingel, C. and Kingsley, M.C.S. 2006. A framework to model shrimp (Pandalus borealis) stock dynamics and to quantify the risk associated with alternative management options, using Bayesian methods. ICES Journal of Marine Science, References 63: 68-82. NAFO/ICES, 2014. NAFO/ICES Pandalus Assessment Group Meeting, 10-17 September 2014, Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, Nuuk, Greenland. ICES CM 2014/ACOM:14.

ICES 2013. Report of the Inter-Benchmark Protocol on Pandalus in Skagerrak and the Norwegian Deep (IBPPand), 12-19 September 2013, Dartmouth, NS, Canada. ICES CM 2013/ACOM:71. 10pp.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 114

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.1

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the PI 2.1.1 retained species and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species

Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Main retained species Main retained species There is a high degree of are likely to be within are highly likely to be certainty that retained species biologically based within biologically are within biologically based limits (if not, go to based limits (if not, go limits and fluctuating around scoring issue c to scoring issue c their target reference points. below). below). Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y (saithe) Y (saithe) N

N/A (cod) N/A (cod)

The assessment team identified cod as a main retained species in the trawl with grid and both cod and saithe as main retained species in the trawl with grid and tunnel.

Cod. ICES 2014 advice for cod in the North Sea and Skagerrak shows that the status of the stock has gradually improved over the last few years in the Skagerrak and is now in the vicinity of Blim, but target reference points are not reached yet. ICES 2014 advice also shows that the cod stock in the Kattegat is well below the target reference point. In both areas cod can therefore be considered to be outside biologically-based limits and so cod is considered under scoring issue c.

Saithe. ICES 2014 advice for saithe in the North Sea and Skagerrak reports Justification that F has fluctuated around Fmsy in recent years and at the beginning of 2014 SSB was well above Blim and just below MSY Btrigger. Saithe therefore meets the SG80 for this PI.

There are many minor retained species for both the trawl with grid and the trawl with grid and fish tunnel, and for some species there is very little information, and so SG100 is not met. b Target reference points are defined for retained species. Guidepost Guidepost Met? N

Target reference points are defined for both saithe and cod, but not for some of the other minor retained species, so the SG100 is not met. Justification

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 115

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the PI 2.1.1 retained species and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species c If main retained If main retained species are outside species are outside the the limits there are limits there is a partial measures in place strategy of that are expected to demonstrably effective ensure that the management fishery does not measures in place hinder recovery and such that the fishery Guidepost Guidepost rebuilding of the does not hinder depleted species. recovery and rebuilding.

Met? Y Y

Cod is considered to be outside biologically-based limits in both the Skagerrak and Kattegat, and so cod is considered under this scoring issue. The assessment team considers that the mandatory use of the grid significantly reduces the catch of cod. Gear restrictions, coupled with the cod recovery plan for cod stocks (CR 1342/2008), the quota system, and effort restrictions can all be considered as elements of a partial strategy that ensures that the shrimp fishery does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of the cod stock.

The recovery plan has proven to be effective in the Skagerrak, as the status of the cod stock has gradually improved over the last few years and is now in the vicinity of Blim. In the Kattegat, there is considerable uncertainty as to whether the cod recovery plan is achieving its objectives, and thus there is potential that any fishery which catches cod in the Kattegat could be considered to be hindering the recovery of the cod stock in this region. However, official landings of all species from the shrimp fishery using the trawl with grid in the Kattegat were only 15.0 tonnes, of which only 3.4% were bycatch of species other than Justification shrimp equating to only 0.53 tonnes of fish of all species landed, and the proportion of that fish catch that would be cod is very small. Total catch composition including discards showed less than 1 tonne of cod caught in the Skagerrak fishery using trawl with grid in 2013, and assuming a similar catch composition in the Kattegat, this would equate to a total catch of cod in the Kattegat of approximately 30 kg using a trawl with grid. Even in the fishery using trawl with grid and tunnel, the estimated total catch including discards of cod in the Kattegat is estimated at 1.65 tonnes. The level of catch in both sets of gear is highly unlikely to have any impact on the cod recovery plan in the Kattegat. d If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected to result in the fishery not causing the retained species to be outside Guidepost Guidepost biologically based limits or hindering recovery.

Met? Y

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 116

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the PI 2.1.1 retained species and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species

The status of cod and saithe are well known, and although there are some retained species for which there is less available information on stock status, the total catch of these other retained species is relatively small and unlikely to hinder the recovery of the stock. Justification EU Cod Recovery Programme - Council Regulation (EC) 1342/2008 Annex 6.3.3

ICES, 2014b. Cod in Sub-Area IVb (North Sea), and Divisions VIId (Eastern Channel) and IIIa West (Skagerrak). ICES Advice 2014 Book 6.3.3.

ICES, 2014c. Cod in Division IIIa East (Kattegat). ICES Advice 2014 Book 6.3.2. References ICES, 2014d. Saithe in Sub-Area IV (North Sea), Divisions IIIa West (Skagerrak) and Sub-Area VI (West of Scotland and Rockall). ICES Advice 2014 Book 6.3.21.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 117

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.2

There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is PI 2.1.2 designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species

Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in place for place, if necessary, strategy in place, if managing retained species. that are expected to necessary, that is maintain the main expected to maintain retained species at the main retained levels which are species at levels which highly likely to be are highly likely to be within biologically within biologically based limits, or to based limits, or to Guidepost Guidepost ensure the fishery ensure the fishery does not hinder their does not hinder their recovery and recovery and rebuilding. rebuilding.

Met? Y Y Y

There is a comprehensive EU recovery plan for cod under CR 1342/2008 which is considered as a management strategy for cod.

The long term management plans for cod and saithe can be considered to be strategies in place for managing the main retained species. The assessment team considers that the mandatory use of the grid significantly reduces the catch of all retained species, and these gear restrictions, coupled with the recovery

Justification plan for cod stocks (CR 1342/2008), the quota system, and effort restrictions can all be considered as elements of a strategy for managing retained species. b The measures are There is some Testing supports high considered likely to objective basis for confidence that the strategy work, based on confidence that the will work, based on plausible argument partial strategy will information directly about the (e.g., general work, based on some fishery and/or species experience, theory or information directly involved. comparison with about the fishery Guidepost Guidepost similar and/or species fisheries/species). involved.

Met? Y Y Y

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 118

There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is PI 2.1.2 designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species

ICES Advice 2014 for cod in the North Sea and Skagerrak suggests that the cod recovery plan for the North Sea is working in improving stocks because there has been a gradual improvement in the status of the stock since 2007. Saithe stocks are currently just below MSY Btrigger. Experimental testing and observer data also confirms that the use of the grid contributes to the avoidance of catches of cod, saithe and other retained species. There is less certainty that the cod recovery plan is working in the Kattegat, but the very low level of cod catches in the shrimp fishery should ensure that the fishery does not hinder the recovery of the cod stock. However DTU Aqua Notat to Naturerhvervstyrelsen on the Evaluation of cod avoidance measures in the Kattegat suggests that, based on the ICES cod stock assessment report and Vinther and Eero (2013), that the aim Justification of the cod management plan to reduce fishing mortality of cod ages 3-5 has worked by the introduction of cod avoidance measures. Although the objective to rebuild SSB to above Bpa has not been reached yet, an increase in SSB has been detected. It is also stated that the current level of F is highly likely to be less than the target F of 0.4. c There is some There is clear evidence that evidence that the the strategy is being partial strategy is implemented successfully. being implemented successfully. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y Y

The cod recovery plan has been in place since 2008 under CR 1342/2008. It is considered that it has been successfully implemented, and it is sufficient for helping the recovery of cod in the North Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat. In addition the mandatory use of the selective grids for all Swedish vessels implemented in 2013, the use of catch quotas and restrictions on fishing effort all appear to be working successfully. Justification d There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective. Guidepost Guidepost Met? N

As yet, there is no evidence that the cod recovery plan has achieved its overall objective in either the Skagerrak or Kattegat, so the SG100 is not met. Justification e It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of finning is not taking shark finning is not certainty that shark finning is place. taking place. not taking place. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 119

There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is PI 2.1.2 designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species

Not relevant Justification

EU Cod Recovery Programme - Council Regulation (EC) 1342/2008 Annex 6.3.3

ICES, 2014b. Cod in Sub-Area IVb (North Sea), and Divisions VIId (Eastern Channel) and IIIa West (Skagerrak). ICES Advice 2014 Book 6.3.3.

ICES, 2014c. Cod in Division IIIa East (Kattegat). ICES Advice 2014 Book 6.3.2.

ICES, 2014d. Saithe in Sub-Area IV (North Sea), Divisions IIIa West (Skagerrak) and Sub-Area VI (West of Scotland and Rockall). ICES Advice 2014 Book 6.3.21. References DTU Aqua Notat on the Evaluation of cod avoidance measures in the Kattegat to NaturErhvervstyrelsen, Center for Fiskeri. 8th February 2013. Journr.: 12/09587/MV. (page3). http://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/43805/595663/Evaluation+od+Cod+Av oidance+measures+for+Kattegat_cod_evaluation.pdf

Vinther, M., Eero M. (2013). Quantifying relative fishing impact on fish populatio n based on spatio-temporal overlap of fishing effort and stock density. ICES journal of Marine Science 2013. http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/01/22/icesjms.fst001.short

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 120

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.3

Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species

Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Qualitative Qualitative information Accurate and verifiable information is and some quantitative information is available on the available on the information are catch of all retained species amount of main available on the and the consequences for the retained species taken amount of main status of affected populations. by the fishery. retained species taken Guidepost Guidepost by the fishery.

Met? Y Y Y

Information is available from logbooks, landings data, SWAMN/HAV and SLU observers which provides a range of qualitative and quantitative information which is recorded on an annual basis for all retained species. Justification b Information is Information is Information is sufficient to adequate to sufficient to estimate quantitatively estimate qualitatively assess outcome status with outcome status with a high outcome status with respect to biologically degree of certainty. respect to biologically based limits.

Guidepost Guidepost based limits.

Met? Y Y N

Information is available to estimate outcome for both main retained species (cod and saithe) but the assessment team considered that the information, particularly the level of sampling in the observer programme, is not sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status with a high degree of certainty for all retained species. SG100 is not met therefore. Justification c Information is Information is Information is adequate to adequate to support adequate to support a support a strategy to manage measures to manage partial strategy to retained species, and evaluate main retained species. manage main retained with a high degree of certainty species. whether the strategy is

Guidepost Guidepost achieving its objective.

Met? Y Y N

The team considers that information provided within ICES advice is adequate to support the long term management plans for cod and saithe, and to evaluate if they are achieving their overall objective. Whilst there is a strategy in place to manage the other minor retained species, there is not sufficient information to evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. SG100 is not met therefore. Justification

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 121

Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species d Sufficient data Monitoring of retained species continue to be is conducted in sufficient detail collected to detect any to assess ongoing mortalities increase in risk level to all retained species. (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator score or the operation

Guidepost Guidepost of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy)

Met? Y N

SLU collects data under the EU Data Collection Framework on an annual basis, which feeds into ICES assessments and which can be used therefore to assess whether there has been any increase in risk level posed by the shrimp fishery for the main retained species. Monitoring is not conducted in sufficient detail (low level of sampling of discards) to assess ongoing mortalities to all retained species. Justification

EU Cod Recovery Programme - Council Regulation (EC) 1342/2008 Annex 6.3.3

ICES, 2014b. Cod in Sub-Area IVb (North Sea), and Divisions VIId (Eastern Channel) and IIIa West (Skagerrak). ICES Advice 2014 Book 6.3.3. References ICES, 2014c. Cod in Division IIIa East (Kattegat). ICES Advice 2014 Book 6.3.2.

ICES, 2014d. Saithe in Sub-Area IV (North Sea), Divisions IIIa West (Skagerrak) and Sub-Area VI (West of Scotland and Rockall). ICES Advice 2014 Book 6.3.21.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 122

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.1

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the PI 2.2.1 bycatch species or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups

Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Main bycatch species Main bycatch species There is a high degree of are likely to be within are highly likely to be certainty that bycatch species biologically based within biologically are within biologically based limits (if not, go to based limits (if not, go limits. scoring issue b to scoring issue b

Guidepost Guidepost below). below).

Met? Y Y N

There were no main bycatch species identified for either the trawl with grid or the trawl with grid and tunnel.

There is a wide range of other bycatch species for which there is not sufficient information to assess whether they are within biologically-based limits, so SG100 is not met. Justification b If main bycatch If main bycatch species are outside species are outside biologically based biologically based limits there are limits there is a partial mitigation measures strategy of in place that are demonstrably effective expected to ensure mitigation measures in that the fishery does place such that the Guidepost Guidepost not hinder recovery fishery does not hinder and rebuilding. recovery and rebuilding.

Met? N/A N/A

N/A Justification c If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected to result in the fishery not causing the bycatch species to be outside Guidepost Guidepost biologically based limits or hindering recovery.

Met? Y

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 123

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the PI 2.2.1 bycatch species or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups

The status of many bycatch species is not well known. There are measures in place to manage the shrimp fishery which include catch quotas, mandatory use of the grid and effort restrictions all of which can be expected to ensure that the fishery does not cause the bycatch species to be outside biologically-based limits or hinder their recovery. Justification References SLU observer programme data 2011-2013

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 124

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.2

There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to PI 2.2.2 ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations

Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in place for place, if necessary, strategy in place, if managing and minimizing that are expected to necessary, that is bycatch. maintain the main expected to maintain bycatch species at the main bycatch levels which are species at levels which highly likely to be are highly likely to be within biologically within biologically based limits, or to based limits, or to Guidepost Guidepost ensure the fishery ensure the fishery does not hinder their does not hinder their recovery and recovery and rebuilding. rebuilding.

Met? Y Y N

There were no main bycatch species identified for either the trawl with grid or the trawl with grid and tunnel.

Total bycatch of the fishery is still considerable even in the trawl without the tunnel, but there are measures in place for managing and minimizing bycatch – the grid significantly reduces bycatch of fish species (in comparison with the standard trawl), fishing effort in the shrimp fishery is regulated and there is an annual TAC (which does not appear to have been exceeded in recent years), which limits fishing activity. In addition there is a multi-agency funded project (NORDEN) underway currently to determine the best way to reduce the discarding of the target species, and this should indirectly reduce the catch of bycatch species. All these measures can be considered to constitute a partial

Justification strategy and the measures work together to limit the exploitation rate on bycatch species and thus ensure that bycatch species are highly likely to be within biologically-based limits and that the shrimp fishery will not hinder any recovery or rebuilding of those bycatch species. The measures which constitute the partial strategy have not been designed specifically to manage the impact of the fishery on bycatch species and therefore cannot be considered to be a strategy and so SG100 is not met. b The measures are There is some Testing supports high considered likely to objective basis for confidence that the strategy work, based on confidence that the will work, based on plausible argument partial strategy will information directly about the (e.g. general work, based on some fishery and/or species experience, theory or information directly involved. comparison with about the fishery Guidepost Guidepost similar and/or species fisheries/species). involved.

Met? Y Y N

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 125

There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to PI 2.2.2 ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations

The various measures that constitute the partial strategy to manage and minimise bycatch all work together to ensure that bycatch levels are controlled, and both experimental studies and empirical data from the SLU observer programme demonstrate the effectiveness of the grid in reducing bycatch. There is no full strategy for managing bycatch, so SG100 is not met. Justification c There is some There is clear evidence that evidence that the the strategy is being partial strategy is implemented successfully. being implemented successfully. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y N

The use of the selective grid is mandatory on Swedish vessels, and there is clear evidence that all vessels are now using the grid. THE NIPAG assessment shows that fishing effort has remained at a constant level over the last 15 years and in recent years the landings have not exceeded the catch levels advised by ICES. There is clear evidence therefore that the partial strategy has been implemented successfully. There is no full strategy for managing bycatch, so SG100 is not

Justification met. d There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective. Guidepost Guidepost Met? N

There is no full strategy for managing bycatch, so SG100 is not met. Justification Isaksen, B. & A.V. Solvdal, 1997. Selection and survival in the Norwegian shrimp trawl fisheries. Proceedings of the 7& Russian/Norwegian Symposium: Gear Selection and Sampling Gears. Murmansk, 23-24 June 1997.

Madsen, N & Valentinsson, D. 2010. Use of selective devices in trawls to support recovery of the Kattegat cod stock: a review of experiments and experience. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 67: 2042–2050. References NAFO/ICES, 2014. NAFO/ICES Pandalus Assessment Group Meeting, 10-17 September 2014, Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, Nuuk, Greenland. ICES CM 2014/ACOM:14.

Richards, A, and Hendrickson, L. 2006. Effectiveness of the Nordmore grate in the Gulf of Maine northern shrimp fishery. Fisheries Research. 81(1): 100-106.

SLU observer programme data 2011-2013.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 126

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 127

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.3

Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to PI 2.2.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch

Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Qualitative Qualitative information Accurate and verifiable information is and some quantitative information is available on the available on the information are catch of all bycatch species amount of main available on the and the consequences for the bycatch species taken amount of main status of affected populations. by the fishery. bycatch species taken by the fishery. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y Y N

There were no main bycatch species identified for either the trawl with grid or the trawl with grid and tunnel.

Quantitative information on all bycatch species has been recorded by on-board observers for a long period on an annual basis by SLU, although sampling has been carried out on trawls with grid and tunnel since 2013 only. However it cannot be concluded that this information is accurate for all bycatch species, as it is difficult to find information on non-commercial species and to ascertain the

Justification status of affected populations. In addition some species (e.g. skates and rays) may be grouped together and recorded under the same name. The SG100 is not met therefore. b Information is Information is Information is sufficient to adequate to broadly sufficient to estimate quantitatively estimate understand outcome outcome status with outcome status with respect to status with respect to respect to biologically biologically based limits with a biologically based based limits. high degree of certainty.

Guidepost Guidepost limits

Met? Y Y N

There were no main bycatch species identified for either the trawl with grid or the trawl with grid and tunnel. The assessment team considers that information should be sufficient to estimate outcome status for most bycatch species, but not enough to do so quantitatively for all bycatch species with a high degree of certainty. The SG100 is not met therefore. Justification c Information is Information is Information is adequate to adequate to support adequate to support a support a strategy to manage measures to manage partial strategy to retained species, and evaluate bycatch. manage main bycatch with a high degree of certainty species. whether the strategy is

Guidepost Guidepost achieving its objective.

Met? Y Y N

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 128

Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to PI 2.2.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch

There were no main bycatch species identified for either the trawl with grid or the trawl with grid and tunnel.

There are measures in place for managing and minimizing bycatch including the mandatory use of a sorting grid and limits on fishing activity through the regulation of fishing effort and the setting of an annual TAC, and these measures are considered to constitute a partial strategy to manage bycatch species. Quantitative information on all bycatch species has been recorded by on-board observers on an annual basis by SLU, and the Swedish Coastguard has exceeded annual targets for inspections of shrimp vessels, and issued new instructions on Justification 16 March 2015 for the inspection of shrimp vessels. The assessment team considers therefore that information is adequate to support a partial strategy, but not enough to support a strategy to manage all bycatch species, as there is still a lack of data for some species. d Sufficient data Monitoring of bycatch data is continue to be conducted in sufficient detail collected to detect any to assess ongoing mortalities increase in risk to to all bycatch species. main bycatch species (e.g., due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the

Guidepost Guidepost operation of the fishery or the effectively of the strategy).

Met? N N

SLU collects data under the EU Data Collection Framework on an annual basis, which feeds into ICES assessments and which can be used therefore to assess whether there has been any increase in risk level posed by the shrimp fishery for bycatch species. Monitoring is not conducted in sufficient detail (low level of sampling of discards) to assess ongoing mortalities to all bycatch species.

However, SLU have carried out observer sampling on fishing trips using trawls with grid and tunnel only since 2013 and SLU do not carry out observer sampling on vessels which fish in the Norwegian Deep, so there is no information to evaluate whether there are any main bycatch species in that geographical Justification component of the UoC, or whether there is any increase in risk to bycatch species in the Norwegian Deep. The SG80 is not met therefore and a condition is raised to ensure that observer sampling continues on all types of gear and in both the Skagerrak/Kattegat and Norwegian Deep areas.

References SLU observer programme data 2011-2013.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 2

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 129

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.1

The fishery meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Known effects of the The effects of the There is a high degree of fishery are likely to be fishery are known and certainty that the effects of within limits of are highly likely to be the fishery are within limits of national and within limits of national and international international national and requirements for protection of requirements for international ETP species.

Guidepost Guidepost protection of ETP requirements for species. protection of ETP species. Met? Y Y N Endangered, Threatened and Protected species are defined as those that are recognised as such by national legislation and/or binding international agreement (e.g. CITES) or legislation (e.g. Council Regulation No 43/2014) to which the jurisdictions controlling the fishery under assessment are party. Species that appear exclusively on non-binding lists such as ASCOBANS, IUCN Red List, OSPAR, HELCOM or that are only the subject of intergovernmental recognition (such as FAO International Plans of Action) and that are not included under national legislation or binding international agreement are not considered as ETP under MSC protocols. Examples of species considered as ETP under MSC protocols include harbour porpoise and common skate. None of the species listed in Table 17 in section 3.4.6 were recorded during observer trips by SLU on shrimp vessels using trawls with grid and trawls with grid and fish tunnel, except for a few individual common skate which were discarded in 2011 and 2014. There are some records in log books of common skate, Dipterus batis, being landed, but it is not permitted to land this species, and it is likely to represent a mis-reporting of other ray species, such as the pale ray, Dipterus linteus. Records from the observer programme show that small numbers of D. linteus are discarded in all sampling years.

Justification It is highly unlikely that marine mammals and cetaceans interact with the shrimp fishery. Northridge (1988) provided several reasons why harbour porpoise normally avoids being caught in trawls, and the assessment team received no reports of harbour porpoises becoming entangled in shrimp trawls, and shrimp trawls do not appear to pose a risk to harbour porpoises (Mats Amundin, Kolmarden, pers. comm.). The assessment team concluded that the effects of the fishery are highly likely to be within limits of national and international requirements for the protection of ETP Species. Monitoring of ETP species within the SLU observer programme could not be considered as comprehensive, and along with the uncertainty relating to the potential landing of common skate, the assessment team considered that there was not a high degree of certainty that effects of the fishery are within limits of national and international requirement. The SG100 is not met therefore. b Known direct effects Direct effects are There is a high degree of are unlikely to create highly unlikely to confidence that there are no unacceptable impacts create unacceptable significant detrimental direct to ETP species. impacts to ETP effects of the fishery on ETP species. species. Guidepost Guidepost

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 130

Directed fisheries are highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts on the ETP species considered. Legislation prevents common skate being retained on board and any catches must be returned to the sea. If this return is done quickly, experimental studies demonstrate that there is a high probability of survival (Mandelman and Farrington 2007, Revill et al.2005, Enever et al 2009, Enever et al. 2010). The SG100 is not met because of the lack of comprehensive

Justification information from the SLU observer programme on capture of ETP species. c Indirect effects have There is a high degree of been considered and confidence that there are no are thought to be significant detrimental indirect unlikely to create effects of the fishery on ETP unacceptable impacts. species. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y N

Indirect effects of the fishery such as habitat destruction, destruction of egg cases or competition for forage effects have been considered and are thought to be unlikely to create unacceptable impacts on ETP species based on current knowledge in relation to the population status and life history of potentially impacted ETP species. The SG100 is not met because of the lack of comprehensive information from the SLU observer programme on capture of ETP

Justification species. Enever, R., Catchpole, T.L, Ellis, J.R. and Grant, A. 2009. The survival of skates (Rajidae) caught by demersal trawlers fishing in UK waters. Fisheries Research, Volume 97, Issues 1-2, April 2009, Pages 72-76 Enever, R. Revill, A. Caslake, R. and Grant, A. 2010. Discard mitigation increases skate survival in the Bristol Channel. Fisheries Research, Volume 102, Issues 1- 2, February 2010, pp. 9-15. EU Council Regulation No. 43/2014 fixing for 2014 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, to Union vessels, in certain non-Union waters. References Mandelman, J.W., and M.A. Farrington. 2007a. The estimated short-term discard mortality of a trawled elasmobranch, the spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias). Fisheries Research 83 (2007) 238–245. Northridge, S. 2008. An updated world review of interactions between marine mammals and fisheries. FAO fisheries technical paper, 251. Revill, A.S., N.K. Dulvy, R. Holst. 2005. The survival of discarded lesser-spotted dogfish (Scyliorhinus canicula) in the Western English Channel beam trawl fishery. Fisheries Research 71 (2005) 121–124. Katja Ringdahl, SLU, pers. comm. Mats Amundin, Director, Kolmarden, pers. comm. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 131

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.2

The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to:  Meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2  Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species;  Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and  Minimise mortality of ETP species. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a comprehensive place that minimise place for managing the strategy in place for managing mortality of ETP fishery’s impact on the fishery’s impact on ETP species, and are ETP species, including species, including measures to expected to be highly measures to minimise minimise mortality, which is likely to achieve mortality, which is designed to achieve above national and designed to be highly national and international international likely to achieve requirements for the

Guidepost Guidepost requirements for the national and protection of ETP species. protection of ETP international species. requirements for the protection of ETP species. Met? Y Y N The fishery has a range of measures in place that are designed to manage impacts of the shrimp fishery on ETP species specifically. In conjunction with regulatory protection of ETP species, an observer programme to record ETP species caught, and a Swedish Action Plan for Threatened Species of Fish and Shellfish (Finfo 2007:7), these measures are considered to constitute a strategy to manage the fishery’s impact on ETP species. The general method of operation of the shrimp fishery ensures that the fishery’s impact on ETP species is minimised, and is highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. Licensing of fishing vessels, catch quotas, restrictions on fishing effort and technical measures in relation to fishing gear, particularly the use of the grid, are all measures which limit the mortality of ETP species in the fishery. Annual EU fishing opportunities regulations (43/2014) prevents directed fishing for ETP species by prohibiting the landing, retaining on board or transshipment of Basking shark, angel shark and common skate by EU registered fishing vessels. These species may not be retained on board and must be released unharmed back to the sea. Under the Justification regulation, fishers shall be encouraged to develop and use techniques and equipment to facilitate the rapid and safe release of the species. In addition the Habitats Directive requires Member States to monitor the incidental capture and killing of cetaceans and ensure that such capture dos not have a significant negative impact on the species concerned, and Council Regulation (EC) No 812/2004 specifies a number of measures that must be taken within fisheries that are known to feature potentially significant cetacean bycatch. The SG80 is met therefore. However, there is no evidence that the strategy includes measures for the shrimp fishery that are designed to achieve above national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species, and SG100 is not met.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 132

The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to:  Meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2  Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species;  Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and  Minimise mortality of ETP species. b The measures are There is an objective The strategy is mainly based considered likely to basis for confidence on information directly about work, based on that the strategy will the fishery and/or species plausible argument work, based on involved, and a quantitative (e.g., general information directly analysis supports high experience, theory or about the fishery confidence that the strategy

Guidepost Guidepost comparison with and/or the species will work. similar involved. fisheries/species). Met? Y Y N

There is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, as there is a high number of measures, a strict control on fishing effort, and a code of conduct establishing steps to take in the event of interactions with ETP species. ETP species in the area are sampled annually through the SLU observer programme, but this is not comprehensive in scope, and it is therefore not possible to carry out a quantitative analysis. SG100 is not met therefore.

Justification c There is evidence that There is clear evidence that the strategy is being the strategy is being implemented implemented successfully. successfully. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y N

Most elements of the strategy have been implemented successfully. However the assessment team could not ascertain if all elements of the strategy were fully implemented, and because formal recording of ETP species on log books and quantitative analysis of that data does not appear to have been undertaken, the SG100 is not met.

Justification d There is evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective. Guidepost Guidepost Met? N

There are still potentially some misidentifications of species, in particular common skate, so the strategy cannot be considered to be achieving its objective. Justification References EU Council Regulation No. 43/2014 fixing for 2014 the fishing opportunities for

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 133

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 134

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.3

Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3  Information for the development of the management strategy;  Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and  Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Information is Sufficient information Information is sufficient to sufficient to is available to allow quantitatively estimate qualitatively estimate fishery related outcome status of ETP species the fishery related mortality and the with a high degree of mortality of ETP impact of fishing to be certainty. species. quantitatively Guidepost Guidepost estimated for ETP species. Met? Y Y N SLU undertakes observer trips to provide estimates of ETP catches and the fishery provides records of ETP catches in log books. This information should be sufficient for the impact of the fishing to be quantitatively estimated for these species, but not enough to quantitatively estimate outcome status of ETP species with a high degree of certainty, so the SG100 is not met. Justification b Information is Information is Accurate and verifiable adequate to broadly sufficient to determine information is available on the understand the whether the fishery magnitude of all impacts, impact of the fishery may be a threat to mortalities and injuries and on ETP species. protection and the consequences for the recovery of the ETP status of ETP species.

Guidepost Guidepost species. Met? Y Y N

Estimates of discard rates of ETP species from SLU observer programmes should be sufficient to determine whether the fishery may be a threat to the protection and recovery of these species. SG 100 is not met as the information is insufficient to evaluate the magnitude of all impacts and injuries caused to ETP species. Justification c Information is Information is Information is adequate to adequate to support sufficient to measure support a comprehensive measures to manage trends and support a strategy to manage impacts, the impacts on ETP full strategy to minimize mortality and injury species. manage impacts on of ETP species, and evaluate ETP species. with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is

Guidepost Guidepost achieving its objectives. Met? Y Y N

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 135

Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3  Information for the development of the management strategy;  Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and  Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Ongoing monitoring programmes on ETP species (SLU observer programme and the recent requirement for vessels to record on log books the capture of any ETP species) are sufficient to measure trends and support a full strategy to manage the impacts on these species. There are gaps in the information on discard rates for common skate, because there is no observer or ETP sampling undertaken in the Norwegian Deep area of the fishery, and observer sampling for the trawl with grid and tunnel (in which common skate may be caught and discarded) only commenced in 2013. These gaps will be filled through a condition that has been raised with respect to information and monitoring of bycatch (PI 2.2.3) requiring annual observer sampling of both trawl with grid and trawl with grid and tunnel gears in both the Skagerrak/Kattegat and Norwegian Deep, and the assessment team did not consider that an additional condition was necessary therefore for this PI. The assessment team emphasises that only very small numbers of common skate have been observed being discarded in the last few years, and so any additional information is unlikely to change the conclusion that the shrimp fishery causes unacceptable impacts on common skate stocks. An additional reason for uncertainty around discard rates for common skate is due to the recording of landings ofcommon skate in fishermen’s log books probablydue to misidentification of skate species by fishermen. The assessment team recommends therefore that action is taken to remove the uncertainty over identification of skate species through for example further education of fishermen.

Justification EU Council Regulation No. 43/2014 fixing for 2014 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, to Union vessels, in certain non-Union waters. References Finfo 2007:7 Action Plan for Endangered fish and shellfish https://www.havochvatten.se/download/18.64f5b3211343cffddb2800018319/13 48912834692/finfo2007_7.pdf

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 136

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.1

The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat PI 2.4.1 structure, considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a The fishery is unlikely The fishery is highly There is evidence that the to reduce habitat unlikely to reduce fishery is highly unlikely to structure and function habitat structure and reduce habitat structure and to a point where there function to a point function to a point where there would be serious or where there would be would be serious or irreversible harm. serious or irreversible irreversible harm.

Guidepost Guidepost harm. Met? Y N N

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 137

The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat PI 2.4.1 structure, considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function Bottom trawl gears are known to impact on habitat structure and function, and areas with biotic habitats generated by aggregations or colonial growth of single species are particularly vulnerable. Maerl and seagrass beds are also considered to be vulnerable to the effects of trawling gears. Habitat-generating species are represented by a wide range of taxonomic groups, e.g. Porifera, Polychaeta, Cnidaria, Mollusca and Bryozoa (e.g., reviews in Løkkeborg, 2005; Kaiser and de Groot, 2000; Moore and Jennings, 2000, Collie et al., 2000). Reduced impact of bottom trawling on the seabed can be achieved by minimizing the impacted area and by the reduction of the pressure of the gear components on the bottom. The shrimp trawl used in the Swedish fishery is relatively light in comparison with other trawls and is therefore expected to impact significantly less on habitat features. VMS data of the shrimp fleet demonstrates that most of the fishing activity is confined to soft seabed sediments such as mud and sandy mud in the Skagerrak. (There is very little fishing activity within the Kattegat and this activity does not occur close to designated protected areas, and so this rationale concerns primarily the shrimp fishery within the Skagerrak.) There are a number of Natura2000 sites designated in the Skagerrak in particular the Skagens glen and the Bratten, and the OSPAR Commission lists a number of sensitive habitats that can be found in the Skagerrak. These include coral gardens, deep sea sponge aggregations, Zostera beds, Lophelia pertusa reefs and seapen and burrowing megafauna communities but shrimp trawling is unlikely to occur in the more complex habitats because the Swedish shrimp vessels do not use rockhopper gear, and fishermen will actively avoid any area where the gear might become entangled. Demersal trawling has a significant initial effect on muddy and sandy-mud habitats, but these effects have been shown to be short lived with an apparent long-term, positive, post-trawl disturbance response (Kaiser et al, 2006). This positive response may represent an increase in the abundance of smaller bodied fauna, but a possible overall decrease in biomass (Jennings et al, 2001, Duplisea et al., 2002). In dynamic sandy sediments, recovery is likely to be faster since the associated communities are accustomed to higher levels of natural disturbance (Kaiser et al., 1998). Benthic macrofauna are most affected by Justification trawling activity; whereas burrowing and other smaller seabed fauna are less vulnerable (Bergmann and Santbrink, 2000; Dinmore et al, 2004). The rates of recovery for benthic communities following intensive trawling disturbance may range from weeks to years with rates of recovery depending on rates of immigration, recruitment and growth (Schratzberger and Jennings, 2002). Slow- growing large biomass biota such as sponges and soft corals are known to take much longer to recover than biota with shorter life spans such as polychaetes (less than a year) (Kaiser et al., 2006). Under CR 27.10.7, the assessment team is required to score this PI according to the different scoring elements (habitats/VMEs) that comprise the habitat component potentially affected by the fishery. In scoring this PI, the assessment team considered five separate scoring elements (VME habitats) – coral gardens, deep sea sponge aggregations, Zostera beds, Lophelia pertusa reefs and seapen and burrowing megafauna communities. In considering the potential impact of the fishery, the assessment team took into account the distribution of fishing activity as demonstrated by the VMS data in Figure 17 in relation to known distribution of the five VME habitats, the bio-regional distribution of habitat types, the irregular reproduction and slow growth rates of the vulnerable species with the consequent slow recovery rates, the nature of the fishing gear used, and the behaviour of fishermen in avoiding habitats which might damage the fishing gear. The distribution of fishing activity of Swedish shrimp vessels as described by Figure 17 confirms that the key Natura 2000 site in which shrimp trawling occurs is the Bratten, with some low level activity in the inshore areas of Koster and Varedofjorden and Gullmasfjorden, and also in the Skagens Gren area.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 138

The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat PI 2.4.1 structure, considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function Coral gardens. Horn corals which together form coral gardens have a fragile structure that makes them vulnerable to damage by fishing gear, and as such have been designated as a threatened habitat by OSPAR. Coral gardens have been extensively mapped within the Bratten Natura 2000 site and may also be found in the Kosterfjorden and Gullmasfjorden. In addition to the high diversity of species observed in the Bratten, the area is also heavily fished and the broad- scale map of shrimp fishing activity (Figure 17) suggests that fishing may occur in areas of the Bratten where coral gardens are present. However shrimp fishermen use light-weight trawls and do not use rockhopper gear to target more complex habitats, and will therefore avoid areas such as coral gardens where the gear might become entangled. For the Bratten area, Figure 24 shows the known distribution of coral gardens and the proposed closed areas, and Figure 28 shows that there is very little fishing activity in those areas, from which we can conclude that fishermen will avoid areas in which coral gardens are found. In addition to the evidence of avoidance of coral gardens by fishermen in the Bratten, coral gardens have been protected in the Skagens Gren Natura 2000 site since 2011, fishing is not permitted in the Kosterfjorden in the most sensitive environments, and additional regulations on shrimp fishing have been proposed in 2015, and fishing activity is very tightly controlled in the Gullmasfjorden. Whilst coral gardens are protected from potential damage by fishing gears in three Natura 2000 sites, some species of horn corals are found only in Bratten, and full protection for these corals is not yet in place in the Bratten. The assessment team concluded therefore that the fishery cannot be considered to be highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm, and thus the fishery does not meet the SG80 for coral gardens.

Deep sea sponge aggregations. Deep sea sponge aggregations are designated by OSPAR as threatened habitats. They are known to occur between water depths of 250-1300m (although they are also found in shallower waters such as the Kosterfjorden) and may be found on soft substrata or hard substrata, such as boulders and cobbles which may lie on sediment. Deep-sea sponges have similar habitat preferences to cold water corals, and hence are often found at the same location. Shrimp fishermen use light-weight trawls and do not use rockhopper gear to target more complex habitats, and will therefore avoid areas such as deep sea sponge aggregations where the gear might become entangled. Deep sea sponge aggregations are found extensively in OSPAR region 1, but also in a number of areas in the eastern Skagerrak (OSPAR, 2010a). Their known occurrences in the Bratten area are shown in Figure 25 in relation to proposed closed areas which are designed to protect both sponges and coral gardens, and Figure 28 shows that there is very little fishing activity in those areas, from which we can conclude that fishermen will avoid areas which support deep sea sponge aggregations. Deep sea sponge aggregations are also found in the Kosterfjorden where fishing is not permitted in the most sensitive environments and additional regulations on shrimp fishing have been proposed in 2015. However the main location of sponges in the Skagerrak is in the Bratten, and full protection from damage by fishing gear in the Bratten is not yet in place, and so the assessment team concluded therefore that the fishery cannot be considered to be highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm, and thus the fishery does not meet the SG80 for deep sea sponge aggregations.

Zostera beds. Zostera is generally found in depths up to 10m, and in southern Sweden it flourishes in stony and sandy bottoms in 2-4m depth. It is highly unlikely that there is significant overlap of shrimp fishing activity with the bioregional distribution of Zostera in coastal waters, and so the fishery is highly unlikely to cause serious or irreversible harm to Zostera habitat. SG80 is met therefore for this VME.

Lophelia pertusa reefs. Lophelia pertusa is a cold water reef forming coral widely DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 139 distributed across the north-east Atlantic. Reefs occur from 200 to 2000m depth along the continental slope, but also in shallower waters in Norwegian fjords and along the Swedish west coast in the Skagerrak. Lophelia reefs provide complex structural habitat and are susceptible to damage by fishing gear. Whilst Lophelia

The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat PI 2.4.1 structure, considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function Lophelia pertusa reefs. Lophelia pertusa is a cold water reef forming coral widely distributed across the north-east Atlantic. Reefs occur from 200 to 2000m depth along the continental slope, but also in shallower waters in Norwegian fjords and along the Swedish west coast in the Skagerrak. Lophelia reefs provide complex structural habitat and are susceptible to damage by fishing gear. Whilst Lophelia are relatively widespread in OSPAR region 1, they are less common in region 2 but are found in the northernmost area of the Skagerrak close to the coast (Hall- Spencer and Stehfest, 2009). There is potential for some overlap of shrimp fishing activity with Lophelia reefs, but the VMS data suggests that fishing activity occurs to the south of the main concentration of reefs. In addition, experience in this fishery and other fisheries for Pandalus borealis suggest that fishermen will avoid areas of Lophelia reefs to ensure that the fishing gear does not become entangled. Lophelia reefs are protected in the Kosterfjorden. Although there is a very restricted distribution of Lophelia in the Skagerrak compared with other areas such as the Norwegian west coast, the assessment team considered that the fishery would be highly unlikely to cause serious or irreversible harm to Lophelia populations in the region. The fishery therefore scores 80 for this scoring element. Seapen and burrowing megafauna communities. Seapen and burrowing megafauna are found on plains of fine mud at water depths ranging from 15-200 m or more which is habitat that occurs extensively in sheltered basins of fjords and in deeper offshore waters. Seapen and burrowing megafauna communities (soft bottoms with large soft corals) have been identified by OSPAR as a special protective habitat which acts as a host for species such as the brittlestar Asteronyx loveni. The known distribution of these habitats within the Bratten is primarily within the proposed closed areas (Figure 26), in which there is very little fishing activity (Figure 28). Seapen and burrowing megafauna communities are also found in Kosterfjoreden and in areas off the southern Norwegian coast (Figure 20; OSPAR, 2010b) that do not overlap with current fishing activity. The assessment team concluded therefore that the risk of serious or irreversible damage from the shrimp fishery on this habitat type on a bio-regional basis was low and therefore the SG80 was met.

Aggregated score – as three scoring elements meet the SG80, and two scoring elements do not meet the SG80, the overall score for PI 2.4.1 is 75.

Bergmann, M.J.N., van Santbrink, J.W., 2000. Mortality in megafaunal benthic populations caused by trawl fisheries on the Dutch continental shelf in the North Sea in 1994. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 57 (5) (5), 1321-1331. References Collie, J.S., Hall, S.J., Kaiser ,M.J., and Poiner, I.R. 2000. A quantitative analysis of fishing impacts on shelfsea benthos. Journal of Animal Ecology, 69: 785-798. Dinmore, A., Duplisea, D.E., Rackham, B.D., Maxwell, D.L. and Jennings, S. 2004. Impact of a large-scale area closure on patterns of fishing disturbance and

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 140

The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat PI 2.4.1 structure, considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function the consequences for benthic communities. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 60: 371–380. 2003. Duplisea, D. E., Jennings, S., Warr, K. J., and Dinmore, T. 2002. A size-based model of the impacts of bottom trawling on benthic community structure. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 59: 1785–1795. Hall-Spencer, J.M. and Stehfest, K.M. 2009. Assessment of Lophelia pertusia reefs in the OSPAR region. OSPAR Background Document. Jennings, S., Dinmore, T.A., Duplisea, D.E., Warr, K.J., Lancaster, J.E., 2001. Trawling disturbance can modify benthic production processes. J. Animal Ecol. 70, 459-475. Kaiser, M.J., and De Groot, S.J. 2000. Effects of Fishing on non-target Species and Habitats. Blackwell, Oxford. Kaiser, M. J., Edwards, D. B., Armstrong, P. J., Radford, K., Lough, N. E. L., Flatt, R. P., and Jones, H. D. 1998 Changes in megafaunal benthic communities in different habitats after trawling disturbance. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 55: 353–361. Kaiser, M.J., Clarke, K.R., Hinz, H., Austen, M.C.V., Somerfield, P.J., Karakassis, I. 2006. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Volume 311. Global analysis of response and recovery of benthic biota to fishing. Kilnӓs, M., 2013. Proposal for regulation of the fishery in the Bratten area. Report from the project “Sea meets the Land”. Løkkeborg S. 2005. Impacts of trawling and scallop dredging on benthic habitats and communities. FAO fisheries technical paper 472, 69 p. Moore, G., and Jennings, S. 2000. Commercial fishing: the wider ecological impacts. British Ecological Society, Blackwell Science, Cambridge. OSPAR Commission, 2010a. Background Document for Deep Sea Sponge Aggregations. OSPAR Commission, 2010b. Background Document for Seapens and Burrowing Megafauna Communities. Schratzberger, M., T.A. Dinmore and S. Jennings, 2002. Impacts of trawling on the diversity, biomass and structure of meiofauna assemblages. Mar. Biol. 140:83-93. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 3

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 141

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.2

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does PI 2.4.2 not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in place for place, if necessary, strategy in place, if managing the impact of the that are expected to necessary, that is fishery on habitat types. achieve the Habitat expected to achieve Outcome 80 level of the Habitat Outcome performance. 80 level of

Guidepost Guidepost performance or above. Met? Y Y N Based on the Vessel Monitoring Systems data, most of the fishing effort of the Swedish shrimp fleet takes place in the Skagerrak over soft seabed sediments such as mud and sandy mud. Skagerrak is a well-studied area and its sensitive, vulnerable or protected habitats and species are identified and designated by the Natura Directive (http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/# ), the OSPAR Commission (www.ospar.org ) and the Mapping European Seabed Habitats portal (www.searchmesh.net). The establishment in 2009 of the Kosterhavet National Park as the first marine national park demonstrated a key step forward in the management of marine habitat types. Within the National Park there is a ban on trawling in the most sensitive areas. There are a series of Natura2000 sites designated in the Skagerrak (and in the Kattegat, but primarily in areas not associated with shrimp fishing activity) and coral reefs are protected in Skagens gren and Gullmasfjorden, where there are also tight restrictions on fishing activity. In addition to areas designated already, there are also a number of other proposals for conservation sites by NGOs. These Marine Protected Areas are protected from trawling due to the general trawl boundary, and the regulation to protect reefs inside this boundary. There are however two areas where shrimp trawling is permitted: in the Väderöfjorden and Kosterhavets nationalpark (Kosterfjordens), and in the Gullmarsfjorden where the shrimp fishery is closely regulated. The Bratten area is protected and in 2014 proposals for strong restrictions on fishing activity were drawn up by Sweden, Denmark and Norway in consultation with all interested parties. The proposals, which have been submitted to SwAM, include no fishing zones, reduced fishing effort, AIS on all vessels and no anchoring. The Bratten area is in

Justification the Swedish economic zone, but much of it is outside the 4nm baseline and so is managed under the Common Fisheries Policy of the European Union. Implementation of new regulations will therefore require EU ratification. In addition to the habitat designations, the application of the precautionary approach in taking measures to minimise the impact of fishing activities on marine ecosystems is enshrined within the EU CFP, and there are a suite of measures in place, such as catch quotas, effort limitation and gear restrictions which limit the impact of the gear on non-target species and the environment. The absence of fishing in some areas of the distribution of the five key VMEs can be considered to be a measure that manages the impact on habitat, and fishermen will also try to avoid ground where the fishing gear will get snagged. All of these measures can be considered to contribute to a partial strategy for managing the impact of the fishery on the five vulnerable habitat types. The SG80 is met therefore for all scoring elements. In addition to closure of all VME hotspots, a full strategy would include habitat-specfic “move-on” rules for ensuring that impact on habitat is minimised in areas where the presence of VME habitats is unknown, and so the SG100 is not met for any of the scoring elements.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 142

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does PI 2.4.2 not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types b The measures are There is some Testing supports high considered likely to objective basis for confidence that the strategy work, based on confidence that the will work, based on plausible argument partial strategy will information directly about the (e.g. general work, based on fishery and/or habitats experience, theory or information directly involved.

Guidepost Guidepost comparison with about the fishery similar and/or habitats fisheries/habitats). involved. Met? Y N N

There is an objective basis for confidence that a partial strategy for managing the impact on habitat types that includes limitations on fishing effort and catch limits, the absence of fishing in many areas of the distribution of VMEs, the avoidance of VME habitats by fishermen to safeguard their fishing gear and the closure to fishing of the key VME hotspots will work as it will minimise the potential interaction of fishing with VME habitats. For Lophelia reefs and Zostera beds which are primarily found in the Skagerrak in shallower waters which are covered by the restriction on fishing in the most vulnerable areas, there is therefore an objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work and so the SG80 is met. For coral gardens, deep sea sponge aggregations and seapen and burrowing megafauna VMEs, fishing restrictions in some of the most vulnerable areas, e.g. the Bratten, are not yet fully in place and so the SG80 is not met. The SG80 is not met therefore for all scoring elements, and so a

Justification condition is raised c There is some There is clear evidence that evidence that the the strategy is being partial strategy is implemented successfully. being implemented successfully. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y N

There are a large number of Natura2000 sites designated in the Skagerrak (such as Skagens Gren, Bratten, Kosterfjorden, Gullmarsfjorden). The establishment of these protected areas, current regulations protecting the most sensitive habitats, and the ongoing introduction of new regulations, the suite of management measures that regulate the level of fishing and the avoidance of rough ground by fishermen are all measures that are in place and provide evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. The SG80 Justification is met therefore for all scoring elements. A full strategy is not currently in place so the SG100 is not met for all scoring elements. d There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective. Guidepost Guidepost Met? N

There is only a partial strategy rather than a full strategy in place, and therefore the SG100 is not met for any of the scoring elements Justification

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 143

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does PI 2.4.2 not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types Board of Fisheries regulations (FIFS 2004:36) on fishing in the Skagerrak, Kattegat and Baltic Sea https://www.havochvatten.se/miljopolitik-och- lagar/lagstiftning/svensk-lagstiftning/havs--och-vattenmyndighetens- forfattningssamling/register/fiskeriverkets-foreskrifter-fifs-200436-om-fiske-i- skagerrak-kattegatt-och-ostersjon.html

References http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/# www.ospar.org www.searchmesh.ne Kilnӓs, M., 2013. Proposal for regulation of the fishery in the Bratten area. Report from the project “Sea meets the Land”.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 4

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 144

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.3

Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by PI 2.4.3 the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a There is basic The nature, The distribution of habitat understanding of the distribution and types is known over their types and distribution vulnerability of all range, with particular of main habitats in main habitat types in attention to the occurrence of the area of the the fishery are known vulnerable habitat types. fishery. at a level of detail

Guidepost Guidepost relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery. Met? Y Y N The Skagerrak and Kattegat areas have been studied by different organisations, and their sensitive, vulnerable or protected habitats and species are identified and designated by the Natura Directive (http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/# ), the OSPAR Commission (www.ospar.org ) and the Mapping European Seabed Habitats portal (www.searchmesh.net). In addition NGOs such as WWF, OCEANA and Greenpeace have also been involved in the study of the distribution of habitat types in these areas. In particular the nature, distribution and vulnerability of all five scoring elements (coral gardens, deep sea sponge aggregations, Zostera beds, Lophelia reefs and seapens and burrowing megafauna) are well known in the Natura 2000 sites relative to the scale of information on fishing activity available from screened VMS data. The Justification assessment team considered that whilst there is a good understanding of the main VME habitats in the fishery and so SG80 is met for all scoring elements, new information is becoming available all the time and new Marine Protected Areas are being proposed, implying that the distribution of all vulnerable habitats is not fully known at present. SG100 is not met therefore for all scoring elements. b Information is Sufficient data are The physical impacts of the adequate to broadly available to allow the gear on the habitat types have understand the nature nature of the impacts been quantified fully. of the main impacts of of the fishery on gear use on the main habitat types to be habitats, including identified and there is spatial overlap of reliable information on

Guidepost Guidepost habitat with fishing the spatial extent of gear. interaction, and the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. Met? Y Y N

There is a good understanding of the distribution of the five VME habitat types across the fishing area which coupled with VMS data for the fleet (screened for fishing activity) provides a clear understanding of the spatial extent of the interaction between gear and habitat, and in conjunction with empirical evidence of the nature of impact of trawling on all scoring elements, allows an assessment of the potential impact of fishing on habitat types. The SG80 is met therefore for all scoring elements. The physical impacts of the fishing gear on the various VME habitat types have not been quantified fully and so the SG100 is not met for all

Justification scoring elements.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 145

Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by PI 2.4.3 the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types c Sufficient data Changes in habitat continue to be distributions over time are collected to detect any measured. increase in risk to habitat (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator

Guidepost Guidepost scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). Met? N N

VMS data continue to be collected on an ongoing basis for the fishery, and so any changes in the distribution of fishing activity in relation to sensitive, vulnerable or protected habitats can be detected. However, there is not sufficient data being collected to detect any increase in risk to the five VME habitats because information on the distribution of the VME habitats could not be considered to be comprehensive across the whole fishng area, and without a mechanism for recording interactions between fishing gear and VME habitats, interactions may go unrecorded in areas where VMEs have not been previously recorded. A key component of a full strategy to manage the impact of the fishery on VME habitats is the implementation of clear “move-on” rules when VME habitats are encountered. Complementary to such move-on rules are a mechanism for recording such encounters in fishermen’s log books. The assessment team considers that the SG80 is not met therefore for any of the scoring elements. Whilst changes in the five VME habitats may be identified and sufficient data are collected under the Habitats Directive and under commitments to OSPAR, it cannot be concluded that changes in habitat over time are measured, so the

Justification SG100 is not met for any of the scoring elements. http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/# References www.ospar.org www.searchmesh.net OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 5

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 146

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.1

The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key PI 2.5.1 elements of ecosystem structure and function Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a The fishery is unlikely The fishery is highly There is evidence that the to disrupt the key unlikely to disrupt the fishery is highly unlikely to elements underlying key elements disrupt the key elements ecosystem structure underlying ecosystem underlying ecosystem and function to a structure and function structure and function to a point where there to a point where there point where there would be a Guidepost Guidepost would be a serious or would be a serious or serious or irreversible harm. irreversible harm. irreversible harm. Met? Y Y N Two potential impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem that have not been covered previously under the assessment of P1 and P2 performance indicators are the impact on trophic relationships of removal of shrimps, and the impact on benthic community structure of fishing for shrimps. Shrimp is a low trophic species and an important prey item for cod and other species. Predator abundance indicators varied little over the last nine years of surveys (NAFO/ICES, 2014) and were found not to hold any information regarding shrimp stock dynamics (Hvingel, 2005). Although stock biomass of shrimp is relatively low at present, it has in the past been much higher, and with the recent decline in predator fish species, the shrimp fishery is considered to be highly unlikely to disrupt ecological relationships within the ecosystem. Research studies in other fisheries suggest that shrimp trawling has very little

Justification impact on the benthic community. For example, Gordon et al. studied the effects of otter trawling on benthic habitat and communities on Western Bank and results indicated very limited immediate impacts on the benthic community. The assessment team concluded that the fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to cause serious or irreversible and so the SG80 is met. This conclusion is drawn by inference rather than from empirical evidence available for this specific fishery on the ecosystem effects of fishing and so the SG100 is not met. Gordon, J.D.M. and de Silva, S.S. (1980). The fish populations of the West of Scotland Shelf. Part I, Oceanographic Marine Biology Annual Review, 18, 317- 366. Hvingel, C. 2005. Deriving Quantitative Biological Advice for the Shrimp Fishery in Skagerrak and Norwegian Deep (ICES Divisions IVa east and IIIa). NAFO SCR Doc. 05/84. References NAFO/ICES, 2014. NAFO/ICES Pandalus Assessment Group Meeting, 10-17 September 2014, Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, Nuuk, Greenland. ICES CM 2014/ACOM:14. Parsons, D.G., 2005. Predators of northern shrimp, Pandalus borealis, (Pandalidae) throughout the North Atlantic. Marine Biology Research, 1: 59 – 67.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 147

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.2

There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy that place, if necessary. strategy in place, if consists of a plan, in place. necessary. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y Y N The team considers that there are measures in place, such as the establishment of Natura 2000 sites, the implementation of catch quotas in the shrimp fishery, restrictions on fishing capacity and effort and the use of selective gears and the implementation of the cod recovery plan, which constitute a partial strategy to ensure that the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. This partial strategy falls short of a full

Justification ecosystem plan for the area and so the SG100 is not met. b The measures take The partial strategy The strategy, which consists of into account potential takes into account a plan, contains measures to impacts of the fishery available information address all main impacts of on key elements of and is expected to the fishery on the ecosystem, the ecosystem. restrain impacts of the and at least some of these fishery on the measures are in place. The ecosystem so as to plan and measures are based achieve the Ecosystem on well-understood functional Outcome 80 level of relationships between the performance. fishery and the Components and elements of the ecosystem. Guidepost Guidepost

This plan provides for development of a full strategy that restrains impacts on the ecosystem to ensure the fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm. Met? Y Y N

Legislation is in place to protect species and habitats under the Habitats and Birds Directives, OSPAR, BONN Convention (including ASCOBANS), BERN Convention and CITES as well as various EC fisheries regulations, such as the EU-Norway discard ban agreement for the Skagerrak Sea which was endorsed by the European Parliament in April 2013. The partial strategy takes into account this legislation, information from the ICES Advisory Committee of Ecosystems (ACE), impact of the fishery on the status of the shrimp stock, predator abundance indicators from Norwegian ecosystem stock surveys, and potential impact on other bycatch species. The assessment team considers that the partial strategy is expected to restrain Justification the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem so as to achieve the Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance. This partial strategy does not constitute a plan within which all functional relationships between the fishery and components and elements of the ecosystem are well understood. The SG100 is not met therefore.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 148

There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function c The measures are The partial strategy is The measures are considered considered likely to considered likely to likely to work based on prior work, based on work, based on experience, plausible plausible argument plausible argument argument or information (e.g., general (e.g., general directly from the experience, theory or experience, theory or fishery/ecosystems involved.

Guidepost Guidepost comparison with comparison with similar similar fisheries/ecosystems). fisheries/ecosystems). Met? Y Y N

The partial strategy involves a combination of spatial management measures (designated protected areas) and fishery-specific management measures (catch quotas, effort control, mandatory use of selective gears) and experience from all fisheries suggests that the strategy is likely to work in ensuring that the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. There is a lack of specific management measures linked to the

Justification designation of protected areas and so the SG100 is not met. d There is some There is evidence that the evidence that the measures are being measures comprising implemented successfully. the partial strategy are being implemented

Guidepost Guidepost successfully. Met? Y N

The designation of Natura 2000 sites, fishing capacity and effort control, management of the fishery, mandatory use of selective gear, inspections on board and at the landing port suggests that this partial strategy is being implemented successfully. There is insufficient information about the effect of all measures such as the reduction of impact on bottom habitat to conclude that there is evidence that all

Justification measures taken are implemented successfully and so the SG100 is not met. EU Council Regulation No. 43/2014 fixing for 2014 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, to Union vessels, in certain non-Union waters. ICES, 2014e. Mixed fisheries advice for ICES Subarea IV (North Sea) and Divisions IIIa North (Skagerrak) and VIId (Eastern Channel). ICES Advice 2014 References Book 6.3.2. NAFO/ICES, 2014. NAFO/ICES Pandalus Assessment Group Meeting, 10-17 September 2014, Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, Nuuk, Greenland. ICES CM 2014/ACOM:14

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 149

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.3

There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the PI 2.5.3 ecosystem Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Information is Information is adequate to identify adequate to broadly the key elements of understand the key the ecosystem (e.g., elements of the trophic structure and ecosystem. function, community

Guidepost Guidepost composition, productivity pattern and biodiversity). Met? Y Y Relevant information is available to understand the key elements of the ecosystem and its functions. These key elements include the trophic structure of the Skagerrak ecosystem, such as prey, predators and competitors, community composition, productivity patterns and biodiversity characteristics. Skagerrak fisheries have been studied in detail and ICES stock assessment reports also provide information from which the status of the different components of the fishery can be evaluated. Justification The assessment team considers that the information is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem and so the SG80 is met. b Main impacts of the Main impacts of the Main interactions between the fishery on these key fishery on these key fishery and these ecosystem ecosystem elements ecosystem elements elements can be inferred from can be inferred from can be inferred from existing information, and have existing information, existing information been investigated.

Guidepost Guidepost and have not been and some have been investigated in detail. investigated in detail. Met? Y Y N

The main impacts of the fishery on these key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, such as the Mackinson & Daskalov (2007) Ecopath model of the North Sea. This model is able to answer questions such as the response of the ecosystem to changes, and can be used as a basis for the design of policies aimed at implementing ecosystem management principles, and can provide testable insights into changes that have occurred in the ecosystem over time. The main interactions between the shrimp fishery and these Justification ecosystem elements have not been fully investigated and so the SG100 is not met. c The main functions of The impacts of the fishery on the Components (i.e., target, Bycatch, Retained and target, Bycatch, ETP species are identified and Retained and ETP the main functions of these species and Habitats) Components in the ecosystem in the ecosystem are are understood.

Guidepost Guidepost known. Met? Y N

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 150

There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the PI 2.5.3 ecosystem P. borealis is a low trophic species and its relationships with other species are generally known. The main functions of the Components (i.e. target, Bycatch, Retained and ETP species and Habitats) in the ecosystem are known. However direct and indirect impacts of the fishery on both ETP species and seabed habitats are not sufficiently well quantified to meet the SG100. Justification d Sufficient information Sufficient information is is available on the available on the impacts of the impacts of the fishery fishery on the Components on these Components and elements to allow the to allow some of the main consequences for the main consequences for ecosystem to be inferred. Guidepost Guidepost the ecosystem to be inferred. Met? Y N

Sufficient information is available on the impacts of the fishery on the Components and elements to allow the some but not all of the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. These data are sufficient to allow the main impacts on these components to be inferred directly. However direct and indirect impacts of the fishery on both ETP species and seabed habitats are not sufficiently well quantified to meet the SG100. Justification e Sufficient data Information is sufficient to continue to be support the development of collected to detect any strategies to manage increase in risk level ecosystem impacts. (e.g., due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the

Guidepost Guidepost operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). Met? Y Y

The team considers that information is sufficient to support the development of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. In addition sufficient data continue to be collected through various organisations. Data are routinely collected on an ongoing basis to enable the detection of any change or increase in risk level to the main ecosystem components. ICES Mixed fisheries advice report for the North Sea (2014) (which includes Skagerrak), gives an overview of the stocks of different species and marks a

Justification path towards ecosystem management. This advice indicates that sufficient data are collected to support the development of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. ICES, 2014e. Mixed fisheries advice for ICES Subarea IV (North Sea) and Divisions IIIa North (Skagerrak) and VIId (Eastern Channel). ICES Advice 2014 Book 6.3.2. Mackinson, S. and Daskalov, G., 2007. An ecosystem model of the North Sea to References support an ecosystem approach to fisheries management: description and parameterisation. Sci. Ser. Tech Rep., Cefas Lowestoft, 142: 196pp SLU observer programme, 2011-2013.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 151

There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the PI 2.5.3 ecosystem

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 152

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.1

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it:  Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC PI 3.1.1 Principles 1 and 2; and  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 SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a There is an effective There is an effective There is an effective national national legal system national legal system legal system and binding and a framework for and organised and procedures governing cooperation with other effective cooperation cooperation with other parties parties, where with other parties, which delivers management necessary, to deliver where necessary, to outcomes consistent with MSC management deliver management Principles 1 and 2. outcomes consistent

Guidepost Guidepost outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 with MSC Principles 1 and 2 and 2.

Met? Y Y Y The fishery is covered by the fishery management systems of the EU and Sweden. Swedish fisheries are subject to a management system that is compliant with relevant international conventions and agreements. The management system is based on relevant EU legislation such as the CFP and the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, the fisheries-related provisions of which states that fisheries are to be managed sustainably, that they should be optimally used, and that states shall cooperate on the management of shared stocks.

At an international level, the fishery is managed through the Common Fisheries Policy of the EU in accordance with the basic fisheries regulation (EC. 2371/2002). Article 2.2 of this regulation states, “The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) shall be guided by the following principles of good governance: (a) clear definition of responsibilities at the Community, national and local levels; (b) a decision-making process based on sound scientific advice which delivers timely results; (c) broad involvement of stakeholders at all stages of the policy from conception to implementation; (d) Consistent with other Community policies, in particular with environmental, Justification social, regional, development, health and consumer protection policies. The CFP has been evaluated in recent years and a new Basic Regulation that will replace EC. 2371/2002 is in the making.

The EU and Sweden have signed and ratified relevant international agreements such as the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention.

There are also (annual) agreements between the EU and Norway on the regulation of fisheries in the North Sea and on the Skagerrak and the Kattegat. These are based on the Framework Agreement between the EU and Norway Council Regulation ((EEC) 2214/80 of 27 June 1980).

The management systems the fishery falls under are consistent with local, national or international laws or standards.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 153

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it:  Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC PI 3.1.1 Principles 1 and 2; and  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. b The management The management The management system system incorporates system incorporates or incorporates or subject by law or is subject by law to is subject by law to a to a transparent mechanism a mechanism for the transparent for the resolution of legal resolution of legal mechanism for the disputes that is appropriate to disputes arising within resolution of legal the context of the fishery and the system. disputes which is has been tested and proven to considered to be be effective.

Guidepost Guidepost effective in dealing with most issues and that is appropriate to the context of the fishery. Met? Y Y Y

As Sweden is a a parliamentary democracy operating under civil law, there is a clear mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes. In the first instance, disputes related to fisheries are dealt with by the responsible government ministry (Swedish Ministry of Rural Affairs in this instance). Legal recourse through civilian courts could follow to resolve disputes. The disputes could be referred to the European Court of Justice. The mechanisms in place are appropriate to the context of the fishery. Justification From the information that the team received on the resolution of legal disputes the team concludes that the system has been tested and proven to be effective. d The management The management The management system has system has a system has a a mechanism to formally mechanism to mechanism to observe commit to the legal rights generally respect the the legal rights created created explicitly or legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of explicitly or established by custom people dependent on fishing established by custom of people dependent for food and livelihood in a of people dependent on fishing for food or manner consistent with the

Guidepost Guidepost on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner objectives of MSC Principles 1 livelihood in a manner consistent with the and 2. consistent with the objectives of MSC objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. Met? Y Y Y

There are no people identified that are particularly dependent on fishing shrimp for food and livelihood that applies to this fishery. The management system includes measures to specifically manage local small scale fisheries and by doing so protects local rights. Justification Common Fisheries Policy Basic Regulation. Council Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy. References Lutchman, I & C. Adelle, 2008. EU Fisheries Decision Making Guide; Commissioned by the Fisheries Secretariat http://www.fishsec.org/wp- content/uploads/2011/03/1245774155_75275.pdf

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 154

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it:  Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC PI 3.1.1 Principles 1 and 2; and  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. Swedish Ministry for Rural Affairs website: http://www.government.se/sb/d/2064 Swedish Legislation relating to commercial fishing (website): https://www.havochvatten.se/hav/fiske--fritid/yrkesfiske/regler-/lagstiftning-for- yrkesfisket.html OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 155

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.2

The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Organisations and Organisations and Organisations and individuals individuals involved in individuals involved in involved in the management the management the management process have been identified. process have been process have been Functions, roles and identified. Functions, identified. Functions, responsibilities are explicitly roles and roles and defined and well understood responsibilities are responsibilities are for all areas of responsibility generally understood. explicitly defined and and interaction. Guidepost Guidepost well understood for key areas of responsibility and interaction. Met? Y Y Y Consultation clearly identified the organisations and individuals involved in the management process. Organisations involved in the management system of the fishery include the EU Commission, relevant government ministries, scientific organisations (ICES) and research institutes (SLU), fishery industry organisations and NGOs. Their functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood.

Organisation and functions identified are:  EU. Common Fisheries Policy (Structural policy, Surveillance)  Swedish Ministry of Rural Affairs  Ministry of Environment (habitat protection, liaison with EU Commission)

Justification  Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (SwAM).  Swedish National Food Agency (Livsmedelsverket; food safety))  Swedish Coast Guard (Kustbevakningen; control and enforcement)  Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) (research)

There is clear and evident division of responsibility between EU, ICES and national institutions and authorities. b The management The management The management system system includes system includes includes consultation consultation processes consultation processes processes that regularly seek that obtain relevant that regularly seek and and accept relevant information from the accept relevant information, including local main affected parties, information, including knowledge. The management including local local knowledge. The system demonstrates

Guidepost Guidepost knowledge, to inform management system consideration of the the management demonstrates information and explains how system. consideration of the it is used or not used. information obtained. Met? Y Y N

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 156

The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties The Swedish fisheries authorities organize regular consultations with relevant stakeholder groups (e.g. Producers Organizations and NGO’s) regarding new fisheries measures prior to their implementation. When new issues arise the frequency of meetings will be higher. The management system demonstrates consideration of the information provided by stakeholders but does not always explain how information is used or not used. Therefore SG100b is not met. Justification c The consultation The consultation process process provides provides opportunity and opportunity for all encouragement for all interested and affected interested and affected parties parties to be involved. to be involved, and facilitates

Guidepost Guidepost their effective engagement. Met? Y Y

There is a strong tradition of stakeholder consultation in the Swedish management process. Before new regulations are passed the relevant stakeholder organisations from all relevant sectors are consulted. In the EU for every renewal of the Common Fisheries policy there is an extensive consultation process that provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved. In 2009, the European Commission launched a wide-ranging public debate on the way EU fisheries are managed. It published a Green paper on reform of the common fisheries policy. The Green paper expressly states that its purpose is “to trigger and encourage public debate and to elicit views on the

Justification future CFP. The Commission invites all interested parties to comment on the questions set out in this Green Paper”. After 4 years of deliberation the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) reform was approved in a final plenary vote by the European Parliament on Tuesday 10 December 2013. The European Union’s new fisheries legislation will take effect in 2014. Common Fisheries Policy Basic Regulation. Council Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy. https://www.havochvatten.se/ http://www.slv.se/en-gb/ http://www.kustbevakningen.se/sv/ References http://www.slv.se/sv/ European Comission, 2010. Commission Staff Working Document Synthesis of the Consultation on the Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/reform/sec(2010)0428_en.pdf Green Paper of 22 April 2009 - Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy [COM(2009) 163 final. http://eur- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0163:FIN:EN:PDF OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 157

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.3

The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide PI 3.1.3 decision-making that are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Long-term objectives Clear long-term Clear long-term objectives to guide decision- objectives that guide that guide decision-making, making, consistent decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles with the MSC consistent with MSC and Criteria and the Principles and Criteria Principles and Criteria precautionary approach, are and the precautionary and the precautionary explicit within and required by approach, are implicit approach are explicit management policy. within management within management

Guidepost Guidepost policy policy. Met? Y Y (Partial)

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 158

The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide PI 3.1.3 decision-making that are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach Long-term objectives are explicit within and required by the EU Common Fisheries Policy and the Swedish Fisheries management system and are consistent with the MSC Principles and Criteria and precautionary approach. At the governance and policy level, clear over-arching long term objectives are set out in the EU common fisheries policy. These objectives have been formulated in the Council Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy. This Regulation lays down the Common Fisheries Policy, which covers conservation, management and exploitation of living aquatic resources, aquaculture, and the processing and marketing of fishery and aquaculture products. The Policy aims at adopting uniform measures concerning: (a) conservation, management and exploitation of living aquatic resources; (b) limitation of the environmental impact of fishing; (c) conditions of access to waters and resources; (d) structural policy and the management of the fleet capacity; (e) control and enforcement; (f) aquaculture; (g) common organization of the markets; and (h) international relations. Article 2 of the basic regulation lays down the objectives of the CFP and states that the sustainable exploitation of living aquatic resources shall be pursued by adopting the precautionary approach as well as an ecosystem based approach to fisheries management. The 2002 Basic Regulation has been replaced by a new basic regulation that is based on the outcomes of the CFP reform. At 10 December 2013 , the European Parliament has approved the CFP reform and the new Basic Regulation came into effect in 2014. The new basic regulation holds some additional objectives on sustainable fisheries in EU waters. Firstly it is stated in the preamble that the Union should improve its Common Fisheries Policy to ensure that the exploitation of marine biological resources restores and maintains populations of harvested stocks within a reasonable timeframe above levels that can produce the maximum sustainable yield. “The exploitation rates should be achieved by 2015. Achieving those exploitation rates by a later date should be allowed only if achieving them by 2015 would seriously jeopardise the social and economic sustainability of the fishing fleets involved. Those rates should be achieved as soon after 2015 as possible and under no circumstances later than 2020.” Justification Secondly the preamble states that “An ecosystem based approach to fisheries management needs to be implemented, environmental impacts of fishing activities should be limited and unwanted catches should be avoided and reduced as far as possible.” The European Fisheries Fund (EFF) is the instrument for fisheries under the EU financial framework. The EFF provides financial support to facilitate reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, and to support necessary measures associated with the sector's development. To receive support, Member States must draw up a national strategy and an operational programme. In 2007, Sweden established a national strategic plan for the fisheries industry in Sweden. The plan contains the objectives for the development of the fisheries industry. The Swedish programme for the fisheries sector aims to promote an ecologically, economically and socially sustainable fisheries sector in Sweden by:  creating a balance between fishery resources and fleet capacity,  increasing profitability in the fisheries sector,  promoting employment in rural areas associated with the fisheries sector,  decreasing the negative environmental impact of fishing, and  ensuring environmental sustainability and sustainable natural fish stocks. Therefore it is in the view of the assessment team that clear long-term objectives are explicitly defined and thus that SG80 is met. Since the EU management system requires the formulation of strategic plans that are likely to include objectives SG 100 is partly met.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 159

The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide PI 3.1.3 decision-making that are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach Common Fisheries Policy Basic Regulation. Council Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy. BASIC REGULATION ON THE CFP - FINAL COMPROMISE TEXT, June 2014. References ttp://cfp-reformwatch.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2013-06- 14_Basic_regulation_on_the_CFP_final_compromise_text.pdf COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1198/2006. On the European Fisheries Fund Swedish Programme for the fisheries sector 2007- 2013http://www.government.se/sb/d/10352/a/99593 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 160

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.4

The management system provides economic and social incentives for PI 3.1.4 sustainable fishing and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a The management The management The management system system provides for system provides for provides for incentives that incentives that are incentives that are are consistent with achieving consistent with consistent with the outcomes expressed by achieving the achieving the MSC Principles 1 and 2, and outcomes expressed outcomes expressed explicitly considers incentives by MSC Principles 1 by MSC Principles 1 in a regular review of and 2. and 2, and seeks to management policy or Guidepost Guidepost ensure that perverse procedures to ensure they do incentives do not not contribute to arise. unsustainable fishing practices. Met? Y Y N The overarching principle of the Swedish programme for the fisheries sector is that fishing capacity should match fishing opportunities. Existing subsidies are designed to contribute to sustainable fishing practices, e.g. increase of selectivity. There are no subsidies within the Swedish fisheries management system that could result in increase of fishing capacity. The Swedish Programme for the Fisheries sector is currently under revision for the period 2014-2020. It is concluded that the management systems in Sweden provide for incentives that are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2, and seeks to ensure that perverse incentives do not Justification arise and thus SG80a is met. Since the team found no proof that the management system explicitly considers incentives in a regular review of management policy or procedures to ensure they do not contribute to unsustainable fishing practices it cannot concluded that SG100a is met.

References National Strategic Plan for the fisheries sector 2007-2013. http://www.government.se/sb/d/10352/a/99599 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 161

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.1

The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the PI 3.2.1 outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Objectives, which are Short and long-term Well defined and measurable broadly consistent objectives, which are short and long-term with achieving the consistent with objectives, which are outcomes expressed achieving the demonstrably consistent with by MSC’s Principles 1 outcomes expressed achieving the outcomes and 2, are implicit by MSC’s Principles 1 expressed by MSC’s Principles within the fishery’s and 2, are explicit 1 and 2, are explicit within the management system within the fishery’s fishery’s management system.

Guidepost Guidepost management system. Met? Y Y N Short and long-term objectives for this shrimp fishery, as for other Swedish fisheries, are formulated within the Swedish Programme for the fisheries sector 2007-2013. These objectives amongst others are focused at achieving a balance between fishing capacity and fishing possibilities and minimising impact of fisheries on the ecosystem through increasing the selectivity and other relevant measures. Although there are short and long-term objectives are formulated , they cannot be considered measurable against well-defined targets and thus SG 100a is not

Justification met.

References Swedish Programme for the fisheries sector 2007-2013. http://www.government.se/sb/d/10352/a/99593 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 162

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.2

Guidepost Guidepost objectives. Met? Y Y Both in the EU CFP and in the Swedish fisheries management system decision- making processes are established that have resulted in management measures to achieve the fishery-specific objectives for this fishery. For instance within the EU-Norway agreement a TAC for the shrimp fishery in the Skagerrak is agreed on. Technical measures for the shrimp fishery (mesh sizes, bycatch rules) are set by the EU in EU Regulation 850/1998.

Justification b Decision-making Decision-making Decision-making processes processes respond to processes respond to respond to all issues identified serious issues serious and other in relevant research, identified in relevant important issues monitoring, evaluation and research, monitoring, identified in relevant consultation, in a transparent, evaluation and research, monitoring, timely and adaptive manner consultation, in a evaluation and and take account of the wider transparent, timely consultation, in a implications of decisions.

Guidepost Guidepost and adaptive manner transparent, timely and take some and adaptive manner account of the wider and take account of implications of the wider implications decisions. of decisions. Met? Y Y N

The decision making process for this fishery is guided by scientific advice by ICES and national research institutes like SLU and IMR. The scientific assessments of the shrimp stock are published ICES and SLU web-sites. The decision making process takes into account serious issues identified by research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity related to this fishery, such as catch levels, catch and fishing effort, potential impact of fishing on the marine environment. Thus, it can be concluded that serious and other issues are dealt with in an effective and timely manner. Since it cannot be concluded that the

Justification decision making processes respond to all issues SG100b is not met. c Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best

Guidepost Guidepost available information. Met? Y

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 163

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision- making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the PI 3.2.2 objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. Both in the EU and Swedish fisheries management system, the precautionary approach is used and specifically mentioned. By making use of the considerable expertise within ICES and SLU the European Commission and the Swedish government ensure that decisions are based on the best available information. The precautionary approach is mentioned in article 2 of the Basic Regulation 2371/2002 where it is stated that: “the Community shall apply the precautionary approach in taking measures designed to protect and conserve living aquatic resources, to provide for their sustainable exploitation and to minimise the impact of fishing activities on marine eco-systems. In Sweden’s National Strategy for Sustainable Development 2002 it is laid down that fisheries should be put on a sustainable footing by applying the Justification precautionary principle, adopting an ecosystem approach and securing biological diversity. Also in the OSPAR Convention the precautionary approach is mentioned: Article 3 (ii) reads: “to develop means, consistent with international law, for instituting protective, conservation, restorative or precautionary measures related to specific areas or sites or related to particular species or habitats.” d Some information on Information on fishery Formal reporting to all fishery performance performance and interested stakeholders and management management action is provides comprehensive action is generally available on request, information on fishery available on request and explanations are performance and management to stakeholders. provided for any actions and describes how the actions or lack of management system action associated with responded to findings and findings and relevant relevant recommendations Guidepost Guidepost recommendations emerging from research, emerging from monitoring, evaluation and research, monitoring, review activity. evaluation and review activity. Met? Y Y N

Findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity related to this fishery, such as catch levels, catch and fishing effort, potential impact of fishing on the marine environment, are formally reported and available on web-pages (Ministry of Rural Affairs, Ministry of Environment, Swedish National Board of Fisheries, SWAM, ICES, NIPAG, SLU, IMR). Information is also available on request and explanation on management actions are provided to stakeholders in regular consultations. Since it cannot be Justification concluded that there is a system of formal reporting to all stakeholders in place SG100d is not met.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 164

The management system is designed to deal with judicial decisions in a timely fashion; however for this fishery no legal challenges have been reported or documented in recent years. Although it can be assumed that the management authorities will try to avoid legal disputes by providing the possibilities for stakeholder involvement in the decision making process clear support for this conclusion has not been found and therefore SG100e is not met. Justification 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 organismshttp://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/eur18268.pdf Council Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable References exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy. Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (SWAM) website: https://www.havochvatten.se/ Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences website: http://www.slu.se/en/

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 165

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.3

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s PI 3.2.3 management measures are enforced and complied with Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Monitoring, control A monitoring, control A comprehensive monitoring, and surveillance and surveillance control and surveillance mechanisms exist, are system has been system has been implemented implemented in the implemented in the in the fishery under fishery under fishery under assessment and has assessment and there assessment and has demonstrated a consistent is a reasonable demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant

Guidepost Guidepost expectation that they ability to enforce management measures, are effective. relevant management strategies and/or rules. measures, strategies and/or rules. Met? Y N N The EU and Sweden maintain a robust and effective control and surveillance regime. Vessels can be, and are, warned, fined, have gear confiscated and licenses suspended or withdrawn for non-compliance. Throughout the fishing zones there is a rigorous enforcement regime to ensure a high degree of compliance across all fishing fleets participating in this fishery. All vessels must be equipped with VMS and maintain up to date logbooks which are subject to regular at sea inspections by Norwegian and EU fishery inspection vessels. These inspections also ensure that technical measures are being complied with and the catches tally with log book records and quota allocations. Vessels must also report when they intend to enter or leave the coastal states waters and may have to await inspection before commencing fishing or leaving a coastal state’s waters. Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms include the following:  VMS :all vessels over 12 meters are equipped with VMS  AIS: all vessels are equipped with AIS (only vessels over 15 meters are required to use AIS but under 15 meter vessels use AIS voluntarily;

 ERS/Catch control/e-log books : All vessels have to complete a paper logbook and electronically report their catches (ERS)

Justification  EFCA: The European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA) is a European Union body established in 2005 to organise operational coordination of fisheries control and inspection activities by the Member States and to assist them to cooperate so as to comply with the rules of the Common EU Fisheries Policy in order to ensure its effective and uniform application.  Inspections at sea by Swedish or Norwegian Coast Guard. It is concluded that a MCS system has been implemented and that the system has demonstrated a general ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. However there is evidence from scientific observations that systematic discarding of smaller shrimp takes place in the fishery although high-grading is illegal within the EU technical measures. So although the MSC system has an ability to enforce management measures like mesh size and quota it can not be concluded that the MCS system has demonstrated an ability to consistently enforce (all) relevant measures. Therefore it is concluded that SG80a is not met.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 166

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s PI 3.2.3 management measures are enforced and complied with b Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with non- non-compliance exist non-compliance exist, compliance exist, are and there is some are consistently consistently applied and evidence that they are applied and thought to demonstrably provide effective applied. provide effective deterrence.

Guidepost Guidepost deterrence. Met? Y Y N

Within the Swedish management system there is a set of sanctions and fines to deal with non-compliances. The EU has implemented a point system for infringements (Control regulation 2009/1224; 2011/404).

These sanction systems can lead to high fines or loss of fishing opportunities and are therefore generally thought to provide effective deterrence for non- compliance. Sanctions are also consistently applied when non-compliance is

Justification observed. Since there is some proof that high-grading is practiced within the fishery it cannot be concluded that the sanctions demonstrably provide an effective deterrence. Therefore SG100b is not met. c Fishers are generally Some evidence exists There is a high degree of thought to comply to demonstrate fishers confidence that fishers comply with the management comply with the with the management system system for the fishery management system under assessment, including, under assessment, under assessment, providing information of including, when including, when importance to the effective required, providing required, providing management of the fishery.

Guidepost Guidepost information of information of importance to the importance to the effective management effective management of the fishery. of the fishery. Met? Y Y N

Vessels have been inspected at sea by Swedish and Norwegian inspection vessels and these inspections demonstrate that the fishery generally complies with gear regulations. Cross checks of fishing activity recorded on the VMS system and ERS and landings data did not identify any cases of systematic non-compliance within the fishery. Therefore it is concluded that some evidence exists to demonstrate fishers comply with the management system under assessment and SG80c is met. Since there are however indications from other sources (observer trips) that high grading takes place the team concluded that there is not a high degree of confidence that the fishers comply with all regulations. Therefore SG 100 c is not

Justification met. d There is no evidence of systematic non- compliance. Guidepost Guidepost Met? N

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 167

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s PI 3.2.3 management measures are enforced and complied with From discard observer trips there is sufficient proof that high grading takes place in the Swedish shrimp fishery. Since there is a system of individual (monthly) vessel quota that limit landings and there is a large difference in price of larger and smaller shrimp, smaller shrimps are discarded when catches are larger than the vessels monthly quota. In order to address this issue new rules are established by Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (SwAM) for the year 2015. Under these new rules the transfer of a vessels monthly quota to another vessel is allowed so that the quota of two vessels can be pooled on one vessel. It is expected that this change in management will result in a higher

Justification profitability and a reduction of discarding smaller shrimps. At this moment however it is uncertain whether the new rules will be effective. Therefore at this moment it cannot be concluded that there is no evidence of systematic non- compliance and SG80d is not met. The consequence is that the unconditional score of 80 is not reached and that a condition is set. Centrum för fiskerikontroll (FMC) website: https://www.havochvatten.se/hav/fiske--fritid/yrkesfiske/rapportering-till- hav/centrum-for-fiskerikontroll-fmc.html Green Paper of 22 April 2009 - Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy References [COM(2009) 163 final. http://eur- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:343:0001:0050:EN:PDF Munch-Petersen et al. 2011. Discarding in the shrimp fisheries in Skagerrak and the Norwegian Deep (ICES Divs. IIIa and IVa east). NAFO/ICES PANDALUS ASSESSMENT GROUP MEETING. SCR Doc. 11/067 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 70

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 6

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 168

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.4

The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of PI 3.2.4 management Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Research is A research plan A comprehensive research undertaken, as provides the plan provides the management required, to achieve management system system with a coherent and the objectives with a strategic strategic approach to research consistent with MSC’s approach to research across P1, P2 and P3, and Principles 1 and 2. and reliable and timely reliable and timely information information sufficient sufficient to achieve the

Guidepost Guidepost to achieve the objectives consistent with objectives consistent MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Met? Y Y N The North Sea and Skagerrak marine ecosystems are well-studied. Research conducted by research institutes in Sweden, Norway and Denmark has resulted in the publication of countless scientific publications on different aspects of the ecosystem. Research is planned by Sweden in the framework of the financing of SLU’s scientific research programme by SWAM. It is decided by SWAM which research projects should be undertaken to address relevant fisheries management issues. Research is also planned within SLU on the basis of allocation of available budgets and meeting the EU requirements of data collection. The research projects undertaken includes: investigations on fish and shrimp stocks, incl. stock size, structure and distribution, -fishing technology and selectivity of fishing gear, sustainable harvesting of commercial species and the monitoring of

Justification the populations of marine mammals and birds. Research is also planned in the ICES Pandalus Working Group (NIPAG). The team concludes that a research plan is in place and thus that SG80a is met. Since the research planning is carried out by different organizations and not written down in one comprehensive overall plan the team concludes that SG100 a is not met. b Research results are Research results are Research plan and results are available to interested disseminated to all disseminated to all interested parties. interested parties in a parties in a timely fashion and timely fashion. are widely and publicly available. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y Y N

Research findings are made available through annual reports and ICES papers published on ICES, SLU, IMR and Swedish National Fisheries Board web sites. The team has therefore concluded that research results are disseminated widely and SG80 is met. SG100b would be met if the research plan would also be disseminated to all interested parties. Research planning and financing however is partly an internal affair of the authorities and therefore the team concluded that SG100 is not met.

Justification International Council for the Exploration of the Sea website: www.ices.dk References Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences website: http://www.slu.se/en/research/ Norwegian Institute for marine Research website: http://www.imr.no/en

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 169

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

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 170

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.5

There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives PI 3.2.5 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a The fishery has in The fishery has in The fishery has in place place mechanisms to place mechanisms to mechanisms to evaluate all evaluate some parts evaluate key parts of parts of the management of the management the management system. system. system Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y Y N Within the Swedish Management system there are mechanisms in place to periodically evaluate parts of the management system based on internal review within the Ministries of Rural Affairs and Environment. On the internet several reports of evaluation of parts of the Swedish maritime fisheries management system can be found (see links in references below). Currently the new Programme for the Fisheries sector 2014-2020 is being drafted, incorporating evaluation of the existing management system. Within the Swedish management system, reporting of regulations and enforcement to the Swedish Parliament occur annually. SLU has also had several scientific reviews over the last decade by independent committees. Justification The Swedish shrimp fishery is to a large extent managed by the EU Common Fisheries Policy. The EU CFP is evaluated at regular intervals and consequently reformed. (See PI 3.1.3.) Since it is concluded that mechanisms are in place to evaluate parts of the management system SG100a is not met since that requires that mechanisms are in place to evaluate all parts of the management system. b The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific management system management system management system is subject is subject to is subject to regular to regular internal and occasional internal internal and occasional external review. review. external review. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y Y N

The fishery is regulated by the Swedish fisheries management system and the CFP. On the internet several reports of evaluation of parts of the Swedish maritime of fisheries management system can be found (see links in references below). Most of these evaluations are commissioned by the Swedish Government and could be considered internal reviews. One review on the Swedish Fisheries has been requested by the European Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries (Popescu, 2010). This report can be considered an external review. Scientific evaluations on the shrimp fishery have also been conducted by scientist and

Justification published in research papers. For example the ICES Pandalus Working Group study on discarding in this fishery (Munch-Petersen et al., 2011). It is therefore concluded that the fishery -specific management system is subject to regular internal and occasional external review. SG80 is met. European Commission 2014. Information of Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/reform/index_en.htm References National Strategic Plan for the fisheries sector 2007-2013. http://www.government.se/sb/d/10352/a/99599 Ministry of the Environment, 2003. THE SEA- time for a new strategy. Final

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 171

There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives PI 3.2.5 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system report by the Commission on the Marine Environment. http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c4/17/16/88d37695.pdf Ministry of the Environment, 2009. A coherent Swedish maritime policy. http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/12/40/65/311a8c1f.pdf Munch-Petersen et al. 2011. Discarding in the shrimp fisheries in Skagerrak and the Norwegian Deep (ICES Divs. IIIa and IVa east). NAFO/ICES PANDALUS ASSESSMENT GROUP MEETING. SCR Doc. 11/067 Popescu, I., 2010. Fisheries in Sweden, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2010/438579/IPOL- PECH_NT(2010)438579_EN.pdf OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE:

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 80

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 172

Appendix 1.2 Conditions As a standard condition of certification, the client shall develop an 'Action Plan’ for meeting the conditions for continued certification. The conditions are associated with key areas of performance of the fishery, each of which addresses one or more Performance Indicators. Conditions, associated timescales and relevant Performance Indicators are set out below.

Condition 1:

Performance P1.2.2 indicator There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place Well defined harvest control rules are in place that are consistent SG80 with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is guidepost(s) reduced as limit reference points are approached. not met The selection of the harvest control rules takes into account the main uncertainties. Score 65

There are no well-defined harvest control rules (HCRs) in place which stipulate what management action will be invoked if the stock biomass declines to levels close to Btrigger or Blim, or if fishing Rationale mortality increases to levels close to Flim.

The current implicit HCR does not take into account the main uncertainties underlying the assessment of stock status including any uncertainties in the estimation of discard rates. By the fourth annual surveillance, well defined harvest control rules (HCRs) shall be implemented for the shrimp stock to ensure that the Condition exploitation rates are reduced as limit reference points are approached. The HCRs should take into account the uncertainties underlying the assessment of stock status and the uncertainties in estimates of discard rates. Annual surveillance 1: Show written evidence of consultation with relevant authorities and stakeholder groups in relation to options for HCRs. Annual Annual surveillance 2: Provide an evaluation of options considered milestones for potential HCRs

Annual surveillance 3: Propose HCR to relevant authorities Annual surveillance 4: Implementation of HCR through consultation with relevant authorities. In year 1 Gothenburg Fish Auction (GFA) will liaise with Swedish Fisheries management authorities and other relevant stakeholders and discuss how current harvest control rules in the fishery can be improved. The options to improve the HCR, so that the exploitation rates are reduced as limit reference points are approached, will be identified. The options to improve the HCR should take into account Suggested the uncertainties underlying the assessment of stock status. action In year 2 GFA will discuss and evaluate the existing options for potential HCRs with relevant stakeholders. In year 3 GFA will propose a well-defined HCR to relevant authorities. In year 4 GFA will liaise with Swedish fisheries management authorities and relevant stakeholders and urge them to implement a well-defined HCR before the end of year 4.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 173

Condition 2:

PI 2.2.3 Performance Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to indicator determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk SG80 to main bycatch species (e.g., due to changes in the outcome guidepost(s) indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of not met the strategy). Score 75

SLU have carried out observer sampling on fishing trips using trawls with grid and tunnel only since 2013 and SLU do not carry out observer sampling on vessels which fish in the Norwegian Deep, so Rationale there is no information to evaluate whether there are any main

bycatch species in that geographical component of the UoC, or whether there is any increase in risk to bycatch species in the Norwegian Deep. By the fourth annual surveillance, provide evidence that observer Condition sampling has been carried out on an annual basis in both the Skagerrak/Kattegat and the Norwegian Deep for both the trawl with grid and the trawl with grid and tunnel. Annual surveillance 1: Provide evidence that observer sampling has been implemented in the Norwegian Deep area of the fishery, and that observer sampling using the trawl with grid and tunnel has been continued. Annual surveillance 2: Provide evidence that observer sampling Annual has continued in both the Skagerrak/Kattegat and the Norwegian milestones Deep for both the trawl with grid and the trawl with grid and tunnel. Annual surveillance 3: Provide evidence that observer sampling has continued in both the Skagerrak/Kattegat and the Norwegian Deep for both the trawl with grid and the trawl with grid and tunnel. Annual surveillance 4: Provide evidence that observer sampling has continued in both the Skagerrak/Kattegat and the Norwegian Deep for both the trawl with grid and the trawl with grid and tunnel. In year 1 Gothenburg Fish Auction (GFA) will work with SLU to implement observer trips in the Norwegian Deep covering all gears. In year 2 GFA will together with SLU show the results from sampling in Skagerrak / Kattegat and the Norwegian Deep for all used gears Suggested and work with SLU to ensure that SLU fulfils the number of action observation trips as stated in the National Sampling program.

In year 3 GFA will together with SLU show the results from sampling in Skagerrak / Kattegat and the Norwegian Deep for all used gears. In year 4 GFA will together with SLU show the results from sampling in Skagerrak / Kattegat and the Norwegian Deep for all used gears.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 174

Condition 3:

PI 2.4.1 Performance indicator The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function. SG80 The fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function guidepost(s) to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. not met Score 75

Whilst coral gardens are protected from potential damage by fishing gears in three Natura 2000 sites, some species of horn corals are Rationale found only in Bratten, and full protection for these corals is not yet in place in the Bratten. The main location of deep sea sponge aggregations in the Skagerrak is in the Bratten, and full protection from damage by fishing gear in the Bratten is not yet in place. By the third annual surveillance, full protection for coral gardens and deep sea sponge aggregations should be in place through legislation, Condition such that in conjunction with other measures it can be concluded that the shrimp fishery is highly unlikely to reduce coral gardens and deep sea sponge aggregations to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Annual surveillance 1: Show written evidence of consultation with relevant authorities to consider specific management measures including area closures and move-on rules to restrict fishing activity within the Bratten, and through a Code of Conduct implement voluntary restrictions on fishing activity of the shrimp fleet within the Annual Bratten. milestones Annual surveillance 2: Propose specific management measures to

restrict fishing activity in the Bratten to relevant authorities. Demonstrate that vouluntary conditions have worked. Annual surveillance 3: Implementation of specific management measures to minimize the impact of fishing activities on habitat within the Bratten through consultation with relevant authorities. In year 1 Gothenburg Fish Auction (GFA) will work with SwAM for implementing of restrictions for the fishery especially in the Bratten area. Through the Code of Conduct GFA will initiate voluntary restrictions on the fishing activity. If vessels do not follow the proposed restrictions, the vessels will be deleted from the certification. Suggested action In year 2 GFA will together with the authorities SwAM and MEI work for implementing the Proposal for Fisheries Management Measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten SE0520189. GFA will also evaluate success of voluntary measures. In year 3 GFA will together with the authorities SwAM and MEI work for implementing the Proposal for Fisheries Management Measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten SE0520189

Condition 4: PI 2.4.2 Performance indicator There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types. SG80 There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy guidepost(s) will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or not met habitats involved.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 175

Score 75

Some elements of the partial strategy such as limitations on fishing effort and catch limits will work, but the lack of implementation of Rationale specific management measures to restrict fishing activity in many of

the protected areas means that there is at present no objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work. By the third annual surveillance, specific management measures Condition which minimize the impact of fishing activities on habitat within

designated protected areas should be implemented. Annual surveillance 1: Show written evidence of consultation with relevant authorities to consider specific management measures including area closures and move-on rules to restrict fishing activity within protected areas, and through a Code of Conduct implement voluntary restrictions on fishing activity of the shrimp fleet within Annual protected areas. milestones Annual surveillance 2: Propose specific management measures to restrict fishing activity in protected areas to relevant authorities. Evaluate success of voluntary measures. Annual surveillance 3: Implementation of specific management measures to minimize the impact of fishing activities on habitat within designated protected areas through consultation with relevant authorities. In year 1 GFA will consult with authorities and stakeholders concerning limitations of fishing activity within protected areas. GFA will also discuss voluntary restrictions on fishing activity of the shrimp fleet within protected areas through the Code of Conduct , with the shrimp fishing industry. Through the Code of Conduct voluntary restrictions on the fishing activity will be initiated. For example GFA will also discuss with SwAM the possibilities for area closures. The restrictions in the Koster/Väderö area will be evaluated Suggested and followed up and if necessary be increased. GFA will also work action with SwAM to propose that the current system for Quotas will be

transferred to ITQ in order to lower the fishing activity. In year 2 GFA will propose management measures for restricting the fishing activity in protected areas. GFA will also evaluate success of voluntary measures. In year 3 GFA will work together with SwAM to urge them to implement specific management measures within designated protected areas.

Condition 5:

PI 2.4.3 Performance Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types indicator by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types. SG80 Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk guidepost(s) to habitat (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the not met operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). Score 75

There is not sufficient data being collected to detect any increase in Rationale risk to the five VME habitats because information on the distribution of the VME habitats could not be considered to be comprehensive across the whole fishing area, and without a mechanism for

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 176

recording interactions between fishing gear and VME habitats, interactions may go unrecorded in areas where VMEs have not been previously recorded. A key component of a full strategy to manage the impact of the fishery on VME habitats is the implementation of clear “move-on” rules when VME habitats are encountered. Complementary to such move-on rules are a mechanism for recording such encounters in fishermen’s log books. By the fourth annual surveillance, ensure that information on Condition interactions of fishing operations with VME habitats is collected on a continuous basis, and where necessary appropriate management responses are implemented in conjunction with relevant authorities. Annual surveillance 1: Develop and implement procedures for monitoring and recording all interactions with VME habitats in every fishing haul. Provide an analysis of collected data to determine whether significant impacts are likely and where necessary develop Annual appropriate management responses in conjunction with relevant milestones authorities.

Annual surveillance 2-4: Continue to collect data on interactions between fishing operations and VME habitats and where necessary develop and implement appropriate management responses in conjunction with relevant authorities. In year 1 GFA will develop and implement procedures for monitoring and recording interactions with VME habitats and also make analysis Suggested of the data. Where necessary develop appropriate management action response together with SwAM.

In year 2 - 4 GFA will continue to work for more collection of data and propose appropriate management measures.

Condition 6:

PI 3.2.3 Performance indicator Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s management measures are enforced and complied with

SG80 A monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery under assessment and has demonstrated an ability to guidepost(s) enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. not met There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance. Score 70

From discard observer trips there is sufficient proof that high grading takes place in the Swedish shrimp fishery. Since there is a system of individual vessel quota that limit landings and there is a large Rationale difference in price of larger and smaller shrimp, a significant proportion of the catch of smaller shrimps is discarded. Discarding of

smaller shrimp is illegal under the current EU regulations. Therefore it cannot be concluded that the MSC system has demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant management measures and that there is no evidence of systematic non-compliance. By the first annual surveillance audit measures to stop the discarding Condition of smaller shrimps should be implemented. At the second surveillance audit evidence should be provided that the MSC system

has an ability to detect non-compliance and that there is no systematic discarding of smaller shrimp. Annual Annual surveillance 1: Provide evidence of implementation of milestones

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 177

measures to stop the discarding of smaller shrimp. Annual surveillance 2: Evidence should be provided that there is no systematic discarding of smaller shrimp. In year 1 GFA will consult with fishermen on measures to reduce/stop discarding of smaller shrimp. GFA will implement measures to stop discarding of smaller shrimp in the Code of Suggested Conduct. GFA will also consult with control agencies in order to action improve the capability of the MCS-system to detect non-compliance.

In year 2 GFA will provide information on the effectiveness of the MCS-system to detect non-compliance on discard levels in the shrimp fishery so that effectiveness of measures can be evaluated

Recommendation 1:

Performance indicator 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place

Score 80

Scoring issue b. The harvest strategy may not have been fully tested but evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives.

Rationale. Vessel inspections confirm that there is compliance with management regulations, although there is some evidence that high-grading does occur within the Swedish fishing fleet, and that the prohibition is not effectively enforced, for which a condition has been raised against PI 3.2.3. High-grading could be reduced if more selective gear was used in the fishery. A multi- agency project, the NORDEN project, is currently researching methods of reducing the catch of small shrimps. Initial results from the project are very encouraging; experimental fishing using a mesh size of 47mm instead of the standard 35 mm mesh shows a significant reduction in the capture of small shrimp, particularly in the “lus” (very small) category.

Recommendation The assessment team recommends the client to liaise with research scientists and gear technologists in the framework of the NORDEN project. This would better ensure that the project is carried out on a practical basis in a way that fishers could easily implement any desirable technical gear modifications to significantly reduce the capture of small shrimp. The clients could also offer assistance with gear trials on their vessels.

Recommendation 2:

Performance indicator 1.2.4. There is an adequate assessment of the stock status

Score 90

Scoring issue d. The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored.

Rationale. An alternative newly-implemented stochastic length-based assessment model has also been applied to this fishery, but the model still requires some further development. The length-based model and the surplus production model provide similar estimates of stock biomass but, in some years, significantly different estimates of fishing mortality.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 178

Recommendation. The assessment team recommends that further research is undertaken to resolve the differences in fishing mortality generated by the length-based and surplus production assessment models.

Recommendation 3:

Performance indicator 2.3.3. Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species

Score 80

Scoring issue c. Information is sufficient to measure trends and support a full strategy to manage impacts on ETP species.

Rationale. There is uncertainty around discard rates for common skate due to the recording of landings of common skate in fishermen’s log books probably due to misidentification of skate species by fishermen.

Recommendation. The assessment team recommends therefore that action is taken to remove the uncertainty over identification of skate species in log book records through, for example, further education of fishermen.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 179

Appendix 1.3 Client Action Plan and support from involved entities

Appendix 1.3.1 Client Action Plan – Gothenburg Fish auktion

Swedish Deep cold water prawn fishery August 22, 2015

The Gothenburg Fish Auction (GFA) is fully committed to sustainable and rational exploitation of marine living resources. Accordingly, and arising from the conditions of certification, GFA will undertake to implement the following action plan in relation to the conditions of certification.

Condition 1 – P1.2.2 Harvest Control rule

Objectives To achieve a sustainable fishery for shrimps in a long term prospective

Action In year 1 Gothenburg Fish Auction (GFA) will liaise with Swedish Fisheries Management Authorities and other relevant stakeholders and discuss how current harvest control rules in the fishery can be improved. The options to improve the HCR, so that the exploitation rates are reduced as limit reference points are approached, will be identified. The options to improve the HCR should take into account the uncertainties underlying the assessment of stock status.

In year 2 GFA will discuss and evaluate the existing options for potential HCRs with relevant stakeholders.

In year 3 GFA will propose a well-defined HCR to relevant authorities,

In year 4 GFA will liaise with Swedish Fisheries Management Authorities and relevant stakeholders and urge them to implement a well-defined HCR before the end of year 4.

Responsibility; Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (SwAM) Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation (MEI) GFA and fishermen Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Aquatic Resources (SLU)

Condition 2 – P2.2.3 Bycatch Species Information

Objectives To increase the observer sampling program to validate more data.

Action In year 1 Gothenburg Fish Auction (GFA) will work with SLU to implement observer trips in the Norwegian Deep covering all gears.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 180

In year 2 GFA will together with SLU show the results from sampling in Skagerrak / Kattegat and the Norwegian Deep for all used gears and work with SLU to ensure that SLU fulfils the number of observation trips as stated in the National Sampling program.

In year 3 GFA will together with SLU show the results from sampling in Skagerrak / Kattegat and the Norwegian Deep for all used gears.

In year 4 GFA will together with SLU show the results from sampling in Skagerrak / Kattegat and the Norwegian Deep for all used gears.

Responsibility; Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Aquatic Resources (SLU) Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (SwAM) GFA and fishermen

Condition 3 – P2.4.1 Habitats

Objectives To avoid damage of corals and sponges in the Bratten area.

Action In year 1 Gothenburg Fish Auction (GFA) will work with SwAM for implementing of restrictions for the fishery especially in the Bratten area. Through the Code of Conduct GFA will initiate voluntary restrictions on the fishing activity. If vessels do not follow the proposed restrictions, the vessels will be deleted from the certification.

In year 2 GFA will together with the authorities SwAM and MEI work for implementing the Proposal for Fisheries Management Measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten SE0520189. GFA will also evaluate success of voluntary measures.

In year 3 GFA will together with the authorities SwAM and MEI work for implementing the Proposal for Fisheries Management Measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten SE0520189

Responsibility; Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (SwAM) GFA and fishermen Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation (MEI)

Condition 4 – P2.4.2 Habitats

Objectives To limit the fishing activity in protected areas

Action In year 1 GFA will consult with authorities and stakeholders concerning limitations of fishing activity within protected areas. GFA will also discuss voluntary restrictions on fishing activity of the shrimp fleet within protected areas through the Code of Conduct , with the shrimp fishing industry. Through the Code of Conduct voluntary restrictions on the fishing activity will be initiated. For example GFA will also discuss with SwAM the possibilities for area closures. The restrictions in the Koster/Väderö area will be evaluated and followed up and if necessary be increased. GFA will also work with SwAM to propose that the current system for Quotas will be transferred to ITQ in order to lower the fishing activity.

In year 2 GFA will propose management measures for restricting the fishing activity in protected areas. GFA will also evaluate success of voluntary measures.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 181

In year 3 GFA will work together with SwAM to urge them to implement specific management measures within designated protected areas.

Responsibility; Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (SwAM) GFA and fishermen

Condition 5 – P2.4.3 Habitats

Objectives To increase the collection of data on the interaction between fishing activity and VME habitats

Action In year 1 GFA will develop and implement procedures for monitoring and recording interactions with VME habitats and also make analysis of the data. Where necessary develop appropriate management response together with SwAM. In year 2 - 4 GFA will continue to work for more collection of data and propose appropriate management measures .

Responsibility; Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (SwAM) GFA and fishermen Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Aquatic Resources (SLU)

Condition 6 – P3.2.3 Fishery specific management system

Objectives To stop systematic discarding of smaller shrimps

Action

In year 1 GFA will consult with fishermen on measures to reduce/stop discarding of smaller shrimp. GFA will implement measures to stop discarding of smaller shrimp in the Code of Conduct. GFA will also consult with control agencies in order to improve the capability of the MCS-system to detect non- compliance.

In year 2 GFA will provide information on the effectiveness of the MCS-system to detect non-compliance on discard levels in the shrimp fishery so that effectiveness of measures can be evaluated

Responsibility; Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (SwAM) GFA and fishermen Swedish Coast Guard Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Aquatic Resources (SLU)

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 182

Appendix 1.3.2 Supporting documents from SwAM and SLU

SwAM (Havs och Vatten Myndigheten)

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 183

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 184

SLU

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 185

APPENDIX 2. PEER REVIEW REPORTS

Peer Reviewer 1 Overall Opinion

Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes Certification Body Response appropriate conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? Justification: No further comment required. I have examined the report and the evaluation table in detail and made appropriate comments below. I concur with all but one of the scores which, if valid for a possible rescoring, will not significantly affect the overall scores or the recommendation to certify this fishery. The overall score for PI 1 only just exceeds the 80 score. Significant progress in working towards implementation of the three conditions will be essential to ensure continued certification at subsequent annual surveillances.

Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes Certification Body Response appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? Justification: The assessment team agrees that the The conditions and the recommendations are appropriate and implementation of regulations/measures well written. I do consider the timescales are overly generous required to meet the conditions (Harvest with respect to the client’s tasks. The first three years of Control Rules, management in Natura activity could be compressed, allowing more time for 2000 sites, minimizing high-grading) is implementation before the end of the 4th annual surveillance dependent upon obtaining the (see more details below). Implementation is dependent upon agreement of all parties involved in the getting the agreement of all parties involved in the management of this fishery, and that the management of this fishery. implementation process cannot all be I have also suggested an additional recommendation with achieved in year 4. However the respect to the NORDEN research project studying gear annual milestones state quite clearly selection, particularly for small shrimp. that consultations with the relevant authorities and stakeholders must start in year 1, and will therefore continue throughout the process. The annual milestones require agreement on management measures by year 3, with a further year in which the legislation must be implemented. As noted by the peer reviewer, the key requirement is that the regulations/measures are implemented by the 4th surveillance audit. The assessment team therefore sees no need to modify the timescale for meeting the conditions.

The assessment team has added a recommendation urging the client to liaise with research scientists and gear technologists within the framework of the NORDEN project.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 186

If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient No Certification Body Response to close the conditions raised? Justification: As mentioned above I do consider the timescales are overly Please see comments above on the generous for those parts of the action plan that are in the annual milestones required to meet the hands of the clients. The difficulty will be in getting the relevant conditions, and the conclusion of the authorities to implement any actions proposed by the clients. assessment team that there is no need More time should be allowed, within the overall limit of the end to modify the timescales for meeting the of the 4th annual surveillance, for implementation. The actions conditions. proposed by the clients seem appropriate; it is the timescale I disagree with. There is no requirement within the MSC Certification Requirements for the Client There is no mention of the recommendations in the client to address recommendations within the action plan. Client Action Plan.

General Comments on the Assessment Report (optional)

My review is based on a reading of the version of the Assessment Report emailed to me. I have made no attempt to access or peruse the extensive list of publications cited by the assessment team.

This is a very competent and comprehensive assessment of the Sweden Skagerrak, Kattegat and the Norwegian Deep cold water prawn/shrimp fishery against the MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries. The Report is well presented and provides an authoritative overview of the fishery and the issues that relate to the three MSC Principles. I was particularly impressed with the large number of references quoted, and consequently the high standard of detail throughout the report. I concur with the majority of comments and remarkably all but one of the scores in the Report. Any minor modification to the scoring as a result of my review will not affect the overall conclusion to certify this fishery, which I fully support.

Specific comments referenced to section numbering.

Prawn and shrimp seems to be used throughout the report as being synonymous.

Certification Body Response: Although shrimp and prawn are technically not completely the same the names "shrimp" and "prawn" are very often used interchangeably. See http://www.fao.org/fishery/species/3425/en.

LPUE is not in the abbreviations list (I did not notice any others missing, but there may be some).

Certification Body Response: LPUE has been added to the abbreviations list

1.5. Correction: there are three, not four, PIs <80, and thus three conditions listed.

Certification Body Response: This has been amended.

While the conditions are fully explained in 6.3 and App 1.2, they should be summarized here to help readers of the executive summary to appreciate what needs to be done to improve certification requirements.

Certification Body Response: the three performance indicators for which the SG80 was not met are now listed in the executive summary. Reference is given in this paragraph to paragraph 6.3 and the appendix where an interested reader can find full details of what needs to be done to improve certification requirements.

3.1.5. UoC would benefit from having a chartlet figure to show the geographical range and also aid identification of areas mentioned throughout the report.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 187

Certification Body Response: a map has been added to paragraph 3.1.5.

3.2 Overview of the fishery.

3.2.2. “….engine effect…..”, should this be engine power?

Certification Body Response: “engine effect” has been changed to “engine power”.

3.2.3. Figure 1 and Table 1 and text. Explain why TACs have been set above advice, and that landings have not been restricted by the TAC, usually failing to get close to the TAC.

Certification Body Response: Annual TACs for the shrimp fishery in the Skagerrak and Norwegian Deep are set during the ‘Fisheries Consultations between the EU and Norway on the regulation of fisheries in Skagerrak and Kattegat’ but detailed reasons for the level of TAC are not always given in press releases following the consultations. As stated in section 3.2.3, the full TAC for the area is then shared amongst the three countries based on historical landings with Norway, Denmark and Sweden receiving 60%, 26% and 14% respectively in 2011-2014. In recent years, landings in Sweden may have been restricted by the TAC allocation for Sweden, but the TAC is not restrictive in the other countries and so the overall TAC for the fishery has not been reached in most years.

Figure 3. While sorting grids have only become obligatory since 1/2/2013, single trawls incorporated them voluntarily from 2002, but twin trawls only from 2010. Please explain why twin trawlers were slow to adopt grids. Also in 3.2.4, briefly explain the purpose of the grids in terms of species that escape and why grids are not mandatory in the Kattegat and North Sea. 3.4.1. does not mention that grids are not mandatory in the Kattegat – clarify. 3.4.1. does explain more fully the role of grids and 3.4.2 points out that prawn landings from the Kattegat are small (4.2%), but what about the North Sea?

Certification Body Response: The use of grids became mandatory within the 4nm coastal zone many years ago. Single trawl vessels will fish in both these coastal areas and the areas further offshore where grids were not originally required, but for practical reasons single trawl vessels would therefore fish in all areas with same gear, so uptake of the grid by these vessels started many years ago. Twin trawl vessels fished primarily in offshore areas and therefore were not required to use the grids, and so their uptake of the sorting grid was much slower than for the single trawl vessels.

A sentence has been added to section 3.2.4 to explain the purpose of the grid.

The sorting grid is mandatory for all Swedish vessels in the Skagerrak, Kattegat and Norwegian Deep. The text has been amended to clarify this point.

Table 7 in section 3.4.2 shows that landings in 2013 from the Kattegat and Norwegian Deep were 4.2% and 9.4% respectively of the total landings.

3.2.3. The legal mesh size is 35mm. 3.2.4. and 3.4.1 Swedish vessels voluntarily use 45mm, yet small shrimp are still caught and discarded. Please discuss in the texts. I see 3.4.2. (last paragraph) mentions recent work using a 47mm mesh instead of the standard 35mm mesh shows a significant reduction in the capture of small shrimp. Does the increase from the voluntary 45mm to 47mm make any significance reduction in catches of small shrimp? The poorly enforced high grading regulation and considerable quantities of small shrimp discarded make this work of particular relevance to condition 3.

Certification Body Response: Swedish vessels have voluntarily introduced measures to reduce the capture and discarding of small shrimp, including the use of 45mm mesh size, however high-grading may still occur whereby small or medium size shrimps are discarded in order to uptake the quota with primarily large, high-value shrimp. Initial results from the NORDEN project do indeed show that the use of a 47mm mesh size instead of the 45 mm mesh size does significantly reduce the capture of small shrimp. Further results will be forthcoming from this project in the near future.

3.2.3. There are extensive consultations between Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the EU to set up a joint management plan, hopefully due in 2015. It would have been helpful to have had a brief

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 188

explanation of the aspects of management strategy expected to be covered by this management plan, and whether they were likely to address the issues raised in the three conditions specified in this report? There is no mention of the extent, if any, to which the clients have been consulted or involved in the negotiations.

Certification Body Response: No details of the specific components of the proposed shrimp management plan were made available to the assessment team during the site visit, as discussions were still ongoing. During discussions with the relevant authorities subsequent to the site visit, the assessment team were informed that the plan would consider harvest control rules and measures to minimise the practice of high-grading. The assessment team confirms that as any such management plan is still at the proposal stage, it was not considered during the scoring of the fishery.

3.3. P1: Target Species Background

3.3.3. At what size does sex change occur? Does it have any relevance to the 15mm CL commercial size and discards of small shrimp in terms of impact on reproduction and recruitment?

Certification Body Response: The size at which shrimp change sex is dependent on water temperature and other factors. Even in the relatively warmer waters of the Skagerrak and Norwegian Deep, sex change occurs at age 2-3 years when the shrimps are 17 to 22 mm carapace length, so sex change occurs after the shrimps reach commercial size.

3.3.4.1. Clearly the stock assessment is well reviewed, e.g. the ICES benchmarking, and therefore inspires confidence that it is the best available, albeit with limitations.

Certification Body Response: No further comment required.

3.3.4.1. The recruitment index is based on the abundance of age 1 shrimp. What are these in terms of mm CL and sex?

Certification Body Response: The Norwegian stock surveys estimated the mean carapace length of age 1 shrimps as 11.64 mm and 10.61 mm CL in 2013 and 2014 respectively. Age 1 shrimps have yet to undergo sex change from male to female.

3.3.4.1. Text after Figure10 :- “Length frequencies of the catches from 1985 to…….” Please confirm these are catches (landings and discards) and not just landings. See also 3.4.2.

Certification Body Response: The length frequencies referred to in the text after Figure 10 are samples of unsorted commercial catches collected by Norwegian fishermen or by the Norwegian Coast Guard on board vessels at sea. These data and length frequencies collected during the Norwegian stock survey data are used as input to the length-based analytical assessment model. Section 3.4.2 presents both landings data and total catch data from the SLU Observer programme.

3.4 P2: Ecosystem Background

3.4.1. 2nd paragraph:- It is the Swedish quota that is limiting, not the TAC which usually exceeds the international landings.

Certification Body Response: It has been added that “the Swedish share of the TAC” is limiting the Swedish fishery.

Table 9. Is this catch or landings (retained catch), says catch in legend, but landings in text below table? Do a check throughout the report to make sure the correct terms are being used.

Certification Body Response: The comment is correct. It should be landings and the legend of Table 9 has been amended.

3.4.6. ETP species / 3.4.7. Habitats / 3.4.8.Ecosystems. These are comprehensive report sections for which I have no comments to add.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 189

Certification Body Response: No further comment required.

3.5. P3: Management System Background.

3.5.4. No mention of the problem of enforcing the regulation designed to prevent high grading. This has generated condition 3, and this problem should be referred to here.

Certification Body Response: Reference to the issue of high-grading and the fact that this practice is difficult to detect by regular inspections at sea has been added to paragraph 3.5.4.

4. Evaluation Procedure.

4.1. Harmonised Fishery Assessment. Having peer reviewed the other P. borealis fisheries discussed, I agree with the conclusion that they do not warrant harmonization with this fishery.

Certification Body Response: No further comment required.

4.4.1. The site visits seem to have covered all the relevant information required.

Certification Body Response: No further comment required.

4.4.2. The stakeholder comments referred to were not present in Appendix 3 of the version of the report for my review.

Certification Body Response: This is now included

5.1. Does the eligibility date need further modification?

Certification Body Response: The actual eligibility date is the same as the revised target eligibility date

Appendix 1.1. PI scores and rationale

PI 1.2.1. There is no mention of the problem of high grading and the poor exploitation pattern resulting in the unnecessary exploitation of small shrimp. The harvest strategy justification notes are deficient in addressing this problem and consequently not sufficiently robust. Adding in this problem is unlikely to reduce the overall PI score of 80, but it should not be ignored. I appreciate high grading is dealt with under 3.2.3 and condition 3, but it is also relevant here.

Certification Body Response: The lack of compliance with the prohibition on high-grading and the low level of enforcement of this prohibition have been added to the rationale for SIb.

PI 1.2.1.b. “TACs have not been exceeded in recent years” This is not a strong rationale or justification as TACs have often been set well above the ICES advice (see 3.2.3 comment above). PI 1.2.2.a justification text sets out clearly and in detail the issues relating to TAC setting and ICES advice.

Certification Body Response: We agree with the point made by the reviewer, and have amended the rationale to note that whilst the TAC has often been set above the level advised by ICES, the subsequent landings have generally been below the TAC level advised by ICES.

PI 1.2.2. I agree with the score of 65 for 1.2.2 resulting in condition 1 to implement harvest control rules for the shrimp stock to ensure that the exploitation rates are reduced as limit reference points are approached, and that the HCRs should take into account the uncertainties underlying the assessment of stock status.

Certification Body Response: No further comment required.

PI 1.2.3.b. As there are no harvest control rules, I assume the justification for meeting the 80 guidepost is presuming that suitable harvest control rules can be implemented, and that there is sufficient accuracy and coverage with the information available to support future harvest control rules.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 190

Certification Body Response: There are no explicit well-defined harvest control rules in place, but there is a generally understood harvest control rule in place whereby the TAC will be adjusted downwards in relation to declines in stock biomass. Stock abundance and fishery removals are sufficiently regularly monitored to support the harvest control rule.

PI 1.2.4.a. Similar assumptions have presumably been made here also with reference to harvest control rules.

Certification Body Response: The assessment is appropriate to the stock and to the generally understood harvest control rule that the TAC will be adjusted downwards in relation to declines in stock biomass.

PI 1.2.4d. The recommendation (No. 1) to undertake further research to resolve the differences in fishing mortality generated by the length based and surplus production assessment models is easily justified and appropriate.

Certification Body Response: No further comment required.

PI 1.2.4 has been duplicated (I assume they are the same, I have not checked the details) – delete one of them, either if they are the same!

Certification Body Response: The second PI 1.2.4 table has been deleted.

PI 2.2.2.c. The lack of enforcement of the high grading regulation has been omitted. Assuming small shrimp are considered to be a bycatch (as suggested in 2.2.2.a “…although a significant proportion of this bycatch is undersized P. borealis).), then SG 100 has not been met. Consider rescoring 2.2.2 and PI 2 as appropriate. [I am not sure that discarded small shrimp are considered to be bycatch.]

Certification Body Response: PI 2.2.2 considers non-target species, and therefore discarded small P. borealis should not be considered as bycatch under this PI. It is not appropriate therefore to consider the lack of enforcement of the high-grading regulation when scoring this PI.

PI 2.2.3. The recommendation (No. 2) to extend observer sampling of total catch to the Norwegian Deeps is fully justified and appropriate.

Certification Body Response: No further comment required.

PI 2.4.2. I agree with the score of 75 and the generation of condition 2 to implement specific management measures which minimize the impact of fishing activities on habitat within designated protected areas.

Certification Body Response: No further comment required.

PI 3.1.2.b. An explanation as why the SG100b has not been met would be helpful.

Certification Body Response: Rationale why SG100b has not been met has now been added.

PI 3.2.2.a. “…..EU-Norway agreement a quotum for the shrimp……”. Not sure what a “quotum” is. Not in my copy of the Oxford English Dictionary.

Certification Body Response: “quotum” is Dutch for quota. The word has been replaced by TAC.

PI 3.2.3.a. 2nd and 3rd bullet points re AIS are repetitive - combine.

Certification Body Response: The 3rd bullet point has been deleted.

PI 3.2.3. I agree with the score of 75 and therefore the imposition of condition 3.

Certification Body Response: No further comment required.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 191

PI 3.2.4.a & b. Explanations as why the SG100b has not been met would be helpful.

Certification Body Response: Rationale to explain why SG100 is not met has been added.

PI 3.2.5.a. An explanation as why the SG100b has not been met would be helpful.

Certification Body Response: An explanation has now been added.

Appendix 1.2 Conditions

I agree with the setting of all three conditions. The rationales and condition definitions are appropriate. While I appreciate fisheries management develops at a snail’s pace (should that be a whelk’s or a winkle’s pace?) the annual milestones and suggested actions seem overly generous. I would have preferred to see a shorter timescale for the clients. Consultation, evaluation and proposals could be completed in less than three years. Implementation is likely to be more difficult and time consuming, being out of the hands of the clients, but the end point of the 4th annual surveillance should remain.

I agree with the two recommendations regarding stock assessment models and extending observer sampling into the Norwegian Deep.

Certification Body Response: see previous responses above.

Proposed Recommendation 3.

I would suggest adding an additional recommendation regarding the exploitation pattern with the capture of small low value shrimp. Not catching small shrimp would solve the high grading problem. Section 3.4.2 of the report mentions “A multi-agency project, the NORDEN project, is currently researching methods of reducing bycatch even further. Initial results from the project are very encouraging; experimental fishing using a mesh size of 47mm instead of the standard 35 mm mesh shows a significant reduction in the capture of small shrimp, particularly in the “lus” (very small) category. Work within the project is currently focussing on the efficiency of different types of grid in reducing the capture of small shrimp (Bengt Gunnarsson, pers. comm.).” This project is very relevant to the high grading problem.

I would suggest the clients should be encouraged to have close contact with the staff carrying out the NORDEN project, with a view to ensuring that it is being done on a practical basis in a way that fishers could easily implement any desirable technical gear modifications to significantly reduce the capture of small shrimp. The clients could offer assistance with gear trials on their vessels. The Client Action Plan shows a willingness of the clients to participate fully in improving the sustainability of the shrimp stock and meeting the objectives of the three conditions applied. This proposed third recommendation is linked closely with condition 3, but emphasises the need to have close liaison with research scientists and gear technologists, something not explicit in the Client Action Plan for condition 3.

Certification Body Response: The assessment team has accepted this advice and incorporated a recommendation urging the client to liaise with research scientists and gear technologists in the framework of the NORDEN project. This recommendation is included under PI1.2.1 as it is a target species issue and should therefore come under P1. This makes it recommendation 1, and the numbering of the other recommendations is revised.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 192

Performance Indicator Review Please complete the table below for each Performance Indicator which are listed in the Certification Body’s Public Certification Draft Report.

Performanc Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response e Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please attach available used to score the fishery’s additional pages if necessary. been used to this Indicator performance score this support the to the SG80 Indicator? given score? level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)

Example:1.1.2 No No NA The certifier gave a score of 80 for this PI. The 80 scoring guidepost asks for a target reference point that is consistent with maintaining the stock at Bmsy or above, however the target reference point given for this fishery is Bpa, with no indication of how this is consistent with a Bmsy level.

1.1.1 Yes Yes NA The Justification/Rationale comments support this score.

1.1.2 Yes Yes NA The Justification/Rationale comments support this score.

1.1.3 Yes Yes NA The Justification/Rationale comments support this score.

1.2.1 Yes Yes NA The Justification/Rationale comments support this score.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 193

1.2.2 Yes Yes Yes, subject to The Justification/Rationale comments The condition states specifically that the getting support this score and the raising of a Client must consult with relevant agreement of condition. authorities and stakeholder groups. all parties involved in the management of this fishery.

1.2.3 Yes Yes NA The Justification/Rationale comments support this score.

1.2.4 Yes Yes NA The Justification/Rationale comments support this score. The recommendation proposed is appropriate.

2.1.1 Yes Yes NA The Justification/Rationale comments support this score.

2.1.2 Yes Yes NA The Justification/Rationale comments support this score.

2.1.3 Yes Yes NA The Justification/Rationale comments support this score.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 194

2.2.1 Yes Yes NA The Justification/Rationale comments support this score.

2.2.2 Yes Yes, except for NA The Justification/Rationale comments Additional text has been added to justify 2.2.2.c. support the overall score and is unlikely the rationale in 2.2.2c. to be changed by the possible re-scoring of 2.2.2.c.

2.2.3 Yes Yes NA The Justification/Rationale comments support this score. The recommendation proposed is appropriate.

2.3.1 Yes Yes NA The Justification/Rationale comments support this score.

2.3.2 Yes Yes NA The Justification/Rationale comments support this score.

2.3.3 Yes Yes NA The Justification/Rationale comments support this score.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 195

2.4.1 Yes Yes NA The Justification/Rationale comments support this score.

2.4.2 Yes Yes Yes, subject to The Justification/Rationale comments The condition states specifically that the getting support this score and the raising of a Client must consult with relevant agreement of condition. authorities. all parties involved in the management of this fishery.

2.4.3 Yes Yes NA The Justification/Rationale comments support this score.

2.5.1 Yes Yes NA The Justification/Rationale comments support this score.

2.5.2 Yes Yes NA The Justification/Rationale comments support this score.

2.5.3 Yes Yes NA The Justification/Rationale comments support this score.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 196

3.1.1 Yes Yes NA The Justification/Rationale comments support this score.

3.1.2 Yes Yes NA The Justification/Rationale comments support this score.

3.1.3 Yes Yes NA The Justification/Rationale comments support this score.

3.1.4 Yes Yes NA The Justification/Rationale comments support this score.

3.2.1 Yes Yes NA The Justification/Rationale comments support this score.

3.2.2 Yes Yes NA The Justification/Rationale comments support this score.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 197

3.2.3 Yes Yes Yes, subject to The Justification/Rationale comments The Condition specifically states that the getting the support this score and the raising of a client should consult and agree with agreement of condition. fishermen and thus the fullfilment of the all parties I have suggested an additional requirements formulated in the involved in the recommendation with respect to the Condition is only subject to the management of NORDEN reasearch project which could cooperation of the fishermen which the this fishery. help in the implementation of condition assessment team considers attainable. 3. The advice to add an recommendation has been followed.

3.2.4 Yes Yes NA The Justification/Rationale comments support this score.

3.2.5 Yes Yes NA The Justification/Rationale comments support this score.

Any Other Comments

Comments Certification Body Response

See specific comments listed above.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 198

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 199

Peer Reviewer 2 Overall Opinion

Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes Conformity Assessment Body appropriate conclusion based on the evidence Response presented in the assessment report? Justification: NA The assessment team concluded with a recommendation that the fishery be certified. This is an appropriate conclusion given that the average score for each of the three MSC principles was above 80 and no single score below 60. The assessment builds on relevant information about the fishery in question.

Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes Conformity Assessment Body appropriately written to achieve the SG80 Response outcome within the specified timeframe? Justification: NA The conditions address the identified shortcomings of the fishery, with reasonable milestones throughout the certification period.

If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient Yes Conformity Assessment Body to close the conditions raised? Response Justification: NA The client action plan addresses the conditions in an appropriate way.

General Comments on the Assessment Report (optional)

This is a well-researched and well-presented report.

I have one general comment regarding how the justification is presented in the scoring tables:

 The justifications are presented in slightly different manners in the scoring tables across the three Principles. I generally favour restricting the justifications to the evidence available, not repeating the text in the guidepost. In the present report, this is not a problem – for P3 only evidence is (mostly) presented, while for P1 and P2 the assessment team states explicitly why a specific score is not reached. To my mind, however, for some scoring issues under P3 it does not come across clearly enough why a specific score is not reached (i.e. why 80 is reached, but not 100). This relates to scoring issues 3.1.2 b), 3.1.3, 3.2.2. d) 3.2.3 c) and 3.2.4. See my comments to the scoring tables for further information.

Conformity Assessment Body Response: The comment is acknowledged and the scoring rational for the relevant Performance Indicators has been amended so that it is more clearly expressed why a specific score is not reached. See table below.

A few minor comments:

 Scoring table 1.2.4 appears twice (pp. 94–100).  The abbreviation AIS is not explained in the text, nor is it included in the list of abbreviations.  HAV and SwAM are used interchangeably for the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management. HAV is not in the list of abbreviations, and hence it is not possible for a reader

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 200

without knowledge of the Swedish system to understand what it is. Preferably one of the names should be used throughout the report.  The formulation ‘The Basic Regulation will be replaced by a new basic regulation in 2014’ is outdated. It appears on p. 55 and p. 142.

Conformity Assessment Body Response: Second table has been deleted. The abbreviation AIS (Automated Identification System) has been added to the list. HAV has been replaced by SwAM so that now only SwAM is used. The formulation concerning the Basic Regulation has been updated to the current situation where the new Basic Regulation is already in place.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 201

Performance Indicator Review Please complete the table below for each Performance Indicator which are listed in the Conformity Assessment Body’s Public Certification Draft Report.

Performanc Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body e Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please attach available used to score the fishery’s additional pages if necessary. been used to this Indicator performance score this support the to the SG80 Indicator? given score? level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)

Example:1.1. No No NA The certifier gave a score of 80 for this 2 PI. The 80 scoring guidepost asks for a target reference point that is consistent with maintaining the stock at Bmsy or above, however the target reference point given for this fishery is Bpa, with no indication of how this is consistent with a Bmsy level.

1.1.1 Yes Yes NA The justification given supports this score.

1.1.2 Yes Yes NA The justification given supports this score.

1.1.3 Yes Yes NA The justification given supports this score.

1.2.1 Yes Yes NA The justification given supports this score.

1.2.2 Yes Yes Yes The justification given supports this score.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 202

1.2.3 Yes Yes NA The justification given supports this score.

1.2.4 Yes Yes NA The justification given supports this score.

2.1.1 Yes Yes NA The justification given supports this score.

2.1.2 Yes Yes NA The justification given supports this score.

2.1.3 Yes Yes NA The justification given supports this score.

2.2.1 Yes Yes NA The justification given supports this score.

2.2.2 Yes Yes NA The justification given supports this score.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 203

2.2.3 Yes Yes NA The justification given supports this score.

2.3.1 Yes Yes NA The justification given supports this score.

2.3.2 Yes Yes NA The justification given supports this score.

2.3.3 Yes Yes NA The justification given supports this score.

2.4.1 Yes Yes NA The justification given supports this score.

2.4.2 Yes Yes Yes The justification given supports this score.

2.4.3 Yes Yes NA The justification given supports this score.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 204

2.5.1 Yes Yes NA The justification given supports this score.

2.5.2 Yes Yes NA The justification given supports this score.

2.5.3 Yes Yes NA The justification given supports this score.

3.1.1 Yes Yes NA The justification given supports this score.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 205

3.1.2 Yes Yes NA 3.1.2 b): I accept that the evidence The comment is correct since it is not supports the score, provided the completely clear that SG100b is not met. assessment team means that the The scoring rationale has been formulation in the justification ‘the amended. Now it reads: “The reasons for [changes in management] management system demonstrates will be explained to stakeholders’ implies consideration of the information that the management system does not provided by stakeholders but does not necessarily demonstrate consideration always explain how information is used of the information and ‘explains how it is or not used. Therefore SG100 b is not used or not used’. The reader might met.” easily conclude by the evidence that the requirement is met as long as the management system does explain to stakeholders why a change in management has been implemented, expecting that such an explanation entails information on why stakeholder input has been used or not. The assessment team’s argument might, e.g., be corroborated by saying that explanations are only given to stakeholders in writing (if that is the case) with limited possibility for them to obtain information about how their arguments have been handled in the process.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 206

3.1.3 Yes No NA It is not quite clear to me why, based on The comment is correct. The scoring the justification provided, only a partial rationale is now amended so that it is score is given here, i.e. why the stated explained why SG100 is partly met: objectives are not fully ‘required by “Therefore it is in the view of the management policy’. assessment team that clear long-term objectives are explicitly defined and thus that SG80 is met. Since the EU management system requires the formulation of strategic plans that are likely to include objectives SG 100 is partly met.”

3.1.4 Yes Yes NA The justification given supports this score.

3.2.1 Yes NA The justification given supports this score.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 207

3.2.2 Yes Yes NA 3.2.2 e): I accept that the evidence The given score is indeed based on the supports the score if the assessment is consideration that it is not clear whether of the opinion that the existence and the management system acts design of the management (and general proactively to avoid legal disputes. As a legal) system is not sufficient to provide result it is conluded that SG100e is not ‘clear support’ that it acts proactively to met. Since the rationale clearly states avoid legal disputes. I do, however, find this the rationale is maintained as it is. the score a bit strict. The assessment team states that ‘it can be assumed that the management authorities will try to avoid legal disputes by providing the possibilities for stakeholdeer involvement in the decision making process’. The question is what could reasonably be expected for the management system to work more ‘proactively’. The second requirement of this guidepost is not relevant here since there haven’t been any specific legal challenges in the fishery. It might look as if the assessment team links the two requirements of this guidepost (‘acts proactively’ and ‘rapidly implements judicial decisions’) by indicating (at least implicitly) that the absense of legal challenges means the evidence is not clear enough that a 100 score is met. Obviously, the fishery cannot be DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com ‘punished’ for the absence of Pagelegal 208 challenges (not saying that the assessment team does imply this, but the reader is left a bit unsure as the

3.2.3 Yes No Yes 3.2.3 c): The justification says that The following sentence has been added ‘inspections demonstrate that the fishery to the scoring rationale to further explain generally complies with gear regulations’ why in the opinion of the assessment and that ‘cross checks of fishing activity team SG100c is not met: “Since there recorded on the VMS system and ERS are however indications from other and landings data did not identify any sources (observer trips) that high cases of systemativ non-compliance’. To grading takes place the team concluded my mind, this indicates that there is ‘a that there is not a high degree of high degree of conficende that fishers confidence that the fishers comply with comply with the management system’. If all regulations. Therefore SG 100 c is the assessment team is of the opinion not met.” that a higher degree of confidence is necessary, I would have liked to see their opinion on what evidence is lacking to conclude with a 100 score. Are inspection statistics not valid or comprehensive enough? A more thorough discussion of such statistics (if they have been obtained) would corroborate the argument, if the assessment team decides to maintain the 80 score.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 209

3.2.4 Yes No NA 3.2.4 a): I do accept the score on the 3.2.4 a. The comment is correct since it basis of the justification provided. It is it not explained in the rationale why the not quite clear to me, however, why the research plan is not comprehensive and research plan is not considered to be SG100 is not met. The following ‘comprehensive’ enough. Is it because sentence has been added to the P3 issues are not covered, or P2 issues rationale: “The team concludes that a not covered well enough? research plan is in place and thus that 3.2.4 b) I find it more difficult to SG80a is met. Since the research understand, again judging by the planning is carried out by different justification provided in the text, that the organizations and not written down in research plans and results are not one comprehensive overall plan the disseminated ‘in a timely fashing and team concludes that SG100 a is not are widely and publicly available’, or not met.” ‘disseminated to all interested parties’. Are the ‘annual reports and ICES 3.2.4b: The team has concluded that papers’ not disseminated timely research results are disseminated enough? Are they not widely and widely through the internet. SG100b publicly available? Perhaps the would be met if the research plan would assessment team means that the plans also be disseminated to all interested and results are not equally available to a parties. Research planning and non-specialis as to the expert financing however is partly an internal community? In that case, I would have affair of the authorities and therefore the liked to see that corroborated (if nothing team concluded that SG100 is not met. else, then for pedagocical reasons – see The rationale has been amended my general comment at the beginning of accordingly. this peer review report).

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 210

3.2.5 Yes Yes NA The justification given supports this score.

Any Other Comments

Comments Conformity Assessment Body Response

See general comments at the beginning of the peer review report.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 211

APPENDIX 3. STAKEHOLDER SUBMISSIONS

No written submissions were made by stakeholders during consultation opportunities on: - The announcement of full assessment - Proposed team membership - Proposed peer reviewers - Proposed assessment tree

Appendix 3.1 Comments during the period of site-visit One stakeholder, WWF Sweden, submitted comments during the period of the site visit. The comments are concerning stock status, control and surveillance, high-grading, ecosystem concerns, the trawl fisheries effects and marine protection. The comment letter and the responses of the assessment team are shown below.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 212

WWF comments on “The Sweden Skagerrak and the Norwegian Deep cold- water prawn fishery against the MSC Principles and Criteria. Regarding the MSC process for certification of the Sweden Sweden Skagerrak and the Norwegian Deep cold-water prawn fishery WWF want to forward comments to the assessing team. The comments are concerning stock status, control and surveillance, high-grading, ecosystem concerns, the trawl fisheries effects and marine protection.

This fishery together with the Danish and Norwegian cold-water prawn fishery was assessed with the WWF methodology for Pandalus borelais regarding consumer advice in the fall 2013 based on ICES recommendations (attached in the e-mail) among other official documents about effects on the ecosystem and the management and control of the fishery. The cold-water prawn fishery in the region got the red color that signals not to buy for the consumer advice. When looking at the procedures in the Swedish fishery for certification we ask the assessor to take into account the cold-water prawn fisheries in Denmark and Norway as well as the stock is the same and all three nations are fishing in the same area.

Conformity Assessment Body Response: Under the MSC Certification Requirements, Principle 1 (the target stock) must consider the stock as a whole not just the UoC being assessed. The assessment team has therefore considered the impact on the stock of the cold water prawn fisheries in Denmark and Norway in addition to that of Sweden.

What WWF could clearly see is that there are a few critical problems for the prawn fishery in the region highlighted by the scientific community within ICES expressed below.

Highgrading in the Swedish fishery:

ICES: “The management of northern shrimp fisheries should address the discarding of small shrimps, which occurs mainly in the Swedish fleet due to highgrading as a consequence of a restrictive quota.”

Conformity Assessment Body Response: See comment below on high-grading

- On page 6 in the latest ICES report the diagrams gives a classical description of overfishing. The recruitment and SSB is declining and the F is increasing.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 213

Conformity Assessment Body Response: During the site visit in May 2014 the assessment team reviewed the most recent NAFO/ICES assessment of the status of the Skagerrak and Norwegian Deep stock and the subsequent ICES advice, and at the time concurred with the concern expressed by WWF about the state of the stock. Since the site visit when this written submission was received from WWF, there has been an updated NAFO/ICES stock assessment including the latest stock survey carried out by Norwegian scientists. That survey showed the highest level of recruitment in the recent time series, and the most recent stock assessment considers that the stock is now above MSY Btrigger, and that the outlook for the fishery in future years is now much stronger than when the stock was assessed in 2013. The assessment team therefore considers that the fishery achieves the SG80 for performance indicator 1.1.1, which was not the case when the stock status information was first reviewed in May 2014.

The fishing fleet has not been adjusted to the quotas regarding capacity. The monitoring control and surveillance (MCS) has not been done efficient as highgrading has been ongoing in the Swedish fleet although it has been declared an illegal act since 2009 according to the Swedish fisheries regulation (law) ”Fiskeriverkets föreskrifter”. This together with the fact that the recruitment during 2013 slightly went down again and still are very weak recall a high precautionary approach for the cold water prawn management and fishery in the suggested region.

Conformity Assessment Body Response: The assessment team notes WWF’s concern that the Swedish fishing fleet has not been adjusted to recent reductions in quota (TAC). However exploitation rates are determined by the TAC and not the size of the fleet, so the fact that the Swedish fleet has not been reduced significantly in recent years should not have impacted on the status of the stock. The assessment recognises however that high- grading may be more likely if individual vessels have a very limited quota, and therefore the size of the fleet may influence the level of high-grading. New regulations on transfer of quotas introduced in 2015 may help to alleviate this problem.

ICES: ”Since 2006, the number of Swedish twin trawlers has increased from 5 to 23. These twin trawlers have 50–80% higher catch rate compared to single trawls. In Swedish national waters it is mandatory to use trawls equipped with sorting grids.” The sorting grid is for the selection of finfish not shrimps.

Conformity Assessment Body Response: The assessment team notes WWF’s comment that “the sorting grid is for the selection of finfish not shrimps” and the effect of the sorting grid on catches of finfish is explored fully within the report.

ICES: ” The number of Danish shrimp vessels has decreased from 138 in 1987 to only 10 in 2013. Most of the vessels leaving the fishery have been small trawlers. The efficiency of the Danish shrimp vessels has increased due to the introduction of twin-trawl technology and increasing trawl size.”

The quotes above are from the ICES report due October 2013. The advice for the quota means the stock is now only half of the size 5 years ago. In combination with insufficient MCS from the authorities and too much non-compliance by the fisheries the management of this fishery is not sustainable according to WWF. Several actions need to be taken in order to gain MSC certification. Those actions have not been delivered until today.

Management should:

- Perform efficient on board controls at sea. This is not working today as there is no real check of the gear type – mesh sizes used in the trawl. Very few controls of catch composition.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 214

- At landing controls it should be a control / declaration of gear type used – mesh sizes used in the trawl and where in the trawl other mesh sizes than the minimum of 35 mm that is allowed. A match of landing composition and mesh sizes in the trawls should be done and declared. - Declaration of mesh combination in trawl and its selectivity principles should be mandatory.

Since the first of January the new harmonizing rules on selectivity for trawl fishery should be in place. According to the new CFP reform the decision of discard ban will have to be implemented within the fisheries also in Skagerrak. Please check with the Marine and freshwater authorities about the process and new legislation. https://www.havochvatten.se/tillstandsprovning-och-tillsyn/tillsyn/yrkesfiske/utkastforbud- i-skagerrak.html . Also please read through the Greenpeace report from 2012. Attached in the e-mail with this letter. Conformity Assessment Body Response: WWF very rightly points at the issue of highgrading in the Swedish cold water prawn fishery. The issue has also been brought forward by the fisheries client and scientist of SLU in Lysekil. As WWF correctly states the practice of highgrading was observed by scientist conducting discard monitoring trips and has been described in recent ICES reports. The assessment team has considered the information on this issue carefully and concluded that the practice is illegal under current regulations. As a consequence the practice is contrary to the MSC standard for sustainable fishing and therefore the team has formulated a condition that requires the client to address this issue. The client is required to implement restrictions to stop this practice. The client needs to provide evidence of implementation of measures to minimize or stop the discarding of smaller shrimp at the fourth surveillance audit. Regarding the ecological effects in this fishery the actual drastic stock decline is of course not only affecting the cold water prawn status but also the supply of food to other marine organism and the balance of the ecosystem as a whole. The fishery has to take into account the sensitive situation of finfish as cod, caught as by-catch, with a stock situation still very low since many years.

Conformity Assessment Body Response: The assessment team has fully taken into account the impact of the cold water prawn fishery on the stocks of cod and other retained and bycatch species under performance indicators 2.1 and 2.2.

The benthic habitat is of high concern as bottom trawling is the fishing method. WWF therefor ask the assessors to be observant on the actions taken and not taken for to minimize negative effects in the ecosystem.

Special concern and precautionary approach should be taken for the Bratten area suggested to be a marine protected area and Koster-Väderö marine national park. Bratten has been processed for environmental protection and closed areas for fisheries during 2013 and a proposal of regulations are now for decision. Koster-Väderö in Sweden together with Hvaler in Norway is since 2009 declared marine national park areas with certain restrictions of fisheries. WWF ask the assessors to look thoroughly into those areas for the ecosystem effects of the fishery. For further information about Bratten please contact Maria Kilnäs at the County of Västra Götaland, [email protected] to see the area for protection and the species discussed, sea-pens, cold-water corals, basket stars etc. Attached is the final proposal with different comments from organisations.

Conformity Assessment Body Response: The assessment team has undertaken a detailed assessment of the potential impact of the cold water prawn fishery on the habitat features and on the wider ecosystem of the UoC under performance indicators 2.4 and 2.5. The assessment team recognised the ongoing discussions to develop management strategies for the cold water prawn fishery in protected areas such as the Bratten and

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 215

the Koster-Väderö national park, but considered that the current management strategies in these areas were not sufficient to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types, and therefore raised a condition under Performance Indicator 2.4.2 to ensure that appropriate management strategies are implemented within the certification period.

For the now ongoing selectivity project run by Fiskareförening Norden WWF has engaged as we see the need of serious and scientific documentation of the different combinations of mesh sizes in the shrimp trawls. Unfortunately the project was delayed for different reasons and the scientific control and follow up on board on the fishing vessels used for the selectivity trawl has not been done yet. WWF ask the assessors to follow up on what results those selective gears will have for different seize of fishing vessel and mesh compositions in the trawls. Contact for the project “Selektiva redskap 2014 – Räkfisket i Sverige” is Bengt Gunnarsson and contact person for the Fiskareföreningen Norden is Sixten Söderberg.

Conformity Assessment Body Response: The assessment team is aware of the very important research being conducted in the NORDEN project and notes the interesting results that have emanated from this project already. The assessment team notes however that this project is still very much “work in progress” and still has much to contribute to improving the sustainability of the fishery. The assessment team has made a recommendation in their report that the Client should liaise with research scientists and gear technologists in the framework of the NORDEN project.

Best regards, Inger

Inger Näslund Senior Conservation Officer Marine and Fisheries

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 216

Appendix 3.2 Comments to Public Comment Draft Report The Public Comment Draft Report was published 19 February 2015. Comments to the PCDR were received from:

 MSC Technical Oversight / Dan Hoggarth, Fisheries Oversight Director  WWF Sweden  Skagen Fishermens Association

The stakeholder comments are included in full below, together with the explicit responses of the team to points raised in comments on the PCDR that identify the specific (if any) changes made to scoring, rationales or conditions, and a substantiated justification for not making changes where stakeholders suggest changes but the team has made no change.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 217

Comments from MSC

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 218

Ref Page Grade Requirement OversightDescription PI CABComment version

13270 Major CR-27.10.6.1 Scoring issue a: 3.2.3 The assessment team has reconsidered v1.3 Although the issue of high-grading has been the scoring of this PI and concluded adressed under scoring issue d, it is not clear from that SG80a is also not met since the the current rationale how SG 80 is met for scoring MCS system has not clearly issue a. Since high grading is demonstrably occuring demonstrated an ability to enforce all and is a re-occuring problem, the current rationale relevant management measures. The does not justify the SG 80 score in that the MCS score was consequently lowered to 70 system is required to have a demonstrated ability to and the condition has been amended. enforce relevant management measures, strategies Client was asked to amend the client and/or rules. MSC also notes that the current action plan accordingly. condition (3) placed to ensure that there is no systematic discarding of smaller shrimp, relates only to actions that the client will take. The condition in its current iteration, therefore does not seem to adress the root cause of the problem, which is that the current MCS systems are not effective enough to detect non-compliance and enforce the relevant management measures to ensure that high grading does not occur.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 219

13271 71 Minor CR-27.12.1.1 The report states product is packaged on-board in The king shrimps and white shrimps v1.3 labelled boxes that provides the information listed on amount to very small volumes (king page 71 - but this gives no indication of how shrimps less than 0,2 % of the total recipients (fish auctions) will be able to distinguish catch and white shrimps even less) and between non-certified boxed king prawns and white are sorted out on board. They look prawns from certified cold water prawns that quite different from pandalus; king originate from the same vessels. shrimps are much bigger, darker red and have another shape while white In other words, the fish auctions and buyers may shrimps are all white. They would assume that all prawns from Swedish prawn trawlers never be acceptable for sale together are MSC certified. with pandalus. White shrimps are never landed and if king shrimps are to be landed and sold they are packed in separate boxes which are labelled with name of species, etc. The fish auction could not mix the pandalus boxes with king shrimp boxes.

The report will be amended with an explanation of the system for separat packaging and labelling.

13272 70 Minor CR-27.6.2.3 The revised target eligibility date (1 November 2014) The traceability system described in v1.3 does not include a description of how the systems the PCDR was in place at the target described in the PCDR, such as labelled boxes or eligibility date, which is far beyond the harbour reports with transported loads, have been in time when the traceability system was place since this date. scrutinized. This will be underlined in the amended report.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 220

13273 70 Minor CR-27.6.1 The actual eligibility date cannot be accurately The report will be amended according v1.3 provided until the Public Certification Report - this is to the comment, and only the target prescribed in the full assessment reporting template. eligibility date will be set

13274 70 Guid- CR-27.6.1.2 An acceptable TED is specified, but the reason for Fishing is all year around, and the ance v1.3 chosing 1 November 2014 is vague. Is the date selection of the TED is based on the linked to the start of the fishery management year maximum allowed period from TED to (a), start of the fishing season (b), or another logical the PCDR (earliest date possible). The reason (c) such as it was the earliest date possible? report will be amended with an Although page 70 states, "This date was considered explanation according to this. to be more relevant, both according to more time needed for the assessment and also for commercial reasons," it is not clear why 1 November 2014 was specified rather than a different date.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 221

Comments from WWF Sweden

SUBJECT: WWF Comments on the PDCR for the Sweden Skagerrak, Kattegat and the Norwegian Deep cold-water prawn fishery

Dear Sigrun Bekkevold, WWF welcomes your request for feedback on the Public Comment Draft Report for the Sweden Skagerrak, Kattegat and the Norwegian Deep cold‐water prawn fishery. WWF actively engages as a stakeholder in a number of Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) fishery assessments and audits to improve fisheries sustainability. We are involved in several MSC certification processes in the North East Atlantic, with a special focus on the impacts of trawling operations in vulnerable habitats (MSC P2.4). We were also actively engaged in the present certification process and provided feedback over the phone regarding the stock status and benthic impacts. Unfortunately, it seems that our concerns have not been sufficiently considered in the present PCDR. According to WWFs view, the score given to several performance indicators cannot be justified. Furthermore, a procedural irregularity in the fishery assessment process must be noted. Generally, as a cofounder of the MSC and a prominent NGO engaged in marine conservation work, WWF maintains a vested interest in ensuring the integrity and credibility of the MSC process. Specifically, WWF has a discrete interest in ensuring the robustness of the assessment of the Sweden Skagerrak, Kattegat and the Norwegian Deep cold‐water prawn fishery as the certification of this fishery without adequately applying the requirements set out by MSC will result in a negative consequence for the management and conservation of Pandalus borealis in the area, considering that the Danish and Norwegian fisheries will have to harmonize with this assessment. We are looking forward to understanding how you will address our issues and concerns.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 222

Best regards,

General response from Conformity Assessment Body: The assessment team thanks WWF for their detailed and constructive comments on the PCDR for the Sweden Skagerrak, Kattegat and Norwegian Deep cold water prawn fishery. (Previously WWF provided a written submission in May 2014, but the assessment team did not receive any further feedback by telephone prior to publication of the PCDR. The assessment team provided detailed responses to WWF’s written submission of May 2014 in Appendix 3 of the PCDR.)

The assessment team accepts WWF’s identification of a procedural irregularity in that the team did not assign separate scores for the different scoring elements (VME habitats) that comprise the habitat component potentially affected by the fishery. The assessment team has now re‐scored the fishery assigning separate scores for the different habitat scoring elements. In addition the assessment team notes WWF’s concern that the score given to several Performance Indicators cannot be justified based

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 223

on the information provided in the PCDR, and the assessment team has provided responses to each of the concerns raised in the text below.

A summary of our responses is as follows:

Harmonisation. The text in paragraph 4.1 of the report has been updated significantly following the commencement of the MSC assessment for the Danish and Norwegian fisheries cold water prawn fisheries.

PI 1.2.1 Harvest strategy. The assessment team confirms that it believes that the SG80a is met, and that the lack of a formally agreed international management plan precludes the fishery from meeting the SG100a. In relation to scoring issue b, the Guidelines to the MSC Certification Requirements v1.3 (GCB2.5.4) state that “this PI scores the overall performance of the harvest strategy, particularly the way that the different elements work together to keep the stock at levels consistent with reference points.” As stock biomass is currently above Bmsy, the assessment team concluded that the harvest strategy is achieving its objectives, and the assessment team considers therefore that SG80 is met for scoring issue b. The assessment team in reaching its conclusion recognised the concerns expressed by some stakeholders about the level of discarding of small shrimps, but concluded that the current level of discarding is not hindering the harvest strategy from achieving its overall objective, and noted that the discard rate is taken into account by ICES when providing TAC advice.

PI 1.2.3. Information/Monitoring. For scoring issue a, the assessment team confirms its conclusion that there is a comprehensive range of information available on stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, fishery removals and other information such as environmental information so that the SG100a is met. In relation to scoring issue b, as requested the assessment team has provided further information on the rate of independent observer sampling, documentation of logbook requirements and frequency of enforcement operations. The assessment team confirms that the additional information provides additional justification for the conclusion that fishery removals are monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule, and that SG80b is met. In relation to scoring issue c, additional information has been provided from the Danish and Norwegian authorities which provides further justification for the SG80 being met.

PI 2.2.2. Strategy for managing bycatch. The assessment team agrees that there is only a partial strategy in place for managing bycatch (and not a full strategy specifically designed to manage any impact of the fishery on the bycatch species) and has accordingly reduced the scores for SIa and SIc from 100 to 80. The overall score for this PI has consequently been reduced to 80.

PI 2.2.3. Bycatch Information/Monitoring. Additional information has been provided in the report on the level of observer coverage and the number of Coastguard inspections. The assessment team acknowledges that observer sampling has been implemented in the Norwegian Deep in 2015, but has raised a condition against scoring issue d to ensure continued observer sampling in all areas on an annual basis. The score for PI 2.2.3 has been reduced from 80 to 75.

PI 2.3.3. ETP species Information/Monitoring. The assessment team accepts the comments about gaps in the information about ETP species such as common skate, particularly in relation to the lack of observer sampling in the Norwegian Deep, and the availability of only a single year’s data on the trawl with grid and tunnel gear. The condition raised already against PI 2.2.3 should provide the required additional information on capture and discards of common skate, and so an additional new condition is not required. The assessment team recommends that action is taken to remove the uncertainty of

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 224

discard rates of common skate due to recorded landings of common skate on fishermen’s log books probably due to a misidentification of pale ray.

PI 2.4.1. Habitat outcome. We accept WWF’s comment that each habitat should be scored as separate elements under PI 2.4.1, and the rationales have been modified accordingly. The assessment team concluded that three scoring elements met the SG80, but that coral gardens and deep sea sponge aggregations did not meet the SG80a, so that a condition is raised with respect to these two VME habitats.

PI 2.4.2. Habitat management. The assessment team has revised the rationale for this PI considering all the scoring elements, and concluded that SG80b is not met for three scoring elements. The overall score for the PI remains at 75, and a condition is raised. The assessment team notes WWF’s very helpful suggestions on how the condition might be met, but emphasises that it is not the remit of the CAB to write overly prescriptive conditions, but it is the client’s responsibility to ensure that the client action plan is likely to meet the condition. The assessment team has reduced the timeframe for meeting the condition to three years but notes that this timeframe is challenging because management measures will need to be implemented through EU legislation.

PI 2.4.3. Habitat information/monitoring. The assessment team agrees that the lack of a mechanism for recording interactions between fishing gear and VME habitats means that there is not sufficient information to detect any increase in risks to VME habitats, and so the SG80c is not met and a condition is raised.

PI 3.2.3. Compliance and Enforcement. The assessment team has reconsidered the scoring on PI 3.2.3 and concluded that not only SG80d but also SG80a is not met. As a consequence the score has been reduced to 70 and the condition has been amended. The team has also reduced the length of time given to the client to address this issue.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 225

PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT REPORT – STAKEHOLDER INPUT

General Comment:

Section 4.1 Harmonized Fishery Assessment The PCDR (p. 61) concludes that “the fishery under assessment is currently the first and only cold water prawn fishery in the Skagerrak, Kattegat and Norwegian Deeps and there are no other fisheries to harmonise with.” WWF notes that as of February 12, 2015 (prior to the release of the current PCDR) the Denmark Skagerrak, Kattegat and the Norwegian Deep Cold Water Prawn fishery entered the MSC full‐ assessment process and on March 25, 2015 the Norway Skagerrak, Kattegat and the Norwegian Deep cold water prawn enter the MSC full‐assessment process. The MSC Process Requirements at 27.8.7 state that “If the scope of the fishery contains a fishery that overlaps another certified or applicant fishery, Annex CI shall be followed.” Annex CI directs CABs to coordinate their assessments where a fishery under assessment overlaps with a certified fishery to make sure that key assessment products and outcomes are harmonized (CI3.2.3). While WWF notes that the Swedish fishery would be the first MSC certified cold water prawn fishery in the Northeast Atlantic region to be certified pending a successful outcome of this process, we believe that section 4.1 of the PCDR should be updated to reflect the intent of the CAB to harmonize the assessments for these three overlapping fisheries and that initiation of the harmonization process should begin immediately. In our opinion the involvement of the current CAB, Det Norske Veritas Certification, in the MSC assessment of all three fisheries provides a unique opportunity for the concurrent improvement of sustainable practices for these fisheries. We note that under CI3.2.3.2 to achieve harmonisation, CABs shall undertake the following key activities: a. The use of complementary assessment trees. b. The sharing of fishery information. c. The achievement of consistent conclusions with respect to evaluation, scoring and conditions.

Conformity Assessment Body Response: The harmonisation process is indeed strongly facilitated by the fact that both the Norwegian and the Danish fishery have also contracted DNV to conduct these assessments. The text of paragraph 4.1 of the report has been updated and now reflects that with the start of the certification processes for the Danish and Norwegian cold water prawn fisheries, DNV has immediately started the harmonisation process so that complementary assessment trees are used, information is shared and conclusions with respect to evaluation, scoring and conditions will be consistent as is required under CI3.2.3.2.

Component 1.1 Harvest Strategy

Performance Indicator 1.2.1 Harvest Strategy: There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place

SG80(b): The harvest strategy may not have been fully tested but evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives. SG80(c): There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. (CAB note: This scoring issue is covered under PI 1.2.3, and not PI 1.2.1.)

Nature of Comment  Not all relevant information has been used to score this Performance Indicator  Information and/or rational is not adequate to support the given score

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 226

Justification There is considerable evidence of highgrading of catches and discard of small shrimp in this fishery as is documented in Table 12 on page 34 of the PCDR. Discarding of lower‐value shrimp has also been documented in the Danish fishery.1 Although there is no data collected on Norwegian discards,2 due to minimum landing size of 6 cm in Norway discard of under seized shrimps is likely to occur at quite a high level. In addition, as documented by the PCDR, there are no requirements for mandatory sorting grids, sorting out fish, within 4 nautical mile zone in Norwegian waters. Currently there are no formal international agreements that exist to govern the discard ban between the three nations involved in this fishery (Denmark, Norway and Sweden) however some progress has been made in this regard1. Regulations need to be in effect soon as the EU landing obligation for shrimp in this region will come into effect in Q1 of 2016.

In the opinion of WWF, based on documentation that high‐grading and discard of undersize shrimp occurrs on an ongoing basis, the existing regulations that comprise the current harvest strategy have proven insufficient to fully address the issue of high‐grading and discard in this fishery. There is also a lack of coordination between the three management bodies in this regard. Although the fact that existing regulations are not adequately enforced is addressed under PI 3.2.3 and the associated condition, WWF recommends a score of no higher than 70 for this PI based on deficiencies in the current harvest strategy and the lack of a formal management plan for the fisheries exploiting this stock. Foremost among the management measures that should be employed to address this issue is the need to implement real‐time closures in high juvenile bycatch areas in order to reduce bycatch of undersize shrimp and decrease the risk of high‐grading and discards. Although most Swedish vessels appear to voluntarily use a 45 mm trawl mesh size due to the desire to catch larger seized shrimps, a voluntary agreement to use 45 mm mesh size for vessels from all three countries should be included in the code of conduct as a component of the strategy at SG80 for scoring guidepost (a), unless vessels retain and land all undersize shrimp. These additional components should be a part of a condition raised for this PI based upon the revised score.

Conformity Assessment Body Response: WWF raises four issues in relation to PI 1.2.1 Harvest strategy ‐ capture and discarding of small non‐ commercial shrimps, high grading, the lack of mandatory sorting grids within the 4 nautical mile zone in Norwegian waters, and the lack of a formal management plan agreed by all participating nations.

SG80a considers whether the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points and whether the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock. (In contrast, scoring issue b considers whether the harvest strategy is achieving its objectives.) The assessment team considered that the key elements of the harvest strategy (TACs, restrictions on fishing effort, technical conservation measures, prohibition of high‐grading, bycatch reduction measures) are working together to achieve management objectives and that these various elements can be modified in response to changes in the state of the stock. The capture and discarding of small shrimps is controlled through the minimum mesh size and many vessels voluntarily use a larger mesh size. There is a prohibition on high‐grading, and although high‐grading does occur within the fishery, this is not a deficiency in the harvest strategy itself, but is due to a lack of enforcement of the prohibition which is covered by a strengthened condition on PI 3.2.3 Compliance and Enforcement. Whilst the assessment team noted that the use of grids is not mandatory within 4 nm of the Norwegian coast, this regulation is designed to reduce bycatch of fish species, and therefore does not impact on the score for Principle 1 which considers the target species.

The assessment team noted in both the scoring rationales for this Performance Indicator and section 3.2.3 that a formal management plan agreed by the EU and Norway was not in place, although major steps towards the implementation of such a management plan are expected to be made in 2015/2016.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 227

The assessment team considers that despite the lack of a formal management plan, most of the key elements of such a management plan are already in place, and so the fishery achieves the SG80 for SIa. The lack of a formally agreed international management plan precludes the fishery from meeting the SG100.

SG80 for scoring issue b requires that “The harvest strategy may not have been fully tested but evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives”. The Guidelines to the MSC Certification Requirements v1.3 (GCB2.5.2) state that “… the harvest strategy shall be appropriate to achieving the management objectives expressed in the target and limit reference points” and (GCB2.5.4) that “this PI scores the overall performance of the harvest strategy, particularly the way that the different elements work together to keep the stock at levels consistent with reference points.” Whilst the assessment team agrees that improvements could be made to the harvest strategy such as reducing the level of discarding of small, non‐commercial size shrimps by, for example, increasing the minimum mesh sizes to levels already used voluntarily by fishermen or by implementing stronger ‘move‐on rules’ or real time closures in areas of high densities of small shrimps, the most recent stock assessment has concluded that despite recent declines, stock biomass has been above Btrigger throughout the history of the fishery and is likely to remain so under the current harvest strategy, and indeed is currently above Bmsy. It can be concluded that the harvest strategy is achieving its objectives, and the assessment team considers therefore that SG80 is met for scoring issue b.

The assessment team in reaching its conclusion recognised the concerns expressed by some stakeholders about the level of discarding of small shrimps. The overall estimated discard rate by weight for the three fleets combined was 12% in 2012 and 10% in 2013, although there is some uncertainty surrounding these estimates particularly for the Norwegian fleet. The assessment team concluded that this level of discarding is not hindering the harvest strategy from achieving its overall objective, and noted that the discard rate is taken into account by ICES when providing TAC advice. Nevertheless, the assessment team agrees that the harvest strategy could be improved by reducing the discard rate of small shrimps and included a recommendation that the client should liaise with research scientists and gear technologists in the framework of the NORDEN project, which is a multi‐agency project currently researching methods of reducing the catch of small shrimps.

Performance Indicator 1.2.3 Information/Monitoring: Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy.

SG80a: A comprehensive range of information (on stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, fishery removals and other information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. CAB note: This text refers to SG100a and not SG80a.

SG80b: Stock abundance and fishery removals are regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule, and one or more indicators are available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule.

SG80c: There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock.

Nature of Comment  Not all relevant information has been used to score this Performance Indicator  Information and/or rational is not adequate to support the given score

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 228

Justification For the reasons listed below, WWF does not believe that a) there is comprehensive information available on fisheries removals, b) stock abundance and fishery removals are regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule, or c) that there is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock.  There is no information given in the PCDR regarding the rate of independent observer coverage and sampling by the Swedish SLU observer program or the Danish observer program in the Skagerrak region.  No observer data is available for Norwegian vessels.  No independent observer data are available for the Norwegian Deep region.  No data are presented on the number of vessels boarded by the Coast Guard in any of the countries nor is there information on the rate of enforcement operations relative to the discard ban. WWF has been recently informed of new instructions issued by the Swedish Coast Guard regarding catch sampling and on‐board checks during trawl retrievals. We have not been able to confirm this information prior to submitting these comments but recommend that the CAB investigate this information further.  ICES (2014)2 states that “Making the electronic logbooks introduced in the Norwegian fishery in 2011 compulsory for all vessels, instead of only the larger ones, would improve the data available for the assessment.”  No information is provided on other fishery removals from the stock by Norwegian or Danish vessels exploiting other species.  Genetic studies show that it is the same genetic shrimp stock in the region Skagerrak and North Sea.

Based on the lack of relevant information in the PCDR regarding the rate of independent observer sampling, documentation of logbook requirements and frequency of enforcement operations, WWF does not believe that either a comprehensive range of information on fishery removals has been presented (SG100a), nor is it clearly established that fishery removals are monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule (SG80b). WWF recommends that this information be presented in the Final Certification Report and without it does not believe that a score of more than 75 is currently justified for this PI. If this information is unavailable a condition should be raised to improve the availability, accuracy and coverage of information to support the harvest strategy.

Conformity Assessment Body Response: WWF highlight a number of reasons why they believe that there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that there is comprehensive information available on fishery removals to support the SG100a score and that fishery removals are regularly monitored at a sufficient level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule to meet the SG80b.

The assessment team emphasises that meeting SG100a requires that a comprehensive range of information is available on stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, fishery removals and other information such as environmental information, and the assessment team believes that this requirement is met. There is up‐to‐date information on genetic structure of the stock in the Skagerrak, Kattegat and Norwegian Deep, recruitment and spawning stock biomass are estimated annually from the Norwegian stock survey, stock abundance and stock structure are monitored through the annual Norwegian stock survey, observer sampling, landings per unit effort from log book returns and sampling of landings at the quayside. Fleet composition is well understood for all three nations’ fishing fleets, fishery removals are closely monitored through log books, landings declarations and

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 229

observer sampling, and the Norwegian stock survey collects information on predator biomass, bottom temperature and hydrographical (CTD) data.

In relation to scoring issue b, stock abundance is monitored through the Norwegian stock survey and standardised LPUE data from log books completed by the Norwegian, Danish and Swedish fleets. The annual stock survey and two of the three standardised LPUE data sets are used in the stock assessment model to evaluate stock status in relation to target and limit reference points and the assessment team concluded that annual stock surveys and three sets of standardised LPUE data provide sufficient monitoring of stock abundance to support the harvest control rule. Fishery removals are monitored through log book returns, landings declarations, quayside monitoring of landings, and observer sampling which monitors total catch compositions. WWF queries whether fishery removals are monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule, and requested further information on the rate of independent observer sampling, documentation of logbook requirements and frequency of enforcement operations.

Rate of independent observer sampling. In Sweden the level of observer sampling is set out in the Swedish national sampling programme as approved under the European Commission’s Data Collection Framework (DCF) and is therefore considered to be adequate. Observer sampling is carried out by SLU. The target is to carry out 12 sampling trips on vessels using the grid and tunnel, and 16 sampling trips on vessels using the grid without the tunnel. These targets represent around 1% of the total trips in the Skagerrak each year, and the targets have been reached in most years (Katja Ringdahl, SLU, pers. comm.) The assessment team were provided with the raw data by SLU for three years for the Skagerrak from 2011 to 2013, and analysis of the catch composition from these data were presented in section 3.4.3 of the report. The data showed some annual variation in the proportion of the total shrimp catch that is discarded, but ICES uses average discard rates over the last three years when providing advice on the TAC. Until recently, SLU had not carried out observer sampling in the Norwegian Deep area of the fishery because only 10% of fishing effort from the Swedish fleet has traditionally been undertaken in the Norwegian Deep. However, this area is becoming increasingly important for the Swedish fleet, and in 2015, observer sampling has been implemented in the Norwegian Deep (Katja Ringdahl, SLU, pers. comm.). The assessment team have raised a condition against PI 2.2.3 in relation to observer sampling for bycatch species in the Norwegian Deep as P2 considers only the Swedish fleet, but this was not considered necessary in relation to PI 1.2.3 because in addition to the Swedish observer programme, DTU Aqua in Denmark also undertake observer trips on shrimp vessels in the fishery as prescribed by the European Commission’s DCF. As with the Swedish data, most samples are taken from vessel trips in the Skagerrak, but there are some sampling trips in the Norwegian Deep. Although there is no observer sampling programme for the Norwegian fleet, samples of unsorted catch are collected in both the Norwegian Deep and Skagerrak by local inshore Norwegian fishermen and the Norwegian Coastguard (Søvik and Thangstad (2014b). Information on total catch composition of shrimps is available therefore from other fleets. For the stock assessment Norwegian discards in the Skagerrak are estimated by applying the Danish discards to landings ratio to Norwegian landings, based on the assumption that the total catch composition is similar for Norwegian vessels as Danish vessels. Søvik and Thangstad (2014b) compared length distributions of Danish and Norwegian catches from Skagerrak for 2009‐2012 and showed that the size structure of the shrimp stock was more or less similar, supporting the use of the Danish data to estimate Norwegian discards for the Skagerrak. In the Norwegian Deep where no observer data are available, discarded shrimp are assumed to be primarily shrimp under 15 mm CL and are estimated from length distributions of the catch. Whilst information on discards could be improved, the assessment team considers therefore that these observer trips in conjunction with log book returns and landings declarations ensure that fishery removals are monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule, and that therefore SG80b is met.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 230

Documentation of log book requirements. WWF notes that ICES has stated that “Making the electronic logbooks introduced in the Norwegian fishery in 2011 compulsory for all vessels, instead of only the larger ones, would improve the data available for the assessment.” The assessment team agrees with this conclusion but notes an increasing proportion of the fishing activity of the Norwegian fishing fleet is covered by log books, and Søvik and Thangstad (2014b) show that in 2013 most of the landings in the Norwegian Deep and about 50% of the landings in the Skagerrak are recorded in log books. These log books are considered to provide representative indices of LPUE even though the whole fleet is not covered. In addition, the Norwegian authorities have introduced a new regulation in 2015 requiring Norwegian vessels of length between 11 and 15m fishing in the Norwegian Deep to submit catch and effort information from a mobile telephone ‘app’. It should be stressed that whilst it is still not mandatory for all Norwegian vessels to record catch and effort data through log books, all vessels must make landings declarations, so data on landings from the Norwegian fleet are complete (as are landings data from the Swedish and Danish fleets).

Frequency of enforcement operations. The Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (SwAM) and the Coastguard (KBV) are jointly responsible for surveillance of the shrimp fishery. In 2013 and 2014, the Coastguard carried out 28 inspections (target 25) and 40 inspections (target 30) of shrimp vessels respectively (Andreas Jonsson, Swedish Coastguard, pers. comm.). Following a joint Government commission in 2014 to review the control of the shrimp fishery and to develop a common approach to controls, the Coastguard issued new instructions on 16 March 2015 for the inspection of shrimp vessels. The Coastguard has requested that this information remains confidential to ensure that shrimp vessels are not forewarned about the nature of the inspections, but the assessment team has seen a copy of these instructions and confirms that the new instructions should increase both the quality and quantity of information received by the Coastguard. Information on Coastguard inspections of shrimp fishing vessels by the Danish and Norwegian Coastguard is provided in section 3.2.4.

Based on the above information, the assessment team believes that sufficient information has now been provided to justify the conclusion that SG80b is met, and the rationale has been amended accordingly.

In relation to SIc, WWF also noted that no information was provided on other fishery removals from the stock by Norwegian or Danish vessels exploiting other species. This information has now been provided by the fisheries management authorities in Norway and Denmark and included in the rationale for scoring issue c. The assessment team concluded that there is sufficient information available to meet SG80c.

Additional Information WWF notes in reference to Condition 1 regarding the development of harvest control rules, CB2.5.2 states that “If conditions are set, changes to the Harvest Control Rules or assessment method may be needed to make these conditions operational. If new HCRs or assessment methods require different or additional information the team shall ensure that it shall be either already available or shall be made part of the condition.” We believe that the development of formal HCRs will underscore the lack of important information documented above for PI 1.2.3.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 231

Conformity Assessment Body Response: The assessment team notes the comments of WWF and has strengthened the wording of condition 1 to ensure that uncertainties relating to the estimation of discard rates are incorporated into the development of explicit HCRs.

Component 2.2 Bycatch Species

Performance Indicator 2.2.2 Management Strategy: There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations.

SG100(a): There is a strategy in place for managing and minimizing bycatch. SG100(c): There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully.

Nature of Comment  Not all relevant information has been used to score this Performance Indicator  Information and/or rational is not adequate to support the given score

Justification The scoring rational presents the use of trawl grids is as the primary measure at SG60 and strategy component at SG80 and SG100 that is in place to manage bycatch in this fishery. However sorting grids are used in combination with fish retention devices (i.e. fish tunnels) in approximately 50% or more of the landings in the fishery (PCDR Tables 6 and 8). Fish tunnels are permitted if the vessel also has a quota for fish, although information is not presented on the process for allocation of quotas for fish in addition to the target species nor on the proportion of vessels that have such quotas. The PCDR states on page 31 that: For the trawl with a grid which incorporates a fish tunnel, as expected there is a significant component of the catch (30‐45%) that is fish in all three geographical areas. There are no data on discards from this source, so the data cannot be used to identify ‘main’ retained or bycatch species as defined in the MSC Certification Requirements v1.3.“

Conformity Assessment Body Note: The quoted sentence from the PCDR has been modified to provide additional clarification on this dataset as follows: “For the trawl with a grid which incorporates a fish tunnel, as expected there is a significant component of the landings (30‐45%) that is fish in all three geographical areas. There are no data on discards from this source (SwAM), so these data cannot be used to identify ‘main’ retained or bycatch species as defined in the MSC Certification Requirements v1.3.“ (Main retained or bycatch species can be identified from analysis of SLU Observer sampling data.) Tunnels are used to retain larger fish when the vessel has a quota, and in such circumstances, the grid is still effective in reducing the catch of smaller fish. SLU observer sampling from 2013 estimates the total annual discards of fish in the trawl with grid and the trawl with grid and tunnel to be 91 and 101 tonnes respectively, suggesting that there are similar levels of fish discarded in the two types of gear.

WWF is concerned that significant bias may exist in the bycatch data due to the differential sampling between gear types and the spatial allocation of the sampling. This information is used to both identify main bycatch species under PI 2.2.2 and demonstrate that there is a partial or full strategy in place for the fishery. Based on these concerns we do not feel that either of the SG100 scoring guideposts are met and therefore a score of no higher than 80 is justified for this PI.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 232

Additional Information that should be taken into account in scoring this PI  The PCDR also cites the use of a TAC as a control on effort, however this pertains primarily to catch of the target species.  There is evidence of significant overcapacity in this shrimp fishery that may increase bycatch levels.  The PCDR characterizes the NORDEN project as a work in progress (p. 190) and therefore does not constitute a strategy as defined by the CAB. This is substantiated by the most recent project report that characterizes the interim results as promising, but in need of further testing.  There is potential for bycatch of vulnerable species such as sharks and rays and the existing bycatch sampling likely provides insufficient information to evaluate the robustness of the bycatch data for these species. If coverage levels are low in the Skagerrak and no data are available for the Kattegat and Norwegian Deep the existing sampling regime is not likely to accurately detect species that are caught infrequently.  There are no requirements for mandatory sorting grids within 4 nautical mile zone in Norwegian waters. These areas are likely to have higher catch rates of endangered coastal cod and spiny dogfish.

Conformity Assessment Body Response: The assessment team agrees with WWF that the measures in place for managing bycatch constitute only a partial strategy and not a full strategy, and that SIa and SIc do not meet the SG100. Both scores have been reduced to 80, and the rationales modified accordingly. The overall score for this PI is now 80. The assessment team notes the comments on the coverage levels and geographical distribution of bycatch sampling, and considers that PI 2.2.3 is the appropriate place to consider these issues. Since 1 February 2013 all Swedish vessels in the UoC have been required to use grids at all times, and as Principle 2 covers only those Swedish vessels in the UoC, the fact that sorting grids are not mandatory within the 4 nautical mile zone in Norwegian waters is not therefore relevant to this assessment.

Performance Indicator 2.2.3 Information/Monitoring: Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch

Nature of Comment  Not all relevant information has been used to score this Performance Indicator  Information and/or rational is not adequate to support the given score

Justification WWF is concerned that the data currently collected and presented on bycatch species is not adequate to either estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits SG80(b), support a partial strategy that manage bycatch SG80(c) or to detect any increased risk SG80(c).

 Prior to 2013 observer data was only collected on the trawl with grid gear type. No sampling occurred for the grid and tunnel gear configuration (>50% of landings).  No information is given in the PCDR regarding the rate of independent observer coverage and sampling by the Swedish SLU Aqua observer program or the Danish observer program in the Skagerrak region. No observer data is available for Norwegian vessels. In addition, no independent observer data are available for the Norwegian Deep region. Coverage rates for the Skagerrak appear to be less than

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 233

one percent of the current fishing effort, however it is not possible to determine this based on the information presented.  Similarly, no data are presented on the number of vessels boarded by the Coast Guard in any of the countries or of the rate of enforcement operations relative to the discard ban.  ICES (2014) states that “Making the electronic logbooks introduced in the Norwegian fishery in 2011 compulsory for all vessels, instead of only the larger ones, would improve the data available for the assessment.”  Given the possible bycatch of sharks and rays in the fishery and the lack of sufficient information to evaluate the robustness of the bycatch data for these species. If coverage levels are low they are not likely to accurately detect species that are caught infrequently.3

Based on the lack of information necessary to substantiate the estimates of bycatch species composition and fishery removals of non‐target species for all gear types and areas, a score of no higher than 75 is recommended for this PI without further information documenting observer coverage rates. A condition should be raised to increase observer sampling rates to adequate levels for both gear types and across all three fishing areas and to collect information to document enforcement of existing regulations.

Conformity Assessment Body Response: The level of observer sampling is set out in the Swedish national sampling programme as approved under the European Commission’s Data Collection Framework (DCF) and is therefore considered to be adequate. Observer sampling is carried out by SLU. The target is to carry out 12 sampling trips on vessels using the grid and tunnel, and 16 sampling trips on vessels using the grid without the tunnel. These targets represent around 1% of the total trips in the Skagerrak each year, and the targets have been reached in most years (Katja Ringdahl, SLU, pers. comm.) Around 4% of fishing trips annually are in the Kattegat on fishing grounds contiguous with those in the Skagerrak. An important element of the observer programme is that observer trips are allocated randomly across all trips in the Skagerrak and Kattegat and to date by chance none have occurred in the Kattegat. The assessment team were provided with the raw data by SLU for three years for the Skagerrak from 2011 to 2013, and analysis of the catch composition from these data were presented in section 3.4.3 of the report. Until recently, SLU had not carried out observer sampling in the Norwegian Deep area of the fishery because only 10% of fishing effort from the Swedish fleet has traditionally been undertaken in the Norwegian Deep. However, this area is becoming increasingly important for the Swedish fleet, and in 2015, observer sampling has been implemented in the Norwegian Deep (Katja Ringdahl, SLU, pers. comm.). To date, no information is available from the Norwegian Deep, and the assessment team has raised a condition against scoring issue d to ensure that such observer sampling continues on an annual basis.

The Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (SwAM) and the Coastguard (KBV) are jointly responsible for surveillance of the shrimp fishery. In 2013 and 2014, the Coastguard carried out 28 inspections (target 25) and 40 inspections (target 30) of shrimp vessels respectively (Andreas Jonsson, Swedish Coastguard, pers. comm.). Following a joint Government commission in 2014 to review the control of the shrimp fishery and to develop a common approach to controls, the Coastguard issued new instructions on 16 March 2015 for the inspection of shrimp vessels. The Coastguard has requested that this information remains confidential to ensure that shrimp vessels are not forewarned about the nature of the inspections, but the assessment team has seen a copy of these instructions and confirms that the new instructions should increase both the quality and quantity of information received by the Coastguard.

The assessment team reiterates that P2 relates only to Swedish vessels in the UoC, and so the rate of independent observer coverage in the Danish observer programme, the lack of observer data for

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 234

Norwegian vessels and lack of mandatory log book completion on smaller Norwegian vessels are not relevant therefore to scoring of this PI.

Component 2.3 ETP Species

Performance Indicator 2.3.3 Information / Monitoring: Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, including: Information for the development of the management strategy; Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species.

Nature of Comment  Not all relevant information has been used to score this Performance Indicator  Information and/or rational is not adequate to support the given score

Justification The concerns raised above under PI 2.2.3 also apply to Information and monitoring of ETP species. In view of the lack of information, there is potential for bycatch of highly vulnerable species such as sharks and rays and the existing bycatch sampling likely provides insufficient information to evaluate the robustness of the bycatch data for these species. If coverage levels are low in the Skagerrak and no data are available for the Kattegat and Norwegian Deep the existing sampling regime is not likely to accurately detect species that are caught infrequently3 but may be impacted even by low catch levels (e.g. Common skate). Table 16 indicates higher bycatch rates for Pale ray / Common skate in the only year of data available for the grid and tunnel gear type. The rationale given in the PCDR that misidentification of skate species is likely is questionable if our understanding is correct that these data are based on scientific sampling. It is also of concern that grid and tunnel trawls are more prevalent (PCDR Table 8) in deeper waters (PCDR Table 8) where critically endangered Common skates are more likely to occur. Additional information is also required on potential interactions with marine mammals and seabirds to verify that no interactions occur in the fishery.

Based on the lack of information necessary to substantiate the estimates of bycatch species composition and fishery removals of non‐target species a score of no higher than 75 is recommended for this PI and a condition should be raised requiring additional data collection and monitoring to support management measures to avoid negative impacts on ETP species.

Conformity Assessment Body Response: The assessment team accepts the comments about gaps in the information about ETP species such as common skate, particularly in relation to the lack of observer sampling in the Norwegian Deep, and the availability of only a single year’s data on the trawl with grid and tunnel gear. The condition raised already against PI 2.2.3 should provide the required additional information on capture and discards of common skate, and so an additional new condition is not required. In addition, there is uncertainty surrounding discards and landings of ray species. The information presented in Table 16 on estimated discard rates of species is based on observations of the number of individual fish landed and discarded during SLU observer sampling trips raised up to total landings as recorded in fishermen’s log books. A combined figure is given for pale ray and common skate because the landings data for common skate recorded in log books are considered to be misidentifications of skate species. All discarded individuals

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 235

in 2013 were identified by SLU observers as pale ray, D.linteus, and these identifications are considered to be accurate. The text in section 3.4.3 and the rationale for this PI have been modified to clarify that there has been misidentification of species in fishermen’s log books and not by observers. The assessment team recommends investigations to remove the uncertainty of identification of landings of skate species through, for example, further training for fishermen on identification of skate species.

SLU observers and fishermen confirm that no marine mammals or seabirds have been caught in shrimp trawls in recent years. In particular, shrimp trawling appears to pose no risk to harbour porpoises (Mats Amundin, Director, Kolmarden, pers. comm.).

Component 2.4 Habitats

Nature of Comment: Procedural Concern WWF believes that there was a procedural irregularity (CD2.7.2.1, MSC CRv1.3) in scoring PIs 2.4.1, 2.4.2 and 2.4.3. Under Principle 2, the team did not assign separate scores for the different scoring elements (VME habitats) that comprise the habitat component affected by the fishery.

Justification From the maps in the PCDR (p. 47‐49), there is obvious overlap of fishing activities in the Natura 2000 Bratten area. The map indicates that fishery activities in this area overlap at least with 1) deep‐sea sponge aggregations and 2) coral gardens, likely also with 5) Lophelia pertusa reefs closer to the coast in the North; all types of benthic habitat recognized by OSPAR and FAO as vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs). WWF believes that these habitat types merit separate scoring. In fact, the PCDR acknowledges that “There are a number of Natura2000 sites designated in the Skagerrak in particular the Skagens glen and the Bratten, and the OSPAR Commission lists a number of sensitive habitats that can be found in the Skagerrak. These include coral gardens, deep sea sponge aggregations, Zostera beds, Lophelia pertusa reefs and seapen and burrowing megafauna communities”. Nonetheless, the scoring rationales presented for PIs 2.4.1, 2.4.2, and 2.4.3 do not score these habitat types separately as different scoring elements. 27.10.7 In Principle 2, the team shall score PIs comprised of differing scoring elements (species or habitats) that comprise part of a component affected by the fishery. Example: as of today, the Bratten Natura 2000 area includes deep‐ sea sponge aggregations and coral gardens, but still awaits fisheries regulations (as acknowledged in the PCDR). Though this might be planned for 2016; we expect the assessment team to assess the status as of now and revise the scoring and scoring rationale as outlined above.

Conformity Assessment Body Response: The assessment team accepts WWF’s identification of a procedural irregularity in that the team did not assign separate scores for the different scoring elements. The rationale has been re‐written to provide separate scores for coral gardens, deep sea sponge aggregations, Zostera beds, Lophelia pertusa reefs and seapen and burrowing megafauna communities.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 236

Performance Indicator 2.4.1: The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function.

SG80:

Nature of Comment: Scoring concern The score assigned to PI 2.4.1 was arbitrary (CD2.7.2.2c, MSC CRv1.3) insofar as the rationale is not sufficient to explain how scoring elements of the habitat components (mentioned as coral gardens, deep sea sponge aggregations, Zostera beds, Lophelia pertusa reefs and seapen and burrowing megafauna communities) attain the SG80 scoring level.

Justification The PCDR acknowledges that “There are a number of Natura2000 sites designated in the Skagerrak in particular the Skagens glen and the Bratten, and the OSPAR Commission lists a number of sensitive habitats that can be found in the Skagerrak. These include coral gardens, deep sea sponge aggregations, Zostera beds, Lophelia pertusa reefs and seapen and burrowing megafauna communities” but states that “shrimp trawling is unlikely to occur in the more complex habitats because the Swedish shrimp vessels do not use rockhopper gear, and fishermen will actively avoid any area where the gear might become entangled.” There is no reason to believe that the fishery for Pandalus borealis does not still have significant, irreversible negative impact on the habitat types and communities of the Skagerrak area, e.g. the Natura 2000 site Bratten. Though fishery regulations and area closures in other areas than Bratten might have reduced overall yearly impact recently, however due to the large size of the Swedish and Norwegian fleet and formerly also the Danish, large areas in the area where VMEs formerly existed are already damaged or wiped out. With a decreasing abundance of VMEs the negative impact of each trawl in a sensitive area increases accordingly. Also, the risk increases that local and regional population levels will fall below critical thresholds from which recovery is not possible4. Most of the identified vulnerable and threatened species have irregular reproduction and very low growth rates4 so any additional losses due to trawling will be compounded over time. Recovery rates of deep water sponge grounds, sea pen bottoms, hard and soft bottom coral gardens and deep water soft bottom habitats are largely unknown and are expected to be very slow4. Damage to or death of deep‐water sponge communities, coral reefs, coral gardens will take, at a minimum, several human generations to regenerate to their current standing, and where the habitat is altered regeneration may never happen5,6,7,8 It is true that fishermen usually attempt to avoid extensive coral reefs, coral gardens or sponge grounds as these obstruct and damage trawling gear, representing a rather time‐consuming nuisance in cleaning and re‐deploying nets that are full of massive quantities of sponges. Nevertheless, given the rich abundance and diversity of species that these grounds harbour, the edges of the grounds often receive direct, physically devastating damage9. Also VMS data of fisheries and VME location data clearly display a large overlap in the Bratten area. In contrast, soft corals or sea pen fields do not present an obstruction to fishing gear or catches, nor they are addressed in the encounter rules implemented in Norwegian and international waters controlled by NEAFC. This is in contrast to the North West Atlantic where NAFO set a trigger of 7 kg bycatch of sea pens or soft corals10. For sponge grounds the size structure within populations indicates slow reproduction and recruitment, and high age of the large specimens. Accordingly, it will take a long time for a sponge‐dominated area to recover even after partial destruction, and repeated disturbance may lead to permanent extirpation of the species in the area4. Given the evidence provided by the PCDR itself, it is highly likely that this trawl fishery for Pandalus borealis causes serious and irreversible harm to the deepwater bottom habitats (coral gardens, deep sea sponge aggregations, Zostera beds, Lophelia pertusa reefs and seapen and burrowing megafauna communities) on the fishing ground in the Bratten area. There is nothing to indicate that the client fleets

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 237

behave differently from other fleets or that they avoid the normal fishing grounds. There is a high likelihood of continued trawling near and across defined vulnerable marine habitats (and OSPAR listed habitats) in the fishing area of the client. This has been shown by other examples such as the Swedish Koster Väderö Marine National Park where the implementation of the NP in 2009 did not yield satisfactory results and stricter regulations for Pandalus fisheries had to be established just now. The PCDR states that “The assessment team considered that the relatively light trawl gear used in the shrimp fishery in the Skagerrak, the nature of the substrate over which most of the shrimp fishing activity occurs, the designation of protected areas within the Skagerrak and associated restrictions on fishing, the lack of use of rockhopper gear to target more complex habitats, and the avoidance by fishermen of areas where the fishing gear might become entangled suggest that the shrimp fishery is highly unlikely to reduce the habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.” As outlined above, WWF does not think this assumption is justifiable. Structurally complex habitats (e.g. biogenic reefs) and those that are relatively undisturbed by natural perturbations (e.g. deep‐water mud substrata) are more adversely affected by fishing than unconsolidated sediment habitats that occur in shallow coastal waters. These habitats also have the longest recovery trajectories in terms of the recolonization of the habitat by the associated fauna11. Again, damage to or death of deep‐water sponge communities, coral reefs, coral gardens will take, at a minimum, several human generations to regenerate to their current standing, making damage irreversible over several human generations and where the habitat is altered regeneration may never happen. One can argue that VMEs are safeguarded from the certified fishery considering the bioregional basis and including the Kattegat areas which are mainly closed or unfished. However, the bathymetry maps of the area in the PCDR (P. 47) show the substantially deeper areas in the Skagerrak. Given that habitat types contain a wide range of species and species communities12, species composition within habitat types and also function of the habitats change substantially with depth.

Conformity Assessment Body Response: In scoring this PI, the assessment team considered five separate scoring elements (VME habitats) – coral gardens, deep sea sponge aggregations, Zostera beds, Lophelia pertusa reefs and seapen and burrowing megafauna communities. In considering the potential impact of the fishery, the assessment team took into account the distribution of fishing activity as demonstrated by the VMS data in Figure 17 in relation to known distribution of the five VME habitats, the bio‐regional distribution of habitat types, the irregular reproduction and slow growth rates of the vulnerable species with the consequent slow recovery rates, the nature of the fishing gear used, and the behaviour of fishermen in avoiding habitats which might damage the fishing gear. The assessment team concluded that three scoring elements (Zostera beds, Lophelia pertusa reefs, seapen and burrowing megafauna communities) met the SG80, but that coral gardens and deep sea sponge aggregations did not meet the SG80a, and therefore a condition was raised in respect of these two VME habitats.

Performance Indicator 2.4.2 Management Strategy: There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types.

SG75:

Nature of Comment Conditions set for this PI are not adequate to improve fishery’s performance to the 80 level of performance

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 238

Justification Overall, WWF believes that the implementation time‐frame for this condition is far too long. Regarding precautionary management actions, which are scored in the MSC Performance Indicator 2.4.2, it has to be stated that currently all relies on precautionary action from the clients to prevent serious or irreversible harm to deep water VMEs in the Bratten area. There is no protection in the form of closed areas for the most vulnerable habitats deep sea sponge aggregations and coral gardens (VMEs defined by OSPAR). The fishery does not meet the requirements for sustainable fishing of UNGA 61/105 (2006), FAO 2009, NEAFC or OSPAR guidelines which include closing areas where VMEs are known or likely to occur to bottom fishing, EIAs of single fisheries and precautionary encounter rules. A partial strategy to protect VMEs (please note procedural concern), in accordance with UNGA resolutions (especially 61/105 and 64/72) and more specifically the FAO Guidelines for deep‐sea fisheries should include the establishment of an interim precautionary approach that allows for the development of appropriate conservation and management measures to prevent significant adverse impacts on VMEs while preventing such impacts from taking place inadvertently and that consists of (a) closing of areas where VMEs are known or likely to occur and (b) implementation of bycatch analysis and scientifically based move‐on rules that are specific to the gear and VME.

Proposed actions: Consultations concerning the closure of areas in the Bratten region have already been conducted and the primary focus moving forward should be the development and implementation of joint EU legislation.

1. First year: Implement bycatch analysis of VME indicator species and reporting logbook. Following years: centralised data‐collection for all Pandalus fisheries in MSC assessment/ certified in the region + research cooperation.

2. First year: Implement NEAFC encounter rule thresholds. Following years: Develop and Implement scientifically based, gear‐ and habitat‐specific move‐on rules for all effected VME types.

3. First year: close areas with known/proven deep‐sea sponge aggregations and coral gardens in the Bratten area. As stated in the PCDR: These are relatively small areas (“The Swedish commercial fishing would lose approximately 5,6 % of the bottom‐surface trawled today”). Following years: Additional closures of VME hotspots (based on bycatch analysis/encounters, scientific knowledge and fishermen experience). As stated in the PCDR, known VME areas are often already avoided. However, due to the low recoverability of the impacted VMEs and the large number of vessels (cumulative effects) any trawl in sensitive areas should be avoided. Again, it is presumed that area closures would lead only to a very minor reduction of the utilized fishing grounds.

4. Generally, develop/establish platform and increase data exchange between all shrimp fishing fleets, science and government (especially with Danish and Norwegian fisheries currently undergoing MSC assessment: information on No‐go areas/encounters/likely VME areas)

5. Risk based observer coverage and validation of best practice (e.g spatial activity (GPS/AIS), Net‐ Cams, independent on board observers).

6. Participate (including financing) in research works of new models of trawls and their elements which have a milder impact on benthos/ bycatch species. Implement new technology when appropriate. MSC definition: ‘‘appropriate” in the context of implementing reviewed measures shall be interpreted where potential alternative measures reviewed are:

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 239

a. Determined to be more effective at minimising the impact on sensitive bottom habitats than current fishing gear and practices, b. Determined to be comparable to existing measures in terms of effect on target species catch, and impacts on vessel and crew safety, c. Determined to not negatively impact on other species or habitats, and d. Not cost prohibitive to implement.

Conformity Assessment Body Response: The assessment team notes that WWF does not disagree with the score allocated to this PI. The assessment team has revised the rationales to consider the five scoring elements and concluded that for three scoring elements (coral gardens, deep sea sponge aggregations and seapens and burrowing megafauna) there was no objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy would work because fishing restrictions in some of the most vulnerable areas, e.g. the Bratten, are not yet fully in place and so SG80b is not met. The overall score for this PI remains at 75 and a condition is raised. WWF considers that the conditions set for this PI are not adequate to improve the fishery’s performance to the 80 level of performance. The assessment team notes the very helpful suggestions made by WWF for meeting the condition both in the short (1 year) and long (5 year) term. However the MSC Certification Requirements are clear that it is not the role of the CAB to raise conditions that are overly prescriptive. It is the client’s role to determine exactly what actions are considered necessary to meet the conditions. The assessment team notes WWF’s belief that the implementation time‐frame for this condition is far too long, and has reduced the timeframe for meeting the condition by one year. However the assessment team considers that meeting a condition which requires management measures to be agreed through EU legislation within 3 years will be challenging.

Performance Indicator 2.4.3: Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types

SG80c: Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to habitat (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures).

Nature of Comment: Scoring concern The score assigned to PI 2.4.3 indicators cannot be justified.

Justification The fishing grounds in the Skagerrak and Kattegat are mapped to a certain extend. However, there is no observer programme in the UoC and no reporting of encounters between the fleet and different benthic habitats in logbooks. Bycatch rates of invertebrates are unknown. Recovery rates and potential of some VME types are unknown in the areas fished.

Conformity Assessment Body Response: The assessment team agrees with WWF that the lack of a mechanism for recording encounters between fishing gear and VME habitats means that the current information is not sufficient to detect any increase in risk to the VME habitats. Information on the distribution of vulnerable habitats across the whole fishing area is not comprehensive, and interactions with fishing gear may go unrecorded in areas where VMEs have not been previously recorded. A key component of a full strategy to manage the impact of the fishery on VME habitats is the implementation of clear “move‐on” rules when VME habitats are encountered. Complementary to such move‐on rules are a mechanism for recording such encounters in

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 240

fishermen’s log books. On that basis, the assessment team has concluded that SG80c is not met and has raised a condition against this PI.

Component 3.2 Fishery specific management system

Performance Indicator 3.2.3 Compliance and enforcement

SG80d: There is no evidence of systematic noncompliance.

Nature of Comment Conditions set for this PI are not adequate to improve fishery’s performance to the 80 level of performance.

Justification The four year time period for implementation of the condition is not in line with the ongoing processes for the region and will likely leave the fishery out of compliance with EU regulations. The EU Common Fisheries Policy Landing obligations will be implemented for this fishery during 2016. The milestones for this condition should be reformulated such that measures are developed in year one and implemented in year two concurrent with the CFP Landing obligations in order to be in compliance. The Swedish management system has already had 6 years since the implementation of the discard ban of juvenile shrimp in the region 2009. Stricter measures are urgently needed now as during the 6 year period only one fishing vessel has been caught discarding juvenile shrimps at sea by the Coast Guard summer 2014 despite the widespread acknowledgement that high‐grading and discarding of undersize shrimps is a serious problem in this fishery. This case is now being investigated by the Swedish police.

Conformity Assessment Body Response: The assessment team has reconsidered the scoring on PI 3.2.3 and concluded that not only SG80d but also SG80a is not met. As a consequence the score has been reduced to 70 and the condition has been amended. Additionally the team has acknowledged the comments of several stakeholders on the length of time given to client to address this issue. The condition now requires that evidence that there is no systematic high grading of smaller shrimp should be provided at the second surveillance audit. The client should not only provide evidence that actions have been taken but also provide evidence that the MCS system has the ability to detect non compliance with relevant management measures. The client has amended the client action plan accordingly.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 241

References

1 Munch‐Petersen, S., Ulmestrand, M., Søvik, G. and Eigaard, O. 2013. Discarding in the shrimp fisheries in Skagerrak and the Norwegian Deep (ICES Divs. IIIa and IVa east). NAFO SCR Doc. 13/68, 9 pp.

2 ICES, 2014. Northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) in Divisions IIIa West and IVa East (Skagerrak and Norwegian Deep). ICES Advice 2014 Book 6.

3 Babcock, E. A., and E. K. Pikitch. 2003. How much observer coverage is enough to adequately estimate bycatch? Pew Institute for Ocean Science and Oceana, 36 p.

4 Ragnarsson SÁ, Steingrímsson SA, García EG (2007) Bottom trawling and scallop dredging in the Arctic: impacts of fishing on non‐target species, vulnerable habitats and cultural heritage: Nordic Council of Ministers.

5 Davies AJ, Roberts JM, Hall‐Spencer J (2007) Preserving deep‐sea natural heritage: Emerging issues in offshore conservation and management. Biological Conservation 138: 299–312

6 Hall–Spencer J, Allain V, Fosså JH (2002) Trawling damage to Northeast Atlantic ancient coral reefs. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 269: 507‐511

7 Hall‐Spencer JM, Brennan C (2004) Alcyonacean forests of Ireland’s continental shelf margin. Reports on Polar and Marine Research 488: 131‐140

8 http://www.unepwcmc.org/medialibrary/2010/09/07/7f03c5ef/Sponges_BS32‐RS189.pdf

9 ICES (2012) Report of the ICES/NAFO Joint Working Group on Deep‐water Ecology (WGDEC).

10 Auster P, Bergstad O, Brock R, Colaco A, Duran Munoz P, et al. (2013) Report of the ICES\ NAFO Joint Working Group on Deep‐water Ecology (WGDEC), 11–15 March 2013, Floedevigen, Norway. Report of the ICES\ NAFO Joint Working Group on Deep‐water Ecology (WGDEC), 11–15 March 2013, Floedevigen, Norway.

11 Kaiser MJ, Collie JS, Hall SJ, Jennings S, Poiner IR (2002) Modification of marine habitats by trawling activities: prognosis and solutions. FISH and FISHERIES 3: 114‐136.

12 Ospar (2011) OSPAR Workshop on the improvement of the definitions of habitats on the OSPAR list. Background document for discussing "Coral gardens", "Deep Sea Sponge aggregations" and "Seapen and burrowing megafauna communities"

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 242

Comments from Skagen Fishermens association

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 243

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 244

1. PI 3.2.3.

With systematic high‐grading taking place (as already concluded in PI 3.2.3), it is highly unlikely that observer trips will show the real magnitude of high‐grading. Since high‐grading is a known ‘hot’ issue, and illegal, vessels will obviously tend to avoid high‐grading (or at least reduce it) when observers are on board. This is especially a problem since we are not presented with any cross‐checking of the boiled/raw proportion for observed trips vs. the same proportion for unobserved trips.

Conformity Assessment Body Response: As stated in the report the assessment team was provided with data on estimates of discarding of smaller shrimp in the Swedish fishery by SLU. These estimates were based on discard percentages monitored during observer trips. Although it is a possibility that these estimates are an underestimation of the real magnitude of high‐grading this would not result in different scores on the relevant Performance Indicators. The proposed cross check of proportions boiled/raw observed during observer trips and unobserved trips however can constitue part of the neccessary evidence that the client will be required to provide at surveillance audit 2 in order to proof that the problem of high‐grading has been effectively addressed.

In the absence of trustworthy data on the magnitude of the problem, an inference can be made from Danish data (the team already notes the comparative difference between the two fleets on page 14). If this comparison is carried out in bit more detail, it shows that the observer reports are likely an underestimate. The proportion of boiled shrimp in the Danish landings over the last 5 years has been approximately one third (see the two figures below – from the NAFO/ICES WG report Ulmestrand et al. 2014). To bring the Danish landings over this period – through systematic high‐grading – up to the Swedish level (50 % boiled), would have required high‐grading a quarter of the entire catch on average. This means that the highest Swedish recorded discard rate (high‐grading + undersized) of 31 %, is more likely the average – if we add discards of undersized shrimp of approx. 5 % (as the Danish discard estimates would suggest).

Conformity Assessment Body Response: See previous response. This kind of information would be particularly useful as evidence that the the problem of high‐grading has been effectively addressed.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 245

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 246

2. Condition 3 (now re‐numbered as Condition 6)

Systematic non‐compliance is clearly a breach of fundamental MSC principles (even though the lack of a possibility to score below 60 means that the fishery cannot be failed for it!). The condition and timeline given for redressing this breach is clearly not in line with the gravity of the problem. To stop breaking the law only requires one action – to stop!

A reasonable timeline would thus be:

First year: Measures should be implemented that stop high‐grading of shrimp.

Second year: Clear evidence should be provided that there is no systematic high‐grading of shrimp.

There is no reason at all that this should take four full years. The actions suggested by the client for the first two years clearly show this as well – one year to talk to the fishermen about stopping and another year to think about the possible ways to stop – this sounds more like the development of a complex management plan than simply fishing legally.

While the client does not directly control the fishery, putting a condition on the vessels that wish to land MSC certified shrimp should be a relatively straight‐forward and rapid way of making sure that the vessels indeed implement the measures needed.

The current timeline means that shrimp from vessels that systematically break the law will be sold as MSC shrimp for three or four years – most of the lifetime of the certificate!

Conformity Assessment Body Response: The assessment team has reconsidered the scoring on PI 3.2.3 and concluded that not only SG80d bus also SG80a is not met. As a consequence the score has been reduced to 70 and the condition has been amended. Additional the team has acknowledged the comments of several stakeholders on the length of time given to client to address this issue. The condition now requires that evidence that there is no systematic high grading of smaller shrimp should be provided at the second surveillance audit. The client should not only provide evidence that actions have been taken but also provide evidence that the MCS system has the ability to detect non compliance with relevant management measures. The client has amended the client action plan accordingly.

Currently it seems that the client proposes to use discard observation data to show evidence that high‐ grading has stopped. As pointed out above, discard observer data are not reliable as a measure of the level of high‐grading. Proof of compliance will thus have to be supplied by less biased means (or at the very least stronger supplementary evidence) in order to conclude that there is no systematic non‐compliance.

Conformity Assessment Body Response: See responses above. At the second surveillance audit client should provide clear evidence to the assessment team that the problem of high‐grading has been effectively addressed. Comparison of observer data with other available data from unobserved trips or comparable fisheries on proportions of raw and boiled products could form a valuable part of such kind of evidence.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 247

APPENDIX 4. SURVEILLANCE FREQUENCY

The surveillance level is determined based on Table C3 and C4 in the CR requirements v1.3. According to MSC Certification Requirements Version 1.3, the overall surveillance score for this fishery qualifies for the normal surveillance level with on-site surveillance audits in year 1, 2, 3 and 4. Table 28 Fishery surveillance level (Ref. CR v1.2 table C4) Year after certification or recertification Surveillance score (from CR table C3; Surveillance level Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Table 29) On-site On-site On-site On-site 2 or more Normal surveillance surveillance surveillance surveillance surveillance audit audit audit audit Off-site On-site Off-site Option surveillance surveillance surveillance On-site 1 surveillance Remote audit audit audit 1 audit & surveillance On-site Off-site On-site Option recertification site surveillance surveillance surveillance 2 visit audit audit audit On-site On-site surveillance Review of new Review of new 0 Reduced surveillance surveillance information information audit & audit recertification site visit

Table 29 Determination of surveillance score (Ref. CR v1.3 table C3) Surveillance Surveillance Criteria Alternatives Rationale score Score Yes 0 Default assessment tree Default assessement tree 0 used? No 2 used Zero conditions 0 Number of open Between 1-5 1 2 6 conditions conditions conditions More than 5 2 ≥85 0 Principle Level Scores 2 Nol principles scored > 85 <85 2 Conditions on outcome Yes 2 One condition on 2 PIs? No 0 outcome PIs Total score 6

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 248

APPENDIX 5. CLIENT AGREEMENT On behalf of Gothenburg Fish Auction, Bengt Gunnarson accepted the Public Certification Report for the Sweden Skagerrak, Kattegat and the Norwegian Deep Cold Water Prawn fishery with the terms of certification detailed therein on e-mail 2015-10-01. He also confirmed that information on fishing activities and scope of certification is up to date and correct.

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 249

APPENDIX 6. PROPOSAL FOR FISHERIES MANAGEMENT MEASURES IN THE SWEDISH NATURA 2000 SITE BRATTEN SE0520189 LOCATED IN THE SWEDISH EEZ OF SKAGERRAK

DNV GL – Report No. 2015-001, Rev. 4 – www.dnvgl.com Page 250

Proposal for Fisheries Management Measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten SE0520189 located in the Swedish EEZ of Skagerrak

Proposal for Fisheries Management Measures under article 11 and 18 of 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

Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

1. Introduction ______4

2. Legal framework ______4 2.1 Common Fisheries Policy ______4 2.2 Access to the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten ______5 2.3 Implementation of Natura 2000 in Sweden ______5 2.4 Marine protected areas in Sweden ______5

3. Knowledge base ______6

4. Rationale ______6

5. Process ______7

6. The Natura 2000 site Bratten ______7 6.1 Description ______7 6.2 Conservation values ______8 6.3 Ecosystem service analysis of fishing regulations in Bratten ______9

7. Fisheries ______12 7.1 Fleet activity and annual landings 2011-2013 ______12 7.2 Seasonal trends ______16

8. Identified threats to habitats and species ______16 8.1 Fisheries ______16 8.1.1 Physical impacts ______16 8.1.2 Resuspension of sediment ______16 8.1.3 By-catches in the shrimp fishery ______17 8.1.3 Removal of predatory fish in relation to ecosystem structure and function ______17 8.2 Other human activities ______17 8.2.1 Recreational fisheries ______17 8.2.2 Anchoring ______17 8.2.3 Swedish Armed Forces ______17

9. Proposed fisheries management measures ______18 9.1 Purpose ______18 9.2 No-take zones ______18 9.3 Requirements of AIS as a complement to VMS ______20 9.4 Assessment of proportionality ______21 9.5 Displacement ______21

10. Control and enforcement ______21

11. References ______22

12. Appendix ______24 Appendix 1: Maps of surveys and findings in the area. ______24 Appendix 2: Coordinates of breakpoints of the proposed no-take zones. ______31 Appendix 3. Swedish fisheries data for the proposed no-take zones. ______34

2 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

Appendix 4. Effort and number of vessels for the Swedish and Danish fleets in the Natura 2000 site Bratten, and landings in value (euro) and weight (kg) for Swedish fisheries not included in the analysis. ______39 Appendix 5. Danish fisheries data for the proposed no-take zones. ______40 Appendix 6. Marine protected areas in Sweden ______56 Appendix 7. Overview of the 11 information items in the Commission guidelines from 2008 __ 68 Appendix 8. Overview of formal and informal consultations ______69

3 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

1. Introduction The Natura 2000 site Bratten (SE0520189) is mainly situated in the Swedish EEZ of Skagerrak. It is an area with species and habitats of high conservation value and is designated as a Natura 2000 site for reef structures (habitat code: H1170 - reefs and H1180 – submarine structures made of leaking gases). The area was designated as a Natura 2000 site in 2011. The area is also part of OSPAR’s network of marine protected areas. Several habitats and species included in OSPAR’s list of threatened and/or declining species and habitats are found in the area.

The area is furthermore an important fishing ground for Swedish and Danish fisheries. To some extent, the area is also used as a fishing ground by Norwegian fishermen.

Under the Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, Sweden is obliged to ensure favourable conservation status of designated habitats and species within their Natura 2000 sites. In order to fulfil recommendations accepted under the OSPAR convention, Sweden is also responsible for the protection of designated OSPAR habitats and species.

This Swedish proposal on fisheries management, aiming at ensuring adequate protection of designated habitats and species of the Bratten area, is based on a proposal from the County Administrative Board of Västra Götaland and it is developed with stakeholder involvement. In Sweden, the County Administrative Boards are responsible for the management of the Natura 2000 sites.

The proposal includes the establishment of no-take zones and compulsory use of AIS for all vessels fishing in the area. 2. Legal framework

2.1 Common Fisheries Policy According to the Common Fisheries Policy (Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (The Basic Regulation)) Article 11, Member States are empowered to adopt conservation measures not affecting fishing vessels of other Member States that are applicable to waters under their sovereignty or jurisdiction and that are necessary to comply with their obligations under Article 13(4) of Directive 2008/56/EC, Article 4 of Directive 2009/147/EC or Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC.

Where a Member State (“initiating Member State”) considers that measures need to be adopted for the purpose of complying with the obligations referred to above, and other Member States have a direct management interest in the fishery to be affected by such measures, the European Commission shall be empowered to adopt such measures, upon request, by means of delegated acts. For this purpose cooperation between Member States having a direct management interest is foreseen with a view to formulating a joint recommendation in agreement on draft fisheries management measures to be forwarded to the Commission.

The initiating Member State shall provide the Commission and the other Member States having a direct management interest with relevant information on the measures required, including their rationale, scientific evidence in support and details on their practical implementation and enforcement. Member States shall consult the relevant Advisory Councils.

The initiating Member State and the other Member States having a direct management interest may submit a joint recommendation within six months from the provision of sufficient information. The

4 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

Commission shall adopt the measures, taking into account any available scientific advice, within three months from receipt of a complete request (Regulation 1380/2013, Articles 11 and 18).

The Common Fisheries Policy framework valid from the 1 January 2014 is thus the basis for this proposal. However, when developing this proposal, Sweden has also taken account of the 11 information items of the Commission´s guidelines from 2008 concerning development of proposals for fisheries management measures in marine Natura 2000 sites (see appendix 7).

2.2 Access to the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten According to this regulation1 Denmark has historical fishing rights within the 12 nautical miles zones in the Swedish part of the Skagerrak area. Denmark also has fishing rights in the Swedish EEZ, where the major part of the area concerned in the proposal is located. Denmark has consequently provided fishery data for fishery activities carried out in the concerned area.

This part will be developed after Member States have indicated whether they consider themselves having direct management interest in the area concerned according to Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.

2.3 Implementation of Natura 2000 in Sweden Designation of Natura 2000 sites (7 Ch. 27 and 28, §§ Environmental Code) is undertaken with the support of two EU directives: The Birds Directive (European Parliament and Council Directive 2009/147 / EC of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds) and the Species and Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43 / EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora). The Swedish Environmental Code is the main legal framework for implementing the Birds Directive and the Species and Habitats Directive in Sweden. The directives have been fully implemented in Swedish legislation since 1 July 2001. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has a central responsibility for all protected areas in Sweden (7 Ch. Environmental Code), including the Natura 2000 sites. The Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management has a central guidance responsibility for aquatic protected areas. The 21 County Administrative Boards (regional authorities) are responsible for the more practical management of the protected areas in their county. They are responsible for the protection and management of the sites as well as for implementing the Natura 2000 management plan. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency is also responsible for the reporting according to the Birds Directive and the Species and Habitats Directive - the practical work for the task of reporting on the two directives however, is assigned to the Swedish Species Information Centre.

2.4 Marine protected areas in Sweden In Sweden there are 315 Natura 2000 sites with listed marine species or habitats (Appendix 6, table 6.1). Some of these protected areas are also OSPAR and/or HELCOM marine protected areas (Appendix 6, table 6.1). In Sweden there are 10 OSPAR marine protected areas and 28 HELCOM marine protected areas. The national designations of marine protected areas also include nature reserves, national parks, biotope protection areas. By the end of 2014, 6,6 % of the Swedish marine waters were protected. According to the Swedish environmental objectives and the milestone target on protected areas, it is decided by the Swedish Parliament that by 2020, 10% of the Swedish marine waters should be protected in an ecologically representative and connected system of protected

1 (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC

5 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT areas. The systems should be well integrated in the surrounding landscape and they should be effectively managed.

3. Knowledge base In 2003 and 2004 the detailed bathymetry was mapped in the core area of Bratten (Figure 1b) as part of the Interreg project Skagerrak II. From these detailed maps, conclusions have been drawn on where to do further surveys, for example with remotely operated underwater vehicles (ROV). Since the whole area is not mapped bathymetrical, some of the information on seafloor composition has been shared by Swedish and Danish fishermen. They have indicated zones with rocks and stones in the unmapped areas. In 2007-2009 the Swedish Taxonomy Initiative performed sampling of the benthic fauna in the area. In 2012-2013 sampling was made in pockmarks. A drop video survey was undertaken in 2013 for transects in the main ravine as well as in eight groups of pockmarks. Information from recreational fishermen has also been used when developing this proposal. In Appendix 1 there is a map of surveys undertaken in the area.

4. Rationale Member States are responsible for ensuring favourable conservation status of designated marine habitats and species in their respective Natura 2000 sites and for taking appropriate steps to avoid the deterioration of the habitats and species as well as the disturbance of the species for which the Natura 2000 site has been designated. In order to fulfil recommendations accepted under the OSPAR convention, OSPAR-listed habitats and species also require protection. This implies additional protection of species and habitats that are not covered within the scope of the Natura 2000, such as soft bottom habitats and sensitive fish species (OSPAR 2008-6). Based on identified threats from fisheries to the designated habitats and species (see chapter 8), there is a need for fishing regulations in the Natura 2000 site Bratten. No-take zones in areas with identified conservation values are therefore proposed. To limit the risk of disturbance due to sedimentation of particles suspended by demersal trawling, a buffer zone of at least 250 m around designated habitats and species are proposed. The fine particles typically found in suspension following trawling soft seafloors will, however, stay in solution for periods of up to several days and are consequently not taken into account. The proposed no-take zones have been identified through detailed information on plotter tracks provided by fishermen active in the area. This information, including fishermen´s account of the presence of rock and structures hindering trawling, has complemented the species and habitat maps when establishing the borders of the no-take zones, and the buffer zones around these areas (see figure 3). ICES advice for buffer zones with respect to gear position in relation to vessel position and depth (ICES 2013) has been considered. In cases when buffer zones are less than the advised width, i.e. three times the depth, it is in areas where trawlers are in need of straight through passages (see Appendix 3, figure 3b). The fishing restrictions are proposed to apply to all commercial fishing activities based on effective control. Fisheries, other than demersal trawling, are non-present or marginal in the Natura 2000 site at present, and vessels without AIS/VMS cannot be tracked to a detailed position enough to allow for detailed analysis on their activities in the no-take zones (table 4.2 in Appendix 4). The large western area of the Natura 2000 site is unmapped and it contains deeper areas of soft seafloor with no or very little present fishing activity. The rationale for proposing fisheries measures for this area is that the area is relatively unaffected by trawling, and may thus contain habitats and species sensitive to trawling or other mechanical damage. These species may have disappeared or decreased in other neighbouring areas. Proposing fisheries measures in such cases is in line with the precautionary approach, recommended in the guidelines Fisheries Measures for Marine Natura 2000 sites (11 information items) and is expected to contribute to good environmental status of descriptor 6 Seafloor integrity under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.

6 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

To ensure adequate protection of the proposed no-take zones, better monitoring of real time position of vessels fishing in the area is needed. If VMS and the present 1-hour sampling rate of vessel positions would be the only system of monitoring, no-take zones would have to be substantially larger in size in order to secure efficient control. The proposal therefore involves mandatory AIS for vessels fishing in the area, increasing the frequency of GPS positioning of fishing vessels and thus allowing for more accurate control.

5. Process In Sweden, the County Administrative Boards are responsible for the management of the Natura 2000 sites. To ensure adequate protection of conservation values, the County Administrative Board of Västra Götaland will develop the management plan for the Bratten area and the proposed fisheries measures are expected to contribute to improved conservation status of Reefs, 1170 and Submarine structures made by leaking gases (pockmarks), 1180.

The development of the management plan and specifically the need for fisheries measures was part of the EU-project, “Sea meets land” (www.havmoterland.se) with participants from government agencies, research institutions and fishermen from Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Representatives of NGO’s have been invited to workshops and to submit comments on the proposals.

The following authorities and institutions have participated in the project undertaken by the County Administrative Board of Västra Götaland: Swedish Agency for Marine and Water management, Directorate of Fisheries in Norway, The Danish AgriFish Agency, Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries in Denmark, University of Gothenburg (Department of Biology and Environmental Science), Swedish University of Agriculture (Swedish Species Information Centre and SLU Aqua), and the Institute of Marine Research in Norway.

Meetings with fishermen have been arranged to allow for a stakeholder involvement. The first meeting was held in May 2012 with fishermen from Sweden and Denmark as well as the County Administrative Board of Västra Götaland, fisheries agencies from Sweden, Norway and Denmark and scientists from Gothenburg University and the Institute of Marine Research in Lysekil. Three additional meetings have been arranged. Norwegian fishermen attended one meeting. A workshop was held in March 2013 to discuss sustainable use of the Bratten area and to develop the management plan, when also NGO´s were invited. A proposal of protected areas in Bratten had been presented before this meeting. The proposed fisheries management measures were sent out for consultation in October 2013 (Appendix 8).

In this part, we will add further comments on the process with member states and on consultations with the relevant Advisory Council.

6. The Natura 2000 site Bratten

6.1 Description The Natura 2000-site Bratten includes an area mainly located in the Swedish EEZ in Skagerrak (see Figure 1a). The site is delimitated along latitude 58° 35 'N in the north, latitude 58° 16' N in the south, the Swedish EEZ boundary in the west and longitude 10° 42’ E in the east. Bratten was designated as a Natura 2000-site in 2011(pSCI) 2014 (SAC). Since 2012 the area is also part of OSPAR’s network of marine protected areas.

7 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

Figure 1a. The location of Bratten in the Skagerrak.

6.2 Conservation values The core area of the Natura 2000 site, is a coherent ravine area extending about 20 kilometres in south west - north east direction, with branches at both ends (see Figure 1b). The ravines are narrow (100-300 meters) and up to 100 meters deep with steep sides, especially on the west side. All other parts of the Natura 2000 site consist mainly of soft bottom. In mapped soft bottom areas, many big deep burrows are found (Figure 1.g, Appendix 1). These were initially identified as “pockmarks”

8 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT which by definition are created through gas seeping out from underlying sediments resulting in a collapse of the seafloor. Later surveys found gas-saturated sediments in some burrows, confirming them as pockmarks, while others seemed to be of a different origin. Carbonate structures are sometimes formed in pockmarks; these are designated as special Natura 2000 habitats (1180 Submarine structures made by leaking gases). In the survey in 2013, carbonate structures have not been confirmed in any of the investigated burrows. However, protruding rocks was found in many burrows (Figure 1.g, Appendix 1). These protruding rocks form deep reef structures, with many rare species, and should therefore be protected.

At the depths found at Bratten (120-530 meters), conditions are constant with high salinity and low temperature all year round. These conditions, coupled with the dramatic topography with steep cliffs and deep cracks, create suitable environments for species and animal communities that are only found in a few places in Sweden and Skagerrak. Several species have their only Swedish records from Bratten (Karlsson et al. 2014), where the topography has provided a shelter in an area with otherwise intense trawling activity.

In total, nearly 250 species were collected at Bratten during the 2000s, of which 37 are red-listed according to the 2010 Swedish Red List 2(i.e. they are either rare and/or have decreased rapidly in number). Species classified as Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN) or Vulnerable (VU) are here referred to as threatened. Most threatened species in Bratten are found in the ravines and the proposed protection zones NE of the ravine. Surveyed locations and a summary of threatened species found are presented in Appendix 1.

A new Swedish Red List has recently been published and in the next version of this proposal an updated version of threathened species will be described (ArtDatabanken 2015. Rödlistade arter i Sverige 2015. ArtDatabanken SLU, Uppsala)

The following conservation values have been identified in the area:

 Deep hard bottoms (Natura 2000 habitat: 1170 Reef)  Coral Gardens (OSPAR habitat)  Sponge communities (OSPAR habitat: Deep Sea Sponge aggregations)  Pockmarks and other burrows with elements of hard bottom (Natura 2000 habitat: 1180 Submarine structures made by leaking gases, Natura 2000 habitat: 1170 Reef)  Soft bottom with sea pens (OSPAR habitat: Sea pens and burrowing megafauna)  Cartilaginous fishes such as sharks and rays (several which are OSPAR species)  Large fish species connected to reefs and pockmarks (several which are OSPAR species)

Both reefs and pockmarks were reported to be in unfavourable conservation status in the Marine Atlantic region in the Swedish 2013 Habitats Directive Report (Article 17) (ArtDatabanken 2013). Findings of specific species associated to designated OSPAR habitats are presented in Appendix 1.

6.3 Ecosystem service analysis of fishing regulations in Bratten An analysis has been conducted to assess the effects on marine ecosystems of the proposed fishing regulation in the Natura 2000 site Bratten. The ecosystem analysis is based on the UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) and specifically a report on the status of ecosystem services in Swedish waters (Bryhn et al, 2015). The assessment of the impacts is done by expert judgements with participants from analysts at the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management and

2 http://www.slu.se/sv/centrumbildningar-och-projekt/artdatabanken/rodlistan/

9 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT scientists at the Swedish University of Agricultural Science (SLU). The analysis has been done from a Swedish perspective, hence effects for e.g. fishermen from other countries has not been taken into account.

The analysis indicates that the following ecosystem services mainly are positively affected by the fishing regulation.

Supporting services: Food web dynamics are enhanced by saving more of the large predatory fishes. For biodiversity both the expert judgement and previous studies (e.g. Gell & Roberts 2003) indicates that fishing regulation increase the diversity.

Regulating services: Sediment retention is positively affected since homogenisation and transfer of bottom substrate decreases with the reduced trawling.

Provisioning services: Improved services of genetic and chemical resources are indicated to be obtained. These are connected to biodiversity and there could be valuable resources that are not known today. Food provision is more complex and the time aspect becomes crucial. In the short term the catches are expected to be reduced, but in the long term the fish stocks are expected to increase and potentially also generate larger catches.

Cultural services: Scenery and inspiration are enhanced e.g. underwater photography and the area is also unique for science and education purposes. As for natural heritage the conservation of valuable areas as the Natura 2000 site Bratten is beneficial also for future generations.

The assessment also showed small negative aspects on ecosystem services for two cultural services. Recreation in the form of fishing will be reduced, since the recreational fishing also will be limited in Bratten. However, the recreational fishing in Bratten only makes up a small part of the total fishing days in Sweden3. An example from an earlier study from 2006 on recreational fishing in Sweden showed a value of 77 EUR (714 SEK) per fishing day (Fiskeriverket, 2009). Using this value the lost benefit for recreational fishing would sum up to approximately 32 600 EUR (300 000 SEK) per year. The limitation of both recreational as well as commercial fishing could also affect the cultural heritage negative. Further, for the ecosystem service food, the assessment of proportionality (9.4 and Appendix 3 and 4) shows the potential economic impact on commercial fisheries. However, it should be stressed that the limitation of commercial fishing in the areas within Bratten, do not affect the fishermen’s quotas. Hence, the potential economic loss should be seen as a maximum value since they have the possibility to continue to fish in other areas. It should also be noted that with spill-over effects from the marine protected areas, these services could in the long term be enhanced.

The many benefits from the regulation on the provision of ecosystem services described in the beginning of the section are more difficult to set an economic value on. Several studies however shows indications of high values of marine protected areas. One example is from a recent willingness to pay (WTP) study for increased protection of cold-water coral in Norway. The result indicates an average WTP in the range of 274-287 EUR per household and year (Aanesen et al, 2015).

To sum up there are several ecosystem services that are impacted by the new fishing regulation proposed in Bratten that are indicating a positive benefit for society. The impacts of the qualitative assessment are mainly positive. From an economic aspect, there has not been any specific study conducted of the economic values of the benefits to human wellbeing in Bratten and a full cost benefit analysis has not been conducted. However, results from other relevant studies indicate that there are economic value losses in the short term due to the effects of recreational and commercial fishing, i.e. ecosystem services recreation och food. In the long term they may be positive or

3 Total days of recreational fishing in Sweden are approximately 13.3 million, where of 4 million by the coast and sea. The correspondent days in Bratten is 400. (Sveriges officiella statistik, 2013; Noring, M., 2014 ).

10 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT negative though depending on spill-over effects in nearby areas from increased stocks. The values from willingness to pay studies from other marine protected areas are however much larger and are indicating that there are high values of the non-use values, i.e. cultural ecosystem services in the form of existence values4. And in the long term perspective it is also likely that the initial negative effects on commercial fishing will decrease.

Figure 1b. Map of the Natura 2000 with a detailed map of the seafloor in the ravine system (UTM32N).

4 Existence values: when nature is valued directly by humans, without the intermediation of functions, goods, or services. For example, people may value the existence of seal populations in their own right rather than because of any functions, goods, or services that they might provide.

11 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

7. Fisheries

7.1 Fleet activity and annual landings 2011-2013 The eastern part of the Natura 2000 site contains an area of national interest for Swedish commercial fisheries (Figure 2) according to the Swedish Environmental Code (3 Ch. 5 §). It is in particular an important catch area for northern shrimp Pandalus borealis, dominating Swedish landings from the Natura 2000 site (Table 1) and contributing to 19% of the total Swedish landings of northern shrimp during 2011-2013. Other species of importance in weight are witch flounder Glyptocephalus cynoglossus, saithe Pollachius virens, and cod Gadus morhua. The shrimp landings also dominate by far the value of landings from the Bratten area followed in 2013 by witch flounder, saithe and cod (Table 1).

In terms of effort, the shrimp trawl fishery is the most extensive in the Natura 2000 site, amounting to approximately 20% of the total Skagerrak effort. Demersal trawling efforts for a mix of fish and Norway lobster is the second largest fleet activity, with 4 % of the total Skagerrak fishing effort. Starting 1 February 2013, sorting grids are mandatory in the fisheries for Pandalus as to decrease catch of fish that is discarded; the use of a separate “retention tunnel” for by-caught fish is however increasingly used for continued improvement of profits from additional fish landings. In 2013, 47 Swedish vessels operated in the Natura 2000 site (table 4.1 in Appendix 4).

Bratten is also an important fishing ground for Danish fisheries. It is in particular an increasingly important catch area for halibut Hippoglossus hippoglossus, with 52% of landings from the Skagerrak area originating from the Natura 2000 site in 2013. In terms of landing volume, however, northern shrimp dominates Danish landings from the area (Table 2), and contributes to 7-20% of the total Danish landings of northern shrimp from the Skagerrak area during 2011-2013. Other species of importance are saithe followed by witch flounder, and cod. The shrimp landings also dominate by far the value of landings from the Bratten area followed in 2013 by halibut, cod, witch flounder, and monkfish Lophius piscatorius (Table 2). In 2013, 33 Danish vessels operated in the Natura 2000 site (table 4.1 in Appendix 4).

The northern part of the area is occasionally used as a fishing ground for Norwegian fisheries, mainly for shrimp trawling.

12 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

Figure 2. Area of national interest for Swedish fisheries in relation to the proposed no-take zones

Table 1. Swedish annual landings in weight (kg) and value (euro) and % weight of total Skagerrak landings per species from the N2000 Bratten area during years 2011-2013.

2011 2012 2013 Common Scientific name Kg Euro % Kg Euro % Kg Euro % name Northern shrimp Pandalus borealis 284 904 2 886 101 19 247 991 266 1008 19 184 560 2 177 560 19

Saithe Pollachius virens 74 948 114 842 15 56 202 86 396 15 66 908 81 376 15

Atlantic cod Gadus morhua 49 144 158 133 10 38 780 117 941 7 25 914 74 674 5

Witch Glyptocephalus 14 506 77 977 14 19 501 100 973 13 22 666 83 901 14 flounder cynoglossus Lophius Monkfish 4 129 19 280 16 7 327 46 147 17 6 374 40 271 19 piscatorius Melanogrammus Haddock 3 144 6 394 2 9 761 19 907 5 4 916 8 682 2 aeglefinus Hippoglossus Halibut 2 318 27 817 <1 3 552 36 895 <1 1 054 12 780 <1 hippoglossus European Merluccius 2 480 7 029 8 1 431 4 713 6 901 1 826 4 hake merluccius Norway Nephrops 2 516 34 420 44 2 472 28 846 53 1 221 14 562 38 lobster norvegicus Ling Molva molva 2 331 6 299 14 2 033 5 579 12 1 527 3 570 14

Other 8 326 13 354 7891 17 014 10 198 20 786

Total 448 747 3 351 646 396 941 3 125 419 326 239 2 519 989

Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

Table 2. Danish annual landings in weight (kg) and value (euro) and % weight of total Skagerrak landings per species from the N2000 Bratten area during years 2011-2013.

2011 2012 2013 Kg Euro % Kg Euro % Kg Euro % Atlantic cod Gadus morhua 7 287 22 334 1 18 200 54 278 1 20 677 62 798 1 Atlantic halibut Hippoglossus hippoglossus 390 4 891 3 910 11 598 9 15 429 147 365 52 European hake Merluccius merluccius 413 706 <1 839 1 661 <1 460 762 <1 European plaice Pleuronectes platessa 826 1 134 <1 2 110 2 798 <1 2 225 2 816 <1 Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus 641 806 <1 5 743 6 915 1 5 545 7 451 1 Lemon sole Microstomus kitt 103 526 <1 269 1 070 <1 304 1 396 <1 Ling Molva molva 248 443 <1 1 001 1 604 2 2 184 3 977 5 Monk Lophius piscatorius 1011 4 625 <1 3 766 16 034 2 12 625 57 100 7 Northern shrimp Pandalus boralis 79 746 466 480 7 159 078 1 098 643 15 325 212 1 818 785 20 Norway lobster Nephrops norvegicus 5 321 51 470 <1 7395 58 266 <1 8 401 66 663 1 Picked dogfish Squalus acanthias 562 990 3 278 572 2 63 134 14 Pollack Pollachius pollachius 105 295 <1 579 1 577 1 441 1 219 1 Rays + Skates Rajidae 193 283 1 437 761 4 1 129 2 071 9 Saithe Pollachius virens 21 614 29 509 1 21 584 28 809 1 44 200 51 482 3 Tusk Brosme brosme 17 34 1 37 54 5 253 649 34 Whiting Merlangius merlangius 37 30 <1 170 137 1 290 105 1 Witch flounder Glyptocephalus cynoglossus 3 328 10 208 1 17 676 34 863 2 26 461 53 913 4 Unknown species 61 107 1 180 404 3 158 505 3 Other 118 407 357 1 978 520 1 526 Sum 12 2021 595 278 240 610 1 322 023 466 578 2 280 717

7.2 Seasonal trends The conservation values identified in need of protection in the area mainly consist of species with a sessile, adult stage that grow slowly and are long-lived, and consequently are most sensitive to the first physical impact of trawling. Thus, seasonal trends in fishing effort are probably not relevant for conservation needs, and this analysis was therefore excluded.

8. Identified threats to habitats and species

8.1 Fisheries 8.1.1 Physical impacts The impact of fishing on the sea floor is dependent on gear type as well as the resilience of the habitat and species to disturbance. Gear types that mostly affect the sea floor are those that are mobile and in contact with the seabed, such as various demersal trawls. In general, areas with low natural disturbance have been found to be relatively more susceptible to impact (Hiddink et al. 2006). Habitats particularly sensitive to impact are those that contain fragile organisms with slow growth and slow reproduction as well as habitat-building organisms, e.g. coral and sponge communities on hard bottom. In these cases, the effect of the first impact is substantial (Cook et al. 2013). Although rock structures like cliffs and ravines may have some natural protection from trawling as fishermen claim to generally avoid these areas due to risks of gear entanglement, ROV surveys have revealed several remnants of trawls and even whole trawl nets stuck on the edges of the ravine in Bratten (Figure 1.f, Appendix 1). Severely impacted deep-water coral reefs have also been identified in e.g. Norway as a result of fishing (Fosså et al. 2002). The debris is at times entangled in corals and some whole trawls continue to catch fish as "ghost nets". According to fishermen, most trawl debris consists of older trawls and today there is little risk of losing gear since new technology makes it easier to avoid rocky structures. This however, also implies that trawling could be done closer to the reefs and in areas previously untrawled (Watling & Norse 1998). As for soft bottom habitats, which are of high economic importance to fisheries and are extensively utilized, true effects on biodiversity are most likely underestimated due to lack of baselines from before onset of trawling (Handley et al. 2014). Documented effects from demersal trawling in soft bottom habitats comprise of reduction of biomass and production (Queirós et al. 2006) and changes in species composition favouring abundance of mobile and scavenging species which may in turn affect ecosystem functioning (Tillin et al. 2006). Slow-growing species in these habitats, such as sea pens (soft corals), are particularly sensitive to physical disturbance by demersal trawls (McConnaughey et al. 2000). This is confirmed by ROV surveys in Bratten, where a significant difference in biodiversity was seen between trawled and untrawled sea beds (Lisbet Jonsson 2013). Another effect from trawl interference in a longer time perspective is the risk of sediment homogenisation which may negatively affect the re-colonisation of species (Handley et al. 2014). 8.1.2 Resuspension of sediment Demersal trawling redistributes sediments and alters the morphology of the sea floor (Puig et al. 2012). Large amounts of sediment particles are resuspended into the water column when the gear is in contact with the seabed (Martin et al. 2014). The finer sediment particles that are typical of muddy seafloor sink very slowly (several days) and may be transported over long distances by prevailing currents (Bradshaw et al. 2012). There are, however, currently no studies on how fisheries affect sedimentation in Bratten. Several studies report effects on physiological, behavioural and ecological impacts from suspended sediment on different organisms. For example, reduced coral fertilization (Humphrey et al. 2008), reduced survival of coral larvae (Gilmour et al. 1999), gill damage in fish larvae (Lake and Hinch 1999) as well as reduced survival rate of both fish eggs and larvae (Westerberg et al. 1996; Griffin et al. 2009). Respiration may also shut down in sponges if sediment Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT concentration is too high (Tjensvoll et al. 2013); in this case the frequency of disturbance is highly important.

8.1.3 By-catches in the shrimp fishery When trawling for fish and shrimps, other non-target species are also caught. In Bratten, by-catch of several endangered species, such as sharks and rays (Artdatabanken 2015), occur. The implementation of mandatory use of sorting grids in combination with the use of a retention tunnel in the shrimp fishery has reduced the amount of by-catch of small fish. However, catches of fish retained in the tunnel in the shrimp fishery are still partly large predatory fish and/or species sensitive to high fishing pressure; if caught as by-catch, where the target species will determine the fishing pressure exerted may exacerbate risks for local extirpation.

8.1.3 Removal of predatory fish in relation to ecosystem structure and function The fish catches in Bratten are dominated by large predatory species such as cod, saithe, halibut, monkfish, hake, ling and elasmobranchs. Most of the elasmobranch species are sensitive to high fishing pressure and may be threatened with extinction or extirpation (Dulvy et al. 2003, 2014). From being top predators, these large fish also play all an important role for ecosystem structure and functioning (Estes et al. 2011).

8.2 Other human activities 8.2.1 Recreational fisheries Unlike commercial fisheries, the recreational fishery is concentrated to the ravine. Risks associated with recreational fishing involve entanglement of hooks and lines around endangered species such as corals, causing dislodgement or severe damage and death. The practice of recreational fishing is limited in the area, and threats to designated species and habitats are in general considered to be relatively low; however, ROV surveys have repeatedly shown torn fishing lines around corals, which in many cases had fatal effects on colonies. It has however been debated whether these lines are from recreational fishermen or from other forms of fisheries. Instances where recreational fishermen have caught specimens of corals have been reported. Recreational fisheries focus on large specimens and sensitive species groups such as sharks and rays. Directed fishery for large individuals of the relatively stationary tusk Brosme brosme entails that effects on local populations cannot be excluded. Even if "catch and release" is applied when fishing for skates, rays and sharks, handling will lead to an increased risk of injuries that may increase mortality. Also, negative effects from stress, changes in temperature and salinity from catch and release fisheries cannot be ruled out. 8.2.2 Anchoring Anchoring on the reefs has the potential to cause greater damage than the actual fishing gear. Recreational fishermen however often avoid anchoring on the reefs, as the anchor could get stuck. Instead anchoring is done on nearby soft bottoms. Some chose not to anchor because of the great depths. Fishing when drifting could increase the risk of entanglement of hooks and lines. 8.2.3 Swedish Armed Forces Parts of the Natura 2000 site Bratten is used as a naval exercise area, but if or how the area is affected is not known.

17 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

9. Proposed fisheries management measures

9.1 Purpose The main purpose of the proposed fisheries management measures is to ensure adequate protection of designated and sensitive species and habitat types: Deep hard bottoms (Natura 2000 habitat: 1170 Reef) Pockmarks and other burrows with elements of hard bottom (Natura 2000 habitat: 1180 Submarine structures made by leaking gases, Natura 2000 habitat: 1170 Reef)

According to article 6 of the Habitats Directive, Member States shall take appropriate steps to avoid, in the special areas of conservation, the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated. Both reefs and pockmarks were reported to be in unfavourable conservation status in the Marine Atlantic region in the Swedish 2013 Habitats Directive Report (Article 17) (ArtDatabanken, SLU, 2013).

In the area, conservation values have also been identified as necessary to protect according to the OSPAR List of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats (OSPAR 2008-6). In the framework of regional agreements, measures contributing to coherent and representative networks of marine protected areas should be established according to article 13.4. Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Coral Gardens (OSPAR habitat) Sponge communities (OSPAR habitat: Deep Sea Sponge aggregations) Soft bottom with sea pens (OSPAR habitat: Sea pens and burrowing megafauna) Cartilaginous fishes such as sharks and rays (several which are OSPAR species) Large fish species connected to reefs and pockmarks (several which are OSPAR species)

The measures to protect large predatory fish also contribute to the quality of the habitats as they play an important role for ecosystem structure and functioning.

9.2 No-take zones The proposed no-take zones comprise an area of 32550 hectares, approximately 27 percent of the total area of the Natura 2000 site (Figure 3 and Appendix 2). In this proposal, the no-take zones are defined as areas where no commercial fishing is allowed. As described in 8.2.1 recreational fishery could also pose a threat to designated species and habitats, and therefor in certain no-take zones recreational fishery will also be restricted. This however, is intended to be done using national fisheries legislation.

The proposed no-take zones will affect fishing opportunities in the area, even though the effect has been minimized by accounting for recent fishing patterns (Appendix 3 and 5, Fig 3.a,3.b and Fig 5.a, 5.b). In this assessment, coverage of fishing activities includes demersal trawlers with VMS that have made trips in the Bratten Natura 2000 site. These fishing activities comprise > 90% of the Swedish logbook data for the whole Bratten Natura 2000 site. Other Swedish fisheries, such as small trawlers without VMS, passive gears and pelagic trawling, are marginal in the area (Table 4.2, Appendix 4). With regard to the Danish fishery, the coverage of fishing activities in the Bratten area in relation to the total Danish effort cannot be analysed at this spatial detail; it is however assumed that Danish fishing effort with vessels without VMS is marginal, and no pelagic and passive fishing segments with VMS have reported catches from the Bratten area. Also, from the process it was informed by the Danish fishery that essentially the entire Danish fishery in the Bratten area was by demersal trawling and mainly with vessels equipped with VMS.

18 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

Figure 3. Map of proposed no-take zones.

Almost all areas with identified hard bottom structures (Natura 2000 habitat: 1170) are part of the suggested no-take zones. Pockmarks and other burrows with elements of hard bottom (Natura 2000 habitat: 1180 and 1170) are also included. Identified conservation values of different zones are given in Table 3. A buffer zone of at least 250 meters surround the ravine and designated habitats in need of protection.

19 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

Table 3. Identified conservation values of the different zones.

Large fish are also identified as conservation values in the area, however, they are not listed in Table 2 as they are mobile and cannot be associated to a certain area. Certain areas hitherto relatively unaffected by trawling are included in the no-take zones, despite limited knowledge about their conservation value. In western Bratten, a large no-take zone (Zone 14, see Figure 2) at great depth (530 meters) has been proposed. This area is essentially unaffected by trawling and although high conservation values only have been confirmed in parts of the area, it is considered unique and prioritized for protection in line with a precautionary approach to data deficiency.

Corridors have been suggested between the no-take zones to allow for fishing trajectories through the Natura 2000 site and to minimize conflicts between conservation needs and fisheries. The corridors consist of areas where it is assumed that previous trawling has negatively affected the area; these areas are therefore considered to be of less conservation value at present and are kept as important fishing grounds. Corridors through the ravine system are located in shallower parts of the area and consist mainly of soft bottom. To facilitate passage, corridors are, if possible, kept 1000 meters wide. This ensures that vessels are able to meet safely while not risking that trawl boards interfere with the no-take zones.

The proposed fishing restrictions will protect sensitive fish species and important predators, such as gadoids and elasmobranchs in the closed reef habitats, but do not provide a general protection for these mobile species at the scale of the Natura 2000 site (see chapter 6.2 on conservation values and Appendix 3 table 3). 9.3 Requirements of AIS as a complement to VMS The proposal includes mandatory AIS, class A, transponder, transmitting the vessel´s position every 30 seconds while fishing in the Natura 2000 site. AIS is mandatory for vessels from EU Member States that are 15 meters or more as of 31 May 2014. VMS is currently compulsory for fishing vessels over

20 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

12 meters. In this proposal, all vessels are included in requirements of AIS, class A, for fishing to be allowed within the Natura 2000 site. It should also be explicit that the AIS has to be functioning, turned on and transmitting positioning data during the whole fishing journey. Technical specification concerning the AIS will be developed. 9.4 Assessment of proportionality Sweden is of the opinion that the proposed measures are necessary for the protection of designated habitats and species within the Natura 2000 site Bratten. To achieve the conservation objectives for the site, it is essential to protect areas with identified occurrence of designated habitats and species from physical disturbance due to fishing activities. The fact that some of the area is yet unmapped, also makes it necessary to protect some areas that are relatively unaffected by trawling to make sure not to damage unexplored conservation values.

The no-take zone 4 ( Figure 3.b, Appendix 3 and Figure 5.b, Appendix 5) shows a conflict between the conservation values and the fishing activities; slightly over 2% of catch volume and value of the whole Natura2000 area may originate from this area (Table 1 and 2 in Appendix 3). On each side of zone 4 there are two corridors proposed to allow fishery across the elongate area of high conservation values running south west – north east through the Bratten Natura 2000 site. In the whole Natura 2000 site the shrimp landings, in terms of catch, contribute to 20% of the total Swedish shrimp landing. The proposed no-take zone 4 would thus result in only a marginal loss to the fishery.

Landings in weight and value for the proposed no-take zones are found in Appendix 3 and 5.

In order to avoid unnecessary constraints for the fisheries concerned, the design of no-take zones with associated buffer zones has been discussed on a number of meetings with Swedish, Danish and Norwegian fishermen. In suitable areas, were risks of damaging valuable species and habitats are low, corridors have been suggested dividing reef habitats to allow for continued fishing between no- take zones. This dialogue has been important to minimize an un-proportionate negative effect on fishing opportunities. Mandatory AIS transponders for all vessels fishing in the area are necessary to ensure adequate control of small no-take zones, as would not be possible with VMS. It is thus essential for the possibility of continuous fishing through the suggested corridors. The increased frequency of GPS positioning by the use of AIS does only marginally increase costs for fishing vessels, and only for small vessels that have not already installed transponders. 9.5 Displacement The no-take zones reduce the potential trawling area by 27 % in the Bratten Natura 2000 site. However, by considering the spatial distribution of conservation values and the historical fishing, the proposed fishing regulations only affect approximately 5% of the landings. The creation of corridors in between areas of high conservation values in collaboration with the fishermen should ensure that displacement will be local within Bratten. Given the same effort, there will be increased effort in already trawled areas, and trawlers may search for new fishing grounds within the site. This effort increase is however marginal compared to the overall effort in the area, displacement effects may thus also be seen as marginal. 10. Control and enforcement Mandatory AIS transponders, transmitting the boats position every 30 seconds while fishing in the Natura 2000 site, would electronically supply fisheries authorities with detailed real time information on vessels position, speed and course. The objective is to try to ensure that no-take zones are respected. This part may be developed

21 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

11. References ArtDatabanken 2015. Rödlistade arter i Sverige 2015. ArtDatabanken SLU, Uppsala

ArtDatabanken 2013. Arter & naturtyper i habitatdirektivet – bevarandestatus i Sverige 2013.

Bradshaw, C., Tjensvoll, I., Sköld, M., Allan, I.J., Molvaer, J. et al. (2012) Bottom trawling resuspends sediment and releases bioavailable contaminants in a polluted fjord. Environmental Pollution 170, 232- 241.

Cook, R., Fariñas-Franco, J. M., Gell, F. R., Holt, R. H., Holt, T., et al. (2013) The substantial first impact of bottom fishing on rare biodiversity hotspots: a dilemma for evidence-based conservation. PloS one, 8(8), e69904.

Dulvy, N. K., Fowler, S. L., Musick, J. A., Cavanagh, R. D., Kyne, P. M., Harrison, L. R., ... & White, W. T. (2014). Extinction risk and conservation of the world’s sharks and rays. Elife, 3, e00590.

Gilmour, J. (1999) Experimental investigation into the effects of suspended sediment on fertilisation, larval survival and settlement in a scleractinian coral. Marine Biology 135, 451-462.

Griffin, F.J., Smith, E.H., Vines, C.A. & Cherr, G.N. (2009) Impacts of suspended sediments on fertilization, embryonic development, and early larval life stages of the pacific herring, Clupea pallasi. Biological Bulletin 216, 175-187.

Dulvy, N. K., Sadovy, Y. & Reynolds, J. D. (2003). Extinction vulnerability in marine populations. Fish and fisheries, 4(1), 25-64.

Estes, J. A., Terborgh, J., Brashares, J. S., Power, M. E., Berger, J., et al. (2011). Trophic downgrading of planet Earth. Science, 333(6040), 301-306.

Fosså, J. H., Mortensen, P. B. & Furevik, D. M. (2002). The deep-water coral Lophelia pertusa in Norwegian waters: distribution and fishery impacts. Hydrobiologia, 471(1-3), 1-12.

Handley, S. J., Willis, T. J., Cole, R. G., Bradley, A., Cairney, D. J., et al. (2014). The importance of benchmarking habitat structure and composition for understanding the extent of fishing impacts in soft sediment ecosystems. Journal of Sea Research, 86, 58-68.

Hiddink, J. G., Jennings, S., Kaiser, M. J., Queirós, A. M., Duplisea, D. E. & Piet, G. J. (2006). Cumulative impacts of seabed trawl disturbance on benthic biomass, production, and species richness in different habitats. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 63(4), 721-736.

ICES (2013). Evaluation of the appropriateness of buffer zones. 1.5.5.2 Special request.

ICES Advice (2014). Northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) in Divisions IIIa West and IVa East (Skagerrak and the Norwegian Deep). Book 6.3.23

Jonsson, L. (2013): Naturvärden i Bratten. En sammanställning av ROV-inventeringar i området, på uppdrag av Länsstyrelsen i Västra Götalands län

Karlsson, A., Berggren, M., Lundin, K. & Sundin, R. (2014). Svenska artprojektets marina inventering – slutrapport. ArtDatabanken rapporterar 16. ArtDatabanken, SLU. Uppsala (in Swedish)

Lake, R.G. & Hinch, S.G. (1999) Acute effects of suspended sediment angularity on juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56, 862-867.

22 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

Länsstyrelsen (2013). Droppkamerainventering och multibeammätningar av pockmarks vid Bratten. Report 2013:101 (www.lansstyrelsen.se/vastragotaland/Sv/publikationer/2013/Pages/2013-101.aspx)

Länsstyrelsen (2013). Marinbiologisk inventering i Brattens djupravin. Report 2013:102 (www.lansstyrelsen.se/vastragotaland/Sv/publikationer/2013/Pages/2013-102.aspx)

Länsstyrelsen (2013). Förslag till fiskeregleringar i Bratten. Report 2013:103 (www.lansstyrelsen.se/vastragotaland/Sv/publikationer/2013/Pages/2013-103.aspx

Martin, J., Puig, P., Palanques, A. & Giamportone, A. (2014) Commercial bottom trawling as a driver of sediment dynamics and deep seascape evolution in the Anthropocene. Antropocene. 7: 1-15.

McConnaughey, R. A., Mier, K. L. & Dew, C. B. (2000). An examination of chronic trawling effects on soft-bottom benthos of the eastern Bering Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57, 1377-1388.

OSPAR, 2008-6, OSPAR List of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats.

Puig, P., Canals, M., Company, J. B., Martín, J., Amblas, D., et al. (2012). Ploughing the deep sea floor. Nature, 489(7415), 286-289.

Tillin, H. M., Hiddink, J. G., Jennings, S. & Kaiser, M. J. (2006) Chronic bottom trawling alters the functional composition of benthic invertebrate communities on a sea-basin scale. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 318, 31-45.

Tjensvoll, I., Kutti, T., Fosså, J. H. & Bannister, R. (2013) Rapid respiratory responses of the deep-water sponge Geodia barretti exposed to suspended sediments. Aquatic Biology 19:65-73

Queirós, A. M., Hiddink, J. G., Kaiser, M. J. & Hinz, H. (2006) Effects of chronic bottom trawling disturbance on benthic biomass, production and size spectra in different habitats. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 335(1), 91-103.

Watling, L., & Norse, E. A. (1998). Disturbance of the seabed by mobile fishing gear: a comparison to forest clearcutting. Conservation Biology, 12(6), 1180-1197.

Westerberg, H., Ronnbäck, P. & Frimansson, H. (1996). Effects of suspended sediments on cod eggs and larvae and on the behaviour of adult herring and cod. ICES CM 1996/E: 26.

23 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

12. Appendix

Appendix 1: Maps of surveys and findings in the area. Figure 1.a All locations where species surveys have been performed since year 2000.

24 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

Figure 1.b Findings of threatened species in the area.

The species outside the no-take zones are mainly different species of sea pens, the brittle star Asteronyx loveni and the crab Munida sarsi.

25 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

Figure 1.c Findings of sea fans (gorgonian type corals) and the brittle star Gorgonocephalus caputmedusae

26 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

Figure 1.d Findings of sponge communities

27 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

Figure 1.e Findings of sea pens (soft corals) and the brittle star Asteronyx loveni

28 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

Figure 1.f Findings of lost fishing gear

29 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

Figure 1.g Investigated pockmarks

30 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

Appendix 2: Coordinates of breakpoints of the proposed no-take zones.

Longitud, Latitud, Longitud 10° + Latitud 58° + Zone decimaldeg. decimaldeg. decimalmin. decimalmin. 1 10.61234 58.54797 36.74060 32.87790 1 10.59708 58.54242 35.82450 32.54500 1 10.57829 58.57086 34.69750 34.25170 1 10.58584 58.57113 35.15060 34.26810 2 10.70000 58.58333 42.00000 35.00000 2 10.70000 58.56370 42.00000 33.82200 2 10.68500 58.56834 41.10000 34.10000 2 10.67333 58.58333 40.40000 35.00000 3 10.66622 58.55448 39.97320 33.26910 3 10.65876 58.53817 39.52570 32.29020 3 10.62589 58.56064 37.55310 33.63840 3 10.60196 58.58333 36.11730 35.00000 3 10.64007 58.58333 38.40390 35.00000 4 10.56322 58.41829 33.79350 25.09750 4 10.54711 58.44104 32.82670 26.46240 4 10.53893 58.46111 32.33610 27.66680 4 10.55864 58.49248 33.51860 29.54890 4 10.58575 58.47846 35.14500 28.70790 4 10.60806 58.45570 36.48350 27.34200 4 10.58963 58.42942 35.37770 25.76550 5 10.62166 58.46216 37.29940 27.72940 5 10.59473 58.48256 35.68400 28.95350 5 10.58245 58.50248 34.94690 30.14850 5 10.61104 58.50213 36.66250 30.12770 5 10.63392 58.47972 38.03540 28.78320 6 10.49373 58.45450 29.62370 27.26970 6 10.47881 58.46727 28.72850 28.03640 6 10.46582 58.48976 27.94900 29.38550 6 10.47395 58.49126 28.43730 29.47550 6 10.50004 58.47369 30.00260 28.42150 6 10.49995 58.45435 29.99710 27.26080 7A 10.53168 58.42132 31.90080 25.27900 7A 10.51853 58.41075 31.11190 24.64520 7A 10.50999 58.41982 30.59960 25.18910 7A 10.51291 58.44487 30.77450 26.69240 7A 10.52057 58.45257 31.23410 27.15410 7A 10.52936 58.44918 31.76140 26.95050 7A 10.52271 58.42423 31.36260 25.45370

31 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

7B 10.51815 58.38556 31.08930 23.13340 7B 10.50486 58.39907 30.29150 23.94410 7B 10.51853 58.41075 31.11190 24.64520 7B 10.53168 58.42132 31.90080 25.27900 7B 10.54764 58.41613 32.85830 24.96810 7B 10.53394 58.38776 32.03650 23.26560 7C 10.44780 58.32839 26.86790 19.70320 7C 10.43976 58.33196 26.38560 19.91750 7C 10.44579 58.34390 26.74760 20.63390 7C 10.46309 58.36412 27.78530 21.84690 7C 10.50486 58.39907 30.29150 23.94410 7C 10.51815 58.38556 31.08930 23.13340 7C 10.50243 58.38172 30.14580 22.90310 7C 10.46503 58.34934 27.90180 20.96020 7C 10.45233 58.33436 27.13950 20.06130 7D 10.44780 58.32839 26.86790 19.70320 7D 10.43235 58.30802 25.94100 18.48120 7D 10.42636 58.31273 25.58170 18.76400 7D 10.43560 58.32300 26.13580 19.38030 7D 10.43976 58.33196 26.38560 19.91750 7E 10.43235 58.30802 25.94100 18.48120 7E 10.42276 58.30260 25.36540 18.15610 7E 10.41908 58.30642 25.14470 18.38510 7E 10.42636 58.31273 25.58170 18.76400 8 10.56697 58.35013 34.01820 21.00780 8 10.54678 58.35000 32.80660 21.00000 8 10.54941 58.36596 32.96480 21.95780 8 10.56736 58.36329 34.04160 21.79740 9A 10.48633 58.28254 29.17970 16.95260 9A 10.46037 58.28185 27.62230 16.91100 9A 10.47828 58.32814 28.69670 19.68840 9A 10.49764 58.32314 29.85840 19.38860 9B 10.49986 58.28254 29.99170 16.95260 9B 10.50257 58.30184 30.15410 18.11030 9B 10.51117 58.30128 30.67040 18.07690 9B 10.51374 58.28560 30.82450 17.13590 10 10.47122 58.40548 28.27330 24.32870 10 10.45111 58.39710 27.06670 23.82620 10 10.45140 58.41923 27.08390 25.15390 10 10.45575 58.43279 27.34510 25.96770 10 10.46972 58.41816 28.18310 25.08960 11 10.48585 58.44546 29.15080 26.72760 11 10.48224 58.43201 28.93410 25.92060

32 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

11 10.46981 58.44293 28.18890 26.57590 11 10.46709 58.46009 28.02550 27.60540 12 10.39146 58.31923 23.48740 19.15400 12 10.41007 58.33421 24.60400 20.05280 12 10.41228 58.32229 24.73680 19.33750 12 10.39258 58.30894 23.55460 18.53660 13 10.41500 58.53667 24.90020 32.20000 13 10.40684 58.55302 24.41050 33.18120 13 10.41840 58.55827 25.10420 33.49610 13 10.42903 58.54551 25.74190 32.73030 14 10.02858 58.26667 1.71510 16.00000 14 10.14490 58.51269 8.69400 30.76120 14 10.18669 58.53608 11.20140 32.16510 14 10.23659 58.46886 14.19520 28.13140 14 10.26041 58.31137 15.62490 18.68210 14 10.16996 58.26667 10.19740 16.00000

33 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

Appendix 3. Swedish fisheries data for the proposed no-take zones. Figure 3a. Swedish VMS positions during 2011-2013, the whole area

34 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

Figure 3b. Swedish VMS positions during 2011-2013, focus on no-take areas

35 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

Table 3.1. Swedish landings (kg) from the proposed no-take zones during 2011-2013.

Kg % of total (3-ys Zone 2011 2012 2013 average) 1 145 15 <0.1 2 32 45 <0.1 3 573 723 206 0.1 4 8 679 10 091 7 334 2.2 5 1 942 1 244 2 591 0.5 6 733 1 050 978 0.2 8 692 421 576 0.1 10 370 68 193 0.1 11 236 155 133 <0.1 12 45 181 251 <0.1 13 189 175 156 <0.1 14 180 342 <0.1 7A 662 558 782 0.2 7B 619 474 793 0.2 7C 3 957 2 360 2 897 0.8 7D 256 151 282 0.1 7E 64 145 <0.1 9A 2 194 1 390 1 161 0.4 9B 986 1 037 1 141 0.3 Outside 426 407 376 637 306 234 94.7 Total 448 747 396 941 326 239 % from no-take 5 5 6

36 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

Table 3.2. Value of Swedish landings (euro) from the proposed no-take zones during 2011-2013. Euro % of total (3- Zone 2011 2012 2013 ys average) 1 946 164 <0.1 2 318 531 <0.1 3 4 646 4 818 1 581 0.1 4 67 927 80 284 65 828 2.4 5 10 205 7 518 11 664 0.3 6 5 501 8 959 7 221 0.2 8 5 312 3 302 4 245 0.1 10 2 628 586 1 634 0.1 11 2 036 1 219 1 534 0.1 12 422 1 495 2 218 <0.1 13 1 470 1 657 1 385 0.1 14 1 820 3 648 0.1 7A 5 466 4 687 7 246 0.2 7B 4 996 4 207 6 837 0.2 7C 31 434 20 448 25 404 0.9 7D 1 907 1 391 1 983 0.1 7E 501 1 373 <0.1 9A 16 894 10 569 8 472 0.4 9B 7 468 9 074 7 966 0.3 Outside 3 181 887 2 962 905 2 359 216 94.5 Total 3 351 646 3 125 419 2 519 989 % from no-take 5 5 6

37 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

Table 3.3. Species landed (in kg) from the proposed no-take zones by Swedish fishery during 2011- 2013. Kg Common name Scientific name 2011 2012 2013 Tusk Brosme brosme 53 56 55 Atlantic cod Gadus morhua 2 448 2 124 1 611 Witch flunder Glyptocephalus cynoglossus 792 774 1 487 Atlantic halibut Hippoglossus hippoglossus 181 377 76 Anglerfish Lophius piscatorius 238 374 410 Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus 127 417 201 Whiting Merlangius merlangius 54 13 18 Hake Merluccius merluccius 106 54 58 Blue whiting Micromesistius poutassou 104 71 0 Lemon sole Microstomus kitt 4 5 12 Ling Molva molva 152 111 88 Norway lobster Nephrops norvegicus 134 187 89 Northern shrimp Pandalus boralis 14 384 12 791 11 857 European plaice Pleuronectes platessa 62 91 202 Pollack Pollachius pollachius 30 44 42 Saithe Pollachius virens 3 277 2 754 3 684 Rays Rajidae 52 11 70 Redfish Sebastes Spp 2 2 1 Cephalopods Loliginidae, Octopodidae 2 2 3 Crustaceans Pandalus spp, Pasiphea spp 52 18 10 Other 86 28 31 Total 22 339 20 304 20 005

38 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

Table 4.1. Total effort (hours trawled) deployed and number of vessels by the Swedish and Danish fleets in the Natura 2000 site Bratten and the proposed no-take zones during 2011-2013. Sweden Denmark 2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013 Total effort (h) 10864 10318 9152 2098 4128 4913 N2000 Total effort (h) in 580 540 600 50 84 116 no-take zones No. vessels 41 41 47 38 40 33 N2000 No. vessels in no- 33 32 31 16 22 17 take zones

Table 4.2. Landings (kg) and value (euro) for Swedish vessels without VMS-signal and passive fisheries not included in the analysis but have been in the Bratten Natura 2000 site during 2011-2013. 2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013 Fleet Euro Euro Euro Kg Kg Kg Gillnet, demersal fish 203 55 Gillnet, mackrel 2768 39119 14846 815 11584 5842 Hand/Pole line 340 1808 379 100 557 168 Creel, Nephrops 3612 934 549 264 80 46 Mixed demersal trawl 2928 3794 22649 1138 890 6855 Nephrops trawl (grid) 3694 1014 270 85 Pandalus trawl 167460 71679 181751 19381 9010 21257 Pandalus trawl (grid) 161849 42463 5522 15994 3965 473 Totalt 342853 159796 226708 38017 26086 34726

39 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

Appendix 5. Danish fisheries data for the proposed no-take zones. Figure 5.a Danish VMS positions during 2011-2013, the whole area

40 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

Figure 5.b Danish VMS positions during 2011-2013, focus on no-take areas

41 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

Figure 5.3 Data on Danish landings from the Natura 2000 site Bratten

42 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

43 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

44 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

45 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

46 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

47 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

48 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

49 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

50 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

51 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

52 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

53 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

54 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

Appendix 6. Marine protected areas in Sweden Table 6.1. List of Swedish marine Natura 2000 sites, OSPAR and parts of HELCOM MPAs

Total Marine Area outside Area EEZ Site code Name area (ha) area (ha) 12 nm (ha) (ha) County Administrative Board SE0520173 Havstensfjorden-Svälte kile* 1259,33 1194,575 0 0 VÄSTRA GÖTALANDS LÄN SE0510064 Vallda Sandö 335,1903 16,57616 0 0 HALLANDS LÄN SE0520176 Pater Noster-skärgården 2415,843 2347,583 0 0 VÄSTRA GÖTALANDS LÄN SE0110325 Ledarön 230,5005 53,31192 0 0 STOCKHOLMS LÄN SE0520043 Nordre älvs estuarium* 7085,268 5512,468 0 0 VÄSTRA GÖTALANDS LÄN SE0520038 Härön 707,9439 371,0416 0 0 VÄSTRA GÖTALANDS LÄN SE0520053 Sundsby 362,9005 121,5283 0 0 VÄSTRA GÖTALANDS LÄN SE0410212 Gåsfeten 10,37426 8,684264 0 0 BLEKINGE LÄN SE0520188 Soteskär 299,4184 275,4584 0 0 VÄSTRA GÖTALANDS LÄN SE0520042 Ramsvikslandet 851,1081 118,2426 0 0 VÄSTRA GÖTALANDS LÄN SE0110086 Fjärdlång 5088,973 4531,457 0 0 STOCKHOLMS LÄN SE0110015 Sandemar 389,9012 157,6417 0 0 STOCKHOLMS LÄN SE0410176 Blötö-Kidö 82,00815 48,11971 0 0 BLEKINGE LÄN SE0110119 Stegsholm 108,8736 14,42796 0 0 STOCKHOLMS LÄN SE0510049 Getteröns fågelreservat 350,3978 97,13657 0 0 HALLANDS LÄN SE0330099 Björnö 121,543 1,650009 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0520048 Stenungsundskusten 2144,768 1797,162 0 0 VÄSTRA GÖTALANDS LÄN SE0510026 Steninge-Stensjöstrand 198,7354 59,5872 0 0 HALLANDS LÄN SE0410047 Björkeskärven 40,76754 32,49754 0 0 BLEKINGE LÄN SE0520036 Sälöfjorden 2869,044 1953,381 0 0 VÄSTRA GÖTALANDS LÄN SE0510050 Balgö 2143,341 1936,111 0 0 HALLANDS LÄN SE0110155 Ytteräng 69,27663 24,75042 0 0 STOCKHOLMS LÄN SE0510126 Lilla Middelgrund*, ** 17840,2 17840,2 15900,27425 0 HALLANDS LÄN & UTANFÖR TERRITORIALGRÄNSEN SE0330123 Värnanäs skärgård 1551,861 1450,105 0 0 KALMAR LÄN Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

SE0510084 Nidingen 727,985 715,365 0 0 HALLANDS LÄN SE0510187 Morups bank*, ** 565,8297 565,8297 0 0 HALLANDS LÄN SE0510048 Västra Getterön 176,5884 124,3781 0 0 HALLANDS LÄN SE0410113 Isaks kläpp 124,7192 121,0252 0 0 BLEKINGE LÄN SE0510051 Gamla Varberg 51,48018 0,822001 0 0 HALLANDS LÄN SE0520012 Älgön-Brattön 1187,046 880,6135 0 0 VÄSTRA GÖTALANDS LÄN SE0520126 Trossö-Kalvö-Lindö 891,0098 414,0765 0 0 VÄSTRA GÖTALANDS LÄN SE0520013 Ödsmåls Kile 237,4307 178,8496 0 0 VÄSTRA GÖTALANDS LÄN SE0330068 Lindö 131,6736 87,45714 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0510039 Grimsholmen 220,266 138,9164 0 0 HALLANDS LÄN SE0230378 Ramnö- och Utsättersfjärden 118,1638 29,66933 0 0 ÖSTERGÖTLANDS LÄN SE0110111 Huvudskär 2076,472 1989,819 0 0 STOCKHOLMS LÄN SE0230394 Södra Lunda 219,5408 206,5359 0 0 ÖSTERGÖTLANDS LÄN SE0520037 Breviks kile-Toftenäs 774,8191 459,2891 0 0 VÄSTRA GÖTALANDS LÄN SE0110080 Kålsö 204,9656 49,36025 0 0 STOCKHOLMS LÄN SE0410040 Utklippan 117,5845 105,5945 0 0 BLEKINGE LÄN SE0110002 Käringboda 1494,088 400,7829 0 0 STOCKHOLMS LÄN SE0510081 Morups tånge 207,396 118,5353 0 0 HALLANDS LÄN SE0420134 Stenshuvud 398,0944 100,2834 0 0 SKÅNE LÄN SE0520057 Malmöfjord 699,2431 674,6731 0 0 VÄSTRA GÖTALANDS LÄN SE0230090 Bråviken yttre 8752,566 8408,936 0 0 ÖSTERGÖTLANDS LÄN SE0510127 Fladen*, ** 10380,55 10380,55 3756,814333 0 HALLANDS LÄN & UTANFÖR TERRITORIALGRÄNSEN SE0110003 Tullgarn, ost 1635,906 365,5748 0 0 STOCKHOLMS LÄN SE0330158 Horsö-Värsnäs 471,4888 196,826 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0110118 Rånö Ängsholme 54,45362 10,37294 0 0 STOCKHOLMS LÄN SE0110199 Varnöfladen 257,9308 174,8719 0 0 STOCKHOLMS LÄN SE0520177 Jorefjorden 632,7158 478,7463 0 0 VÄSTRA GÖTALANDS LÄN SE0510058 Kungsbackafjorden*, ** 7862,859 6146,417 0 0 HALLANDS LÄN SE0510082 Gamla Köpstad 320,299 187,5176 0 0 HALLANDS LÄN

57 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

SE0520147 Sannäsfjorden 435,0575 408,004 0 0 VÄSTRA GÖTALANDS LÄN SE0340064 Brucebo 33,88222 3,249356 0 0 GOTLANDS LÄN SE0340114 Ålarve 175,2669 108,5471 0 0 GOTLANDS LÄN SE0820313 Båtöfjärden 930,4087 897,0387 0 0 NORRBOTTEN LÄN SE0820305 Likskäret 186,6245 70,6632 0 0 NORRBOTTEN LÄN SE0820322 Sikören 170,932 152,9606 0 0 NORRBOTTEN LÄN SE0820317 Furuholmen 34,44224 32,44224 0 0 NORRBOTTEN LÄN SE0820751 Marakallen** 5983,481 5983,481 0 0 NORRBOTTEN LÄN SE0820704 Rånefjärden 5703,328 5116,258 0 0 NORRBOTTEN LÄN SE0820035 Rödkallen-SörÄspen 7087,839 6244,156 0 0 NORRBOTTEN LÄN SE0820304 Bådan 1854,27 1811,083 0 0 NORRBOTTEN LÄN SE0820307 Norr-Äspen 581,6162 357,8084 0 0 NORRBOTTEN LÄN SE0820306 Kluntarna 713,6358 537,5557 0 0 NORRBOTTEN LÄN SE0820314 Harufjärden 2710,503 2628,913 0 0 NORRBOTTEN LÄN SE0110299 Katthavet 7,873739 0,02212 0 0 STOCKHOLMS LÄN SE0110096 Svenska Högarna** 2667,05 2560,72 0 0 STOCKHOLMS LÄN SE0110141 Furusundsfjärden 372,8479 348,2779 0 0 STOCKHOLMS LÄN SE0110140 Norrpada 32,22793 1,882012 0 0 STOCKHOLMS LÄN SE0110249 Lidö 245,2604 7,128623 0 0 STOCKHOLMS LÄN SE0110124 Svenska Björn 3980,204 3976,364 0 0 STOCKHOLMS LÄN SE0110041 Ängsö 194,8966 115,7666 0 0 STOCKHOLMS LÄN SE0110113 Riddersholm 614,5036 271,7733 0 0 STOCKHOLMS LÄN SE0110260 Samnäsfjärden 385,754 179,1153 0 0 STOCKHOLMS LÄN SE0110092 Stora Nassa** 2948,74 2663,65 0 0 STOCKHOLMS LÄN SE0110087 Villinge Boskapsö 339,7416 231,0904 0 0 STOCKHOLMS LÄN SE0110088 Bullerö-Bytta** 14314,47 13077,58 0 0 STOCKHOLMS LÄN SE0110211 Arsläjan 26,81679 1,23837 0 0 STOCKHOLMS LÄN SE0110284 Söderfladen 45,74848 11,2623 0 0 STOCKHOLMS LÄN SE0210228 Örskär 474,6258 155,5448 0 0 UPPSALA LÄN

58 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

SE0210257 Rävsten 61,30173 4,32682 0 0 UPPSALA LÄN SE0210019 Hållnäskusten 1449,265 1012,864 0 0 UPPSALA LÄN SE0210222 Ängskär, Bondskäret 387,7352 192,574 0 0 UPPSALA LÄN SE0210280 Björns skärgård 1120,711 932,0342 0 0 UPPSALA LÄN SE0210256 Idön 178,8644 69,82551 0 0 UPPSALA LÄN SE0210282 Gårdskärskusten 444,7241 142,9092 0 0 UPPSALA LÄN SE0210286 Långsandsörarna 279,0865 151,1 0 0 UPPSALA LÄN SE0210249 Högbådan 20,58218 7,681752 0 0 UPPSALA LÄN SE0210248 Grillskäret 25,0611 7,446162 0 0 UPPSALA LÄN SE0210052 Fagerön 506,8884 177,5214 0 0 UPPSALA LÄN SE0210212 Billudden 1896,884 1686,005 0 0 UPPSALA LÄN SE0210285 Ledskär 370,7034 190,5302 0 0 UPPSALA LÄN SE0210220 Kallriga 1149,291 670,7182 0 0 UPPSALA LÄN SE0210270 Slada 871,6772 292,762 0 0 UPPSALA LÄN SE0210227 Skaten-Rångsen 2232,181 1862,73 0 0 UPPSALA LÄN SE0210045 Hovön-Alnön 385,3914 226,8738 0 0 UPPSALA LÄN SE0220509 Kråmö 243,5808 208,4781 0 0 SÖDERMANLANDS LÄN SE0220218 Stendörren 901,8435 723,5961 0 0 SÖDERMANLANDS LÄN SE0220115 Marsviken-Marsäng 121,7619 67,80915 0 0 SÖDERMANLANDS LÄN SE0340153 Marpesträsk 151,1541 33,3019 0 0 GOTLANDS LÄN SE0630260 Finngrundet-Östra banken** 23151,22 23151,22 23151,22379 0 UTANFÖR TERRITORIALGRÄNSEN SE0630172 Gnarps Masugn 225,6552 94,64484 0 0 GÄVLEBORGS LÄN SE0630173 Gran 473,8376 411,6576 0 0 GÄVLEBORGS LÄN SE0220215 Bokö-Oxnö 327,9357 271,5882 0 0 SÖDERMANLANDS LÄN SE0220231 Rågö 1559,603 1318,781 0 0 SÖDERMANLANDS LÄN SE0220034 Tullgarn södra 2014,189 257,9701 0 0 SÖDERMANLANDS LÄN SE0220234 Persö 9,933819 0,997561 0 0 SÖDERMANLANDS LÄN SE0230370 Stora Rimmö 402,3465 378,2638 0 0 ÖSTERGÖTLANDS LÄN SE0230266 Uggleholmarna 50,78475 31,41475 0 0 ÖSTERGÖTLANDS LÄN

59 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

SE0230138 Åsvikelandet-Kvädö 6279,13 3669,133 0 0 ÖSTERGÖTLANDS LÄN SE0230261 Svensmarö 308,3504 207,1504 0 0 ÖSTERGÖTLANDS LÄN SE0230328 Missjö** 1832,87 1658,133 0 0 ÖSTERGÖTLANDS LÄN SE0430148 Lommabukten 219,7666 194,7386 0 0 SKÅNE LÄN SE0520058 Måseskär 1797,629 1754,559 0 0 VÄSTRA GÖTALANDS LÄN SE0430092 Kullaberg** 1357,962 364,0436 0 0 SKÅNE LÄN SE0430093 Sandhammaren-Kåseberga 1252,807 103,2335 0 0 SKÅNE LÄN SE0420232 Bjärekusten 631,1999 7,891991 0 0 SKÅNE LÄN SE0330273 Norra Midsjöbanken** 98353,6 98353,6 98353,60172 0 UTANFÖR TERRITORIALGRÄNSEN SE0330144 Tjusby sjömarker 60,56467 14,14894 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0420240 Ravlunda skjutfält 861,2845 132,0773 0 0 SKÅNE LÄN SE0430111 Falsterbo skjutfält 66,4263 16,28328 0 0 SKÅNE LÄN SE0330164 Rågö (Västerviks skärgård) 874,9923 627,7337 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0330266 Egby sjömarker 983,4189 721,8607 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0420138 Äspet 216,3917 101,4481 0 0 SKÅNE LÄN SE0430150 Vellinge ängar 395,1475 170,8805 0 0 SKÅNE LÄN SE0330265 Kapelludden 498,215 310,9276 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0430095 Falsterbohalvön** 42342,18 41277,11 0,946917 0 SKÅNE LÄN & UTANFÖR TERRITORIALGRÄNSEN SE0430149 Tygelsjö-Gessie 1159,392 972,3655 0 0 SKÅNE LÄN SE0330084 Södviken 2018,956 1424,557 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0330210 Viråns vattensystem 2235,128 16,47932 0 0 KALMAR LÄN Stora Middelgrund och Röde SE0510186 bank*, ** 11410 11410 11219,00882 191,016813 UTANFÖR TERRITORIALGRÄNSEN SE0330146 Husvalla sjömarker 1304,114 1119,792 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0330180 Furön 96,25098 54,81968 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0330109 Eckelsudde 424,8485 372,565 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0330191 Trässö 69,23379 16,15703 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0330108 Ottenby NR 2391,377 955,1626 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0330127 Virbo med Ekö 584,407 374,2745 0 0 KALMAR LÄN

60 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

SE0330126 Vållö 2748,563 2129,598 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0330189 Stora Grindö 779,5524 701,5667 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0330122 Trollskogen 265,7736 151,3629 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0330159 Örö Sankor 1076,681 1075,57 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0330190 Städsholmen 1261,004 1147,177 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0330052 Sladö-Äskeskär 2001,064 1747,729 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0330032 Örarevet 163,9798 110,6999 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0330132 Kvarntorpet 149,0051 34,33175 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0330024 Halltorp 199,8241 58,02176 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0330179 Blå Jungfrun 189,557 123,557 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0330186 Björkö 979,4278 681,251 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0330131 Segersgärde 552,6154 327,1624 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0330172 Lövö 784,5281 487,0712 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0330049 Misterhult 8494,929 6936,201 0 0 KALMAR LÄN Sankt Anna och Gryts 0 SE0230055 skärgårdar** 12884,09 11738,9 0 ÖSTERGÖTLANDS LÄN SE0330187 Jutskär 354,6025 318,5925 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0330196 Högby hamn 86,92678 44,45413 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0330154 Nabbelund 110,0846 58,29199 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0330218 Alsteråns vattensystem 2105,929 35,28939 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0330121 Bödakustens östra 1020,605 338,4094 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0330259 Yxnevik 40,89879 18,77101 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0340097 Gotska Sandön-Salvorev** 60494,69 56818,26 0,659994 0 GOTLANDS LÄN & UTANFÖR TERRITORIALGRÄNSEN SE0340144 Hoburgs bank** 122627,5 122627,5 110857,2682 0 GOTLANDS LÄN & UTANFÖR TERRITORIALGRÄNSEN SE0340025 Lilla Karlsö 936,7002 778,5402 0 0 GOTLANDS LÄN SE0340018 Ugnen 311,0672 173,524 0 0 GOTLANDS LÄN SE0340098 Grötlingboudd-Ytterholmen 535,0135 419,7809 0 0 GOTLANDS LÄN SE0340016 Hummelbosholm 233,7301 122,065 0 0 GOTLANDS LÄN SE0340017 Närsholmen 414,9791 224,0139 0 0 GOTLANDS LÄN

61 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

SE0230140 Väggö 225,0155 53,41235 0 0 ÖSTERGÖTLANDS LÄN SE0230192 Stjärnö-Fågelvik 36,12354 9,485926 0 0 ÖSTERGÖTLANDS LÄN SE0340023 Stora Karlsö 1176,771 932,1206 0 0 GOTLANDS LÄN SE0340010 Näsrevet 94,96683 83,23136 0 0 GOTLANDS LÄN SE0340149 Gannarveviken 36,88656 1,17183 0 0 GOTLANDS LÄN SE0340105 Södra Grötlingboudd 115,5671 6,760521 0 0 GOTLANDS LÄN SE0230395 Arnö (delar av) 131,974 74,18451 0 0 ÖSTERGÖTLANDS LÄN SE0520172 Idefjorden 880,4667 871,2566 0 0 VÄSTRA GÖTALANDS LÄN SE0520150 Tanumskusten 8274,074 6458,897 0 0 VÄSTRA GÖTALANDS LÄN SE0520025 Näverkärr 234,6149 100,0958 0 0 VÄSTRA GÖTALANDS LÄN SE0520020 Härmanö 1484,572 817,4824 0 0 VÄSTRA GÖTALANDS LÄN SE0630178 Sörsundet 93,90074 37,75558 0 0 GÄVLEBORGS LÄN SE0630139 Långvind 787,1424 592,4129 0 0 GÄVLEBORGS LÄN VÄSTERNORRLANDS LÄN & UTANFÖR SE0710225 Vänta Litets Grund** 15131,03 15131,03 1751,054798 0 TERRITORIALGRÄNSEN SE0520039 Strömmarna 452,1427 426,0453 0 0 VÄSTRA GÖTALANDS LÄN SE0520174 Halsefjorden 1211,677 1202,727 0 0 VÄSTRA GÖTALANDS LÄN SE0710016 Långharsholmen 108,0411 74,31345 0 0 VÄSTERNORRLANDS LÄN SE0630027 Eggegrund och Gråsjälsbådan 713,7691 668,2791 0 0 GÄVLEBORGS LÄN SE0710042 Högbonden 347,1923 256,7623 0 0 VÄSTERNORRLANDS LÄN SE0710143 Gnäggen 28,48473 25,98473 0 0 VÄSTERNORRLANDS LÄN SE0420233 Ängelholms kronopark 205,6729 57,69277 0 0 SKÅNE LÄN SE0430162 Saxåns mynning-Järavallen 1956,595 1944,313 0 0 SKÅNE LÄN SE0430147 Jonstorp-Vegeåns mynning 1280,021 1158,066 0 0 SKÅNE LÄN SE0430099 Skäldervikens östra klippkust** 143,0569 3,652545 0 0 SKÅNE LÄN SE0420002 Hallands Väderö** 1834,427 1505,307 0 0 SKÅNE LÄN SE0420239 Rinkaby skjutfält 775,3727 66,50354 0 0 SKÅNE LÄN SE0520133 Koster 1167,014 395,8571 0 0 VÄSTRA GÖTALANDS LÄN SE0430094 Ystads sandskog 142,784 74,30105 0 0 SKÅNE LÄN

62 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

SE0520034 Stigfjorden 4837,258 4517,013 0 0 VÄSTRA GÖTALANDS LÄN SE0820332 Holsterörarna 140,2807 117,1177 0 0 NORRBOTTEN LÄN SE0820310 Torne-Furö 218,9008 134,7708 0 0 NORRBOTTEN LÄN SE0820327 Kalix yttre skärgård 9296,383 9215,213 0 0 NORRBOTTEN LÄN SE0820734 Sarvenkataja 67,17597 44,94597 0 0 NORRBOTTEN LÄN SE0820303 Likskär 2508,745 2265,104 0 0 NORRBOTTEN LÄN SE0820301 Trutskär 67,64404 42,64795 0 0 NORRBOTTEN LÄN SE0820320 Haparanda Sandskär 998,7431 977,1031 0 0 NORRBOTTEN LÄN SE0820329 Patta Peken 1891,637 1857,597 0 0 NORRBOTTEN LÄN SE0820316 Massan 50,83153 42,18153 0 0 NORRBOTTEN LÄN SE0820631 Vargön 1493,545 929,6982 0 0 NORRBOTTEN LÄN SE0810441 Skallön 371,1854 141,9655 0 0 VÄSTERBOTTENS LÄN SE0810031 Rataskär 93,17179 43,82379 0 0 VÄSTERBOTTENS LÄN SE0810003 Snöanskärgården 5653,959 5399,059 0 0 VÄSTERBOTTENS LÄN SE0810002 Bonden 396,0866 392,5366 0 0 VÄSTERBOTTENS LÄN SE0810408 Brönsnäsviken 2,786474 2,370835 0 0 VÄSTERBOTTENS LÄN SE0810456 Klubben-Rickleån 87,12022 49,67986 0 0 VÄSTERBOTTENS LÄN SE0810365 Ostnäs 857,7001 649,9864 0 0 VÄSTERBOTTENS LÄN SE0820703 Kraaseli-Selkäkari 6,728215 4,003751 0 0 NORRBOTTEN LÄN SE0820735 Stora Hepokari 185,245 134,765 0 0 NORRBOTTEN LÄN SE0820302 Granholmen 101,2493 73,58205 0 0 NORRBOTTEN LÄN SE0820330 Vargödraget 353,6764 339,1864 0 0 NORRBOTTEN LÄN SE0820108 Haparanda skärgård** 7430,463 6686,783 0 0 NORRBOTTEN LÄN SE0820321 Riekkola-Välivaara 95,21668 3,776068 0 0 NORRBOTTEN LÄN SE0820710 Kraaseli 29,41651 22,21655 0 0 NORRBOTTEN LÄN SE0820712 Riekkola 10,8996 8,97976 0 0 NORRBOTTEN LÄN SE0820724 Malören 180,9926 129,1426 0 0 NORRBOTTEN LÄN SE0520001 Vrångöskärgården 7003,413 6606,131 0 0 VÄSTRA GÖTALANDS LÄN SE0630155 Stenöorn 56,44591 39,27743 0 0 GÄVLEBORGS LÄN

63 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

VÄSTRA GÖTALANDS LÄN & UTANFÖR SE0520189 Bratten* 120878 120878 115147,6151 631,073737 TERRITORIALGRÄNSEN SE0630263 Finngrundet-Norra banken 1338,157 1338,157 1338,157255 0 UTANFÖR TERRITORIALGRÄNSEN UPPSALA LÄN & GÄVLEBORGS LÄN & UTANFÖR SE0630262 Finngrundet -Västra banken 8315,008 8315,008 6382,605063 0 TERRITORIALGRÄNSEN SE0810519 Sydostbrotten 4337,372 4337,372 0 0 VÄSTERBOTTENS LÄN SE0110158 Järflotta 179,3746 26,04788 0 0 STOCKHOLMS LÄN SE0110085 Utö 4184,374 3524,457 0 0 STOCKHOLMS LÄN SE0340164 Sandviken 23,49368 13,87575 0 0 GOTLANDS LÄN SE0420275 Tostebergakusten 1585,74 1091,836 0 0 SKÅNE LÄN SE0420276 Östra Hammaren-Käringören 387,2432 239,85 0 0 SKÅNE LÄN SE0430082 Möllehässle-Kullens havsbad 245,699 149,9719 0 0 SKÅNE LÄN SE0410062 Valje 90,9297 47,8492 0 0 BLEKINGE LÄN SE0410092 Haglö 160,571 120,531 0 0 BLEKINGE LÄN SE0410206 Ivö 75,92682 63,57913 0 0 BLEKINGE LÄN SE0410098 Järkö 124,172 76,58822 0 0 BLEKINGE LÄN SE0410233 Elleholm 231,1228 184,9947 0 0 BLEKINGE LÄN SE0410134 Tjärö 300,6221 222,0486 0 0 BLEKINGE LÄN SE0410224 Utlängan 63,18667 0,226763 0 0 BLEKINGE LÄN SE0410100 Senora Svenö 87,79685 64,12685 0 0 BLEKINGE LÄN SE0410097 Hallarum 50,7526 7,425148 0 0 BLEKINGE LÄN SE0410089 Sonekulla 62,38534 17,13155 0 0 BLEKINGE LÄN SE0410225 Sandhamn 26,79015 9,940435 0 0 BLEKINGE LÄN SE0410104 Torhamns udde** 510,9582 380,7389 0 0 BLEKINGE LÄN SE0410042 Tromtö-Almö 3316,532 2303,912 0 0 BLEKINGE LÄN SE0410133 Tärnö-Yttre Ekö 105,9736 76,03355 0 0 BLEKINGE LÄN SE0410163 Tärnö-Harö-Brorsö 491,9523 378,0758 0 0 BLEKINGE LÄN SE0410125 Fölsö 42,28851 35,43851 0 0 BLEKINGE LÄN SE0410205 Vambåsanäs 139,918 17,08612 0 0 BLEKINGE LÄN

64 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

SE0410068 Pukaviksbukten 8864,781 8845,96 0 0 BLEKINGE LÄN SE0410094 Skärva 234,3755 68,40863 0 0 BLEKINGE LÄN SE0410156 Sillnäs 117,9558 44,30545 0 0 BLEKINGE LÄN SE0410158 Hanö 247,6575 54,63909 0 0 BLEKINGE LÄN SE0410211 Vångsö-Biskopsmåla 83,51177 1,862074 0 0 BLEKINGE LÄN SE0410181 Stora Hammar-Varö-Lillö 486,3975 362,8219 0 0 BLEKINGE LÄN SE0410174 Gömarken 114,4758 2,89101 0 0 BLEKINGE LÄN SE0410046 Bräkne-Hoby skärgård 214,66 174,1821 0 0 BLEKINGE LÄN SE0410128 Mörrumsån 171,2278 16,92315 0 0 BLEKINGE LÄN SE0410101 Uttorp 76,19829 7,012061 0 0 BLEKINGE LÄN SE0330119 Bödakustens västra 741,4424 248,6032 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0330143 Störlinge sjömarker 218,6142 55,05431 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0330063 Horns Kungsgård 946,0311 204,6486 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0330106 Storö 452,1722 322,5319 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0330174 Sydöstra Ölands sjömarker 8866,85 6006,866 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0330253 Södra Malmö 1804,617 1331,926 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0330205 Strandskogen 158,1664 38,84233 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0330206 Strandtorp 131,2132 22,47667 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0330264 Åkerby-Runstens sjömarker 1118,857 768,9366 0 0 KALMAR LÄN SE0630028 Harkskärsfjärden 348,9357 186,163 0 0 GÄVLEBORGS LÄN SE0630165 Testeboåns delta 122,6777 57,26478 0 0 GÄVLEBORGS LÄN SE0630166 Axmar-Gåsholma** 5599,585 4260,728 0 0 GÄVLEBORGS LÄN SE0630240 Vitgrund-Norrskär 322,819 280,599 0 0 GÄVLEBORGS LÄN SE0630239 Limön 155,726 104,858 0 0 GÄVLEBORGS LÄN SE0630026 Orarna 701,4603 404,8343 0 0 GÄVLEBORGS LÄN SE0630068 Agön-Kråkön 4622,331 3309,309 0 0 GÄVLEBORGS LÄN SE0630170 Vitörarna 154,1987 99,3183 0 0 GÄVLEBORGS LÄN SE0630094 Kuggörarna 50,76479 25,79825 0 0 GÄVLEBORGS LÄN SE0630089 Hölick 597,9527 288,7505 0 0 GÄVLEBORGS LÄN

65 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

SE0710152 Stornäset 107,0422 64,3925 0 0 VÄSTERNORRLANDS LÄN SE0710056 Trysunda 1051,769 654,0091 0 0 VÄSTERNORRLANDS LÄN SE0710224 Indalsälvens delta 146,6053 124,4263 0 0 VÄSTERNORRLANDS LÄN SE0710199 Grönviksmyran 53,46657 12,2402 0 0 VÄSTERNORRLANDS LÄN SE0810407 Röjtingssundet 6,779728 6,594762 0 0 VÄSTERBOTTENS LÄN SE0810034 Bjuröklubb 954,7707 360,7297 0 0 VÄSTERBOTTENS LÄN SE0810010 Holmöarna** 24209,61 20583,11 0 0 VÄSTERBOTTENS LÄN SE0810011 Skeppsviksskärgården 790,9125 693,7329 0 0 VÄSTERBOTTENS LÄN SE0810009 Strömbäck-Kont 476,928 234,8526 0 0 VÄSTERBOTTENS LÄN SE0810033 Hertsånger 751,3417 218,6061 0 0 VÄSTERBOTTENS LÄN SE0810001 Kronören** 5796,365 4469,082 0 0 VÄSTERBOTTENS LÄN SE0810491 Umeälvens delta 2005,75 1136,08 0 0 VÄSTERBOTTENS LÄN SE0410099 Hästholmen-Öppenskär 1151,042 758,321 0 0 BLEKINGE LÄN SE0230126 Svensksundsviken 1977,156 1303,892 0 0 ÖSTERGÖTLANDS LÄN SE0230142 Bokö 414,9913 324,6181 0 0 ÖSTERGÖTLANDS LÄN SE0220439 Askö** 1526,041 987,1906 0 0 SÖDERMANLANDS LÄN SE0220028 Hävringe-Källskären 11104,52 11063,42 0 0 SÖDERMANLANDS LÄN SE0220020 Strandstuviken 989,6075 641,9161 0 0 SÖDERMANLANDS LÄN SE0220129 Skärgårdsreservaten 8811,136 6991,729 0 0 SÖDERMANLANDS LÄN SE0220124 Horsvik 14,0684 1,32688 0 0 SÖDERMANLANDS LÄN SE0820004 Stor-Räbben 4183,363 3566,204 0 0 NORRBOTTEN LÄN SE0820324 Hästholmen 32,20665 20,96971 0 0 NORRBOTTEN LÄN SE0820629 Bondöfjärden 2955,838 2450,118 0 0 NORRBOTTEN LÄN SE0520170 Kosterfjorden-Väderöfjorden* 54016,03 52653,92 0 0 VÄSTRA GÖTALANDS LÄN SE0520171 Gullmarsfjorden* 11395,01 11287,16 0 0 VÄSTRA GÖTALANDS LÄN SE0520175 Åbyfjorden 1061,012 867,9576 0 0 VÄSTRA GÖTALANDS LÄN SE0110005 Häringe-Hammersta 1155,847 486,0858 0 0 STOCKHOLMS LÄN SE0110147 Tullviksbäcken 197,1379 100,8246 0 0 STOCKHOLMS LÄN SE0810440 Kågefjärdens havsstrandängar 38,05363 17,93364 0 0 VÄSTERBOTTENS LÄN

66 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

SE0410088 Järnavik 151,4878 61,95702 0 0 BLEKINGE LÄN SE0410071 Stärnö 213,14 44,96115 0 0 BLEKINGE LÄN SE0410114 Knösö 67,04474 29,13452 0 0 BLEKINGE LÄN SE0410124 Bockön-Mjöön 301,9199 271,1899 0 0 BLEKINGE LÄN SE0420274 Edenryd 516,179 332,2766 0 0 SKÅNE LÄN Beijershamn och SE0330054 Svansholmarna 653,4612 510,8184 0 0 KALMAR LÄN * OSPAR MPA

** HELCOM MPA

Appendix 7. Overview of the 11 information items in the Commission guidelines from 2008 The table below gives an overview of how the present proposal has covered the 11 information items of the Commission´s guidelines from 2008 concerning development of proposals for fisheries management measures in marine Natura 2000 within the scope of the CFP.

Section

1) Comprehensive description of the natural features including distribution within the 3,6 site. 2) Scientific rationale for the site's selection in accordance with the information provided in the Natura 2000 data form. Intrinsic value of its features. Specific 4, 6.2 conservation objectives. 3) Basis for the spatial extent of the site boundary clearly justified in terms of 4, 9.2 conservation objectives.

4) Threats to habitats and species from different types of fishing gear. List of other 8 human activities in the area that could damage the habitats. 5) Fleet activity in the area and in the region, distribution of fleets (by nation, gear and species), and information on target and by-catch species, all over the last 3 7 years.

6) Seasonal trends in fisheries over the last 3 years. 7.1

7) Proposed fisheries management measures to maintain the habitats features in favourable condition. Are they proportionate and enforceable? Other conservation 9 measures that apply to the area. 8) Control measures envisaged by the Member State, possible ecological and control buffer zones to ensure site protection and/or effective control and monitoring 4, 9.3 measures. 9) Measures to monitor and assess the maintenance and/or recovery of the features 10 within the site.

10) Coordination with neighbouring Member States as appropriate. 5

11) Evaluation of possible displacement of fishing effort and impact on new areas. 9.5

Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

Appendix 8. Overview of formal and informal consultations The County Administrative Board of Västra Götaland has held a number of formal and informal consultations with various stakeholders. The table below lists meetings and consultations held in relation to the present proposal. This table will be developed.

Date Consultation Participants May 2012 First meeting presenting the Representatives from Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten. and Danish commercial fisheries, the Danish AgriFish Agency, the Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries, the University of Gothenburg, the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, the County Administrative Board of Västra Götaland and the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management. June 2012 A meeting aimed at discussing Representatives from the conservation needs in the Swedish Anglers’ Association, Natura 2000 site Bratten in the County Administrative relation to recreational Board of Västra Götaland and fisheries, both commercial the Swedish Agency for Marine fishing trips and other and Water Management. recreational fisheries. December 2012 Discussion on conservation Representatives from the needs in relation to Swedish Anglers’ Association, recreational fisheries in the the County Administrative Natura 2000 site Bratten Board of Västra Götaland and the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management. January 2013 Discussion of state of play in Representatives from the relation to Natura 2000 and Danish AgriFish Agency and the sites located in the Kattegat- Swedish Agency for Marine and Skagerrak area and other Water Management. Natura 2000 sites January 2013 Discussion on possible Representatives from Swedish conservation measures and Danish commercial concerning commercial fisheries, the County fisheries Administrative Board of Västra Götaland and the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management. February 2013 Information at a public meeting Members of the Swedish concerning the Natura 2000 Anglers’ Association and the site Bratten and proposed Swedish Agency for Marine and conservation measures. Water Management. March 2013 Discussion on possible Representatives from Swedish conservation measures and Danish commercial concerning recreational fisheries, NGO´s, Members of

69 Proposal for fisheries management measures in the Swedish Natura 2000 site Bratten – DRAFT

fisheries at a workshop aiming the Swedish Anglers’ for a sustainable use of the Association, the County Natura 2000 site Bratten Administrative Board of Västra discussing the proposed and Götaland and the Swedish additional conservation Agency for Marine and Water measures. Management. October 2013 The proposed conservation Response was given by measures were out on a public organizations representing hearing during the autumn Swedish and Danish 2013. commercial fisheries, the Swedish Anglers’ Association, the Danish AgriFish Agency, the Swedish Coast Guard, WWF, the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, Oceana, the Swedish Species Information Center, the municipalities of Sotenäs, Tanum and Strömstad (Tillväxt Norra Bohuslän)

About DNV GL Driven by our purpose of safeguarding life, property and the environment, DNV GL enables organizations to advance the safety and sustainability of their business. We provide classification and technical assurance along with software and independent expert advisory services to the maritime, oil and gas, and energy industries. We also provide certification services to customers across a wide range of industries. Operating in more than 100 countries, our 16,000 professionals are dedicated to helping our customers make the world safer, smarter and greener.