Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea Cod, Haddock and Saithe Assessment Data Sheet

Marine Stewardship Council fisheries assessments

Lloyd’s Register 6 Redheughs Rigg South Gyle Edinburgh, EH12 9DQ United Kingdom T +44 (0)131 619 2100 E [email protected] www.lr.org

Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Announcement Comment Draft Report

Conformity Assessment Body (CAB) Lloyd’s Register

Assessment team Geir Honneland, Giuseppe Scarcella & Deirdre Hoare

Fishery client Norebo Group

Assessment type Reduced Reassessment

Date April 2021

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe Assessment Data Sheet

CAB details Lloyd’s Register Address 6 Redheughs Rigg Edinburgh EH12 9DQ Phone/Fax +44 (0)131 619 2100 Email [email protected] Contact name Kate Morris

Client details Address Norebo Overseas Holding Ltd. / Norebo Group Room 1905, 19/F, Allied Kajima Building, 138 Glocester Road, Wanchai, Hong Kong SAR Phone/Fax Email Sergey Sennikov Contact name(s) [email protected]

Assessment Team Team Leader Geir Honneland P1 Assessor Giuseppe Scarcella P2 Assessor Deirdre Hoare P3 Assessor Geir Honneland

Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820, page 2 of 244 www.lr.org

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Assessment Data Sheet...... 2 1.1 List of Tables ...... 6 1.2 List of Figures ...... 7 2 Glossary ...... 9 3 Executive summary ...... 10 4 Report details ...... 12 4.1 Authorship and peer review details ...... 12 4.2 Peer Reviewers ...... 13 4.3 RBF Training ...... 13 4.4 Version details ...... 14 5 Unit(s) of Assessment and Unit(s) of Certification and results overview ...... 15 5.1 Unit(s) of Assessment and Unit(s) of Certification ...... 15 5.1.1 Unit(s) of Assessment ...... 15 5.1.2 Unit(s) of Certification ...... 16 5.2 Assessment results overview...... 17 5.2.1 Determination, formal conclusion and agreement ...... 17 5.2.2 Principle level scores...... 17 5.2.3 Summary of conditions ...... 18 5.2.4 Recommendations ...... 18 6 Traceability and eligibility ...... 19 6.1 Eligibility date ...... 19 6.2 Traceability within the fishery ...... 19 6.3 Eligibility to enter further chains of custody ...... 20 7 Scoring ...... 21 7.1 Summary of Performance Indicator level scores ...... 21 7.2 Principle 1 ...... 22 7.2.1 Principle 1 background ...... 22 7.2.1.1 Cod (Gadus morhua) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic) ...... 22 7.2.1.2 Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic) .. 28 7.2.1.3 Saithe (Pollachius virens) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic) ...... 32 7.2.1.5 Fisheries management and data collection in Barents Sea ...... 36 7.2.2 Catch profiles ...... 40 7.2.3 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data ...... 40 7.2.4 Principle 1 Performance Indicator scores and rationales ...... 41 ...... 41 ...... 43 ...... 45 ...... 49

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820, page 3 of 244 www.lr.org

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe ...... 52 ...... 55 ...... 58 ...... 60 ...... 62 ...... 66 ...... 69 ...... 72 ...... 75 ...... 78 ...... 80 ...... 83 ...... 86 ...... 89 7.2.5 Principle 1 - References ...... 92 7.3 Principle 2 ...... 94 7.3.1 Principle 2 background ...... 94 7.3.2 Primary species ...... 97 7.3.3 Secondary species ...... 100 7.3.4 Unwanted catch and unobserved mortality ...... 101 7.3.5 ETP Species ...... 102 7.3.6 Habitats ...... 112 7.3.7 Ecosystem ...... 142 7.3.8 Scoring elements ...... 147 7.3.9 Principle 2 Performance Indicator scores and rationales...... 149 ...... 149 ...... 151 ...... 156 ...... 158 ...... 161 ...... 164 ...... 166 ...... 170 ...... 174 ...... 176 ...... 181 ...... 185 ...... 188 ...... 190 ...... 193 7.4 P2 References ...... 195

MSC FCP v2.2 Reporting Template v1.2 LR 05112020, page 4 of 244 www.lr.org

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe 7.5 Principle 3 ...... 199 7.5.1 Principle 3 background ...... 199 7.5.2 Principle 3 background ...... 199 Principle 3 Performance Indicator scores and rationales ...... 205 ...... 205 ...... 209 ...... 213 ...... 215 ...... 217 ...... 221 ...... 225 8 Appendices ...... 228 8.1 Assessment information ...... 228 8.1.1 Previous assessments ...... 228 8.1.2 Small-scale fisheries ...... 229 8.2 Evaluation processes and techniques ...... 230 8.2.1 Site visits ...... 230 8.2.2 Stakeholder participation ...... 230 8.2.3 Evaluation techniques ...... 230 8.3 Peer Review reports ...... 231 8.4 Stakeholder input ...... 233 8.5 MSC Technical Oversight ...... 234 8.6 Conditions – delete if not applicable ...... 235 8.7 Client Action Plan ...... 235 8.8 Surveillance ...... 236 8.9 Harmonised fishery assessments ...... 237 8.9.1 MSC Directions for harmonisation between overlapping MSC fisheries ...... 237 8.10 Objection Procedure – delete if not applicable ...... 243 9 Template information and copyright ...... 244

MSC FCP v2.2 Reporting Template v1.2 LR 05112020, page 5 of 244 www.lr.org

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe 1.1 List of Tables Table 1. Fisheries program documents versions ...... 14 Table 2 – Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) ...... 15 Table 3 – Unit(s) of Certification (UoC) ...... 16 Table 4 - Principle level scores ...... 17 Table 5 - Summary of conditions ...... 18 Table 6 - Traceability within the fishery ...... 19 Table 7 – Summary of Performance Indicator level scores ...... 21 Table 8: Cod in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). Basis of the assessment and advice. Source: http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2019/2019/cod.27.1-2.pdf ...... 23 Table 9: Cod in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). ICES advice, agreed TACs, and the official and ICES catches. All weights are in tonnes. Source: Source: ICES 2020b, https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5909 ...... 24 Table 10: Haddock in subareas 1 and 2. Basis of the assessment and advice. Source: ICES 2020c, had.27.1-2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5948 ...... 29 Table 11: Haddock in subareas 1 and 2. ICES advice, TACs, and official and ICES landings. All weights are in tonnes. Source: ICES 2020c, had.27.1-2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5948 ...... 30 Table 12: Saithe in subareas 1 and 2. Basis of the assessment and advice. Source: http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2019/2019/pok.27.1-2.pdf ...... 34 Table 13: Saithe in subareas 1 and 2. ICES advice, TAC and catches. All weights are in tonnes. Source: ICES 2020e, 27.1-2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5831...... 34 Table 14. Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data ...... 40 Table 15 Catches of commercial species caught in ICES area 1 and 2 in 2017 – 2019 (tonnes live weight). (Source: Client information January 2021) ...... 96 Table 16 MSC-log for 2019 (Source: client information January 2021; all specimen/ species are released after recording) ...... 96 Table 17 Primary species recorded in the catch ...... 97 Table 18 – Scoring elements ...... 98 Table 19 ETP present in Northeast Arctic (ICES Sub Areas 1, 2a, 2b) ...... 102 Table 20. Interactions of Norebo vessels with ETP species during 2016- 2019 ...... 110 Table 21 Habitats encountered by UoA 1, 2 and 3 - Norwegian and Barents Sea...... 112 Table 22 Habitat definitions as per the MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements v2.01...... 113 Table 23. Substratum, geomorphology and biota descriptors for commonly encountered and minor habitats the fleet under assessment...... 116 Table 24 VMEs relevant to the assessment ...... 124 Table 25 ...... 179 Table 26 - Summary of previous assessment conditions ...... 228 Table 27 – Small-scale fisheries ...... 229 Table 30: Condition 1 ...... 235 Table 31: Fishery surveillance program ...... 236 Table 32: Timing of surveillance audit ...... 236 Table 33: Surveillance level justification ...... 236 Table 1: MSC directions for harmonisation between overlapping MSC fisheries ...... 237 Table 2: Overlapping fisheries...... 239 Table 3: Overlapping fisheries information ...... 240 Table 4: Comparison of scoring elements with overlapping MSC fisheries [green shading indicates overlapping elements] 241 Table 5: Scoring differences ...... 242 Table 6: Rationale for scoring differences ...... 242

MSC FCP v2.2 Reporting Template v1.2 LR 05112020, page 6 of 244 www.lr.org

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

1.2 List of Figures Figure 1: Cod in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). Catch, recruitment, F, and SSB. Confidence intervals (95%) are indicated in the plots for recruitment, F, and SSB. For this stock, FMGT ranges from 0.40 to 0.60 and there are three SSBMGT values (460 000 tonnes, 920 000 and 1 380 000 tonnes) which are not shown. (Source: ICES 2020b, https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5909)...... 23 Figure 2: Haddock in subareas 1 and 2. Summary of the stock assessment (weights in thousand tonnes). Confidence intervals (95%) for recruitment, F, and SSB are shown in the plots. For this stock, FMGT = FMSY and SSBMGT = MSY Btrigger = Bpa; therefore, the horizontal lines representing these points in the graph overlap. Source: ICES 2020c, had.27.1-2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5948 ...... 30 Figure 3: Saithe in subareas 1 and 2. Historical development of the stock from the summary of stock assessment (weights in thousand tonnes). Uncertainty boundaries (95%) for recruitment (R), fishing mortality (F), and spawning- stock biomass (SSB) are shown in the plots. Predicted recruitment values are not shaded. Source: ICES 2020e, 27.1- 2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5831...... 33 Figure 4: Long-term yield (top panel) and SSB (bottom panel) of NEA saithe based on population simulations across a range of fully recruited (ages 4 – 7) fishing mortality; from ICES (2011) ...... 76 Figure 5 Permanent closed area around Bear Island (in orange). The figure also includes temporary closed areas for the shrimp fishery (in red) and for the cod fishery (in green) in 2005. (Source: Gullestad et al., 2015) ...... 95 Figure 6 Distribution of toothed whales in August-October. 2018 (left) and 2019 (right) (Source IMR-PINRO ecosystem survey 2019) ...... 104 Figure 7 Distribution of baleen whales in August- October: 2018 (left) and 2019 (right) (Source IMR-PINRO ecosystem survey 2019)...... 105 Figure 8 Major seabird colonies in the Barents Sea. Data compiled from SEAPOP (www.seapop.no), Fauchald et al. (2015), Anker-Nilssen et al. 2000 and The Seabird Colony Registry of the Barents and White Seas. (source: www.Barentsportal.com) ...... 107 Figure 9 Size and trends of puffin, guillemots and kittiwake populations in the Western Barents Sea (Norway and Svalbard incl. Bjørnøya). Data from Fauchald et al. (2015). (Source: www.Barentsportal.com) ...... 108 Figure 10 Development in the breeding populations of black-legged kittiwake, common guillemot, and Atlantic puffin in the Norwegian part of the Norwegian Sea in the period 1980–2013...... 109 Figure 11 Seabed sediments of the Barents Sea. Source: Lepland Aivo, Rybalko Aleksandr & Lepland Aave 2014: Seabed Sediments of the Barents Sea. Scale 1:3 000 000. Geological Survey of Norway (Trondheim) and SEVMORGEO (St. Petersburg)...... 114 Figure 12 Major substrates in the Norwegian Sea ecoregion (compiled by EMODNET seabed habitats; www.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu)...... 115 Figure 13 General Biotopes in the Norwegian Sea http://mareano.no/kart/mareano_en.html?language=en&selectedLayers=484,471,431,631,647#maps/4773 ... 116 Figure 14 Barentsportal map showing the broad scale distribution of Barents Sea biotopes (Source: Dolan et al. 2015) ...... 118 Figure 15 The number of main taxa per megabenthic groups (%) in the Barents Sea, August-October 2017(left) and 2018 (right). (Source IMR/PINRO 2019) ...... 119 Figure 16 The number of megabenthic taxa per trawl-catch in the Barents Sea, August-October 2017- 2018. (Source: IMR/PINRO 2019) ...... 119 Figure 17 The main benthos group distribution (in biomass). The data are the integrated mean for the period 2009-2014 (Source: Jørgensen et al 2019) ...... 120 Figure 18. Bottom-contacting otter-trawl tow tracks in the Barents Sea, overlain with the ICES VME index (based on all records for the area) and the likelihood of encountering a VME within each grid cell (ranging from low to high) [Source: ICES 2020] ...... 121 Figure 19. Area covered by the MAREANO program. Red area shows MAREANO survey stations. Source: www.mareano.no ...... 122 Figure 20 Vulnerable biotopes as identified by the MAREANO program. Source www.mareano.no ...... 122 Figure 21 Distribution of coral reefs, mostly but not only Lophelia pertusa, on the continental shelf of the Norwegian Sea. All fishing is prohibited within the protected areas (red rectangles) (MAREANO, 2020)...... 123 Figure 22 Distribution of coral reef and hard bottom coral garden in SW Barents and Norwegian Seas (Source: Mareano, http://www.mareano.no/kart/mareano.html#maps/3252) ...... 125 Figure 23 Areas under consideration for voluntary closure to bottom trawl fishing...... 127 Figure 24 . Bycatch of non-target species (all species) 2019 ...... 128 Figure 25. Bycatch of non-target species (benthic invertebrates)...... 129 Figure 26 Bycatch of non-target species (echinoderms) ...... 130 Figure 27. Bycatch of non-target species (Arthropods) ...... 131 Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group.

MSC FCP v2.2 Reporting Template v1.2 LR 05112020, page 7 of 244 www.lr.org

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe Figure 28. Bycatch of non-target species (fish) ...... 132 Figure 29. Bycatch of non-target species (Sea birds) ...... 133 Figure 30 Newly closed areas (red) under regulation J-61-2019 (Source: https://kart.fiskeridir.no/fiskeinord)134 Figure 31 Location of Russian and foreign fishing activity from commercial fleets and fishing vessels used for research purposes in 2017 as reported (VMS) to Russian authorities. These are VMS data linked with logbook data (source: PINRO Fishery statistics database): http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/index.php/en/status-2019/272-human-activity-data-from- 2018/fisheries-and-other-harvesting-2018/957-anthropogenic-impact-fishing-activity)...... 135 Figure 32. Catches by gear over time in the Barents Sea (Source: ‘Sea around us’ (http://www.seaaroundus.org/data/#/lme/20?chart=catch-chart&dimension=gear&measure=tonnage&limit=10 site accessed 9 February 2021) ...... 136 Figure 33 ICES subareas 1 and 2. Fishing effort (1000 kW hours-at-sea) in 2014–2018 by gear type. For vessels over 15 m in length only. Data are missing for the Russian fleet, and for the Norwegian fleet in 2018 (Source: ICES BS Fisheries overview Nov 2020) ...... 137 Figure 34 Surface and subsurface abrasion pressure expressed as the swept-area ratio from VMS data from 2014-2017 in the Barents Sea ICES ecoregion. Russian fishing effort is not included (ICES, 2019)...... 138 Figure 35 Modelled benthic community recovery rates following single trawling event (research undertaken in the North Sea). (Source: Hiddink et al 2006) ...... 139 Figure 36 Map of the minimum recovery time (years) in the Barents Sea. (Source: Lubin 2013) ...... 140 Figure 37 Barents Sea ecoregion (in yellow) Source: ICES 2019 Barents Sea Ecosystem fisheries overviews...... 143 Figure 38 Interactions between commercial species and their prey in the Barents Sea foodweb. The arrows indicate central predator prey relationships, with the arrows pointing from predator to prey (Source: ICES Nov 2019, Barents Sea fisheries overview)...... 145 Figure 39 The Norwegian Sea ecoregion, showing EEZs and depth contours...... 145 Figure 40 Representation of fishing activity in the Norwegian Sea by (a) the Norwegian fleets (larger than 15 m) in 2014 with pelagic trawls (red dots), bottom trawls (blue dots), gillnets (light green), longlines (green), and seines (orange) (Source Directorate of Fisheries https://www.fiskeridir.no/) ...... 146 Figure 41. Time-series of average of relative fishing mortality (F to FMSY ratio) for Northeast Atlantic mackerel (Mac-nea), Norwegian spring-spawning herring (her.27.1-24a514a), and blue whiting (whb.27.1), based on ICES 2018 assessments. (ICES, 219d) ...... 147

MSC FCP v2.2 Reporting Template v1.2 LR 05112020, page 8 of 244 www.lr.org

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe 2 Glossary

ACFM Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management (ICES) AFWG Arctic Fisheries Working Group (ICES) BBTA Barents Sea and White Sea Territorial Administration (of the Federal Fisheries Agency, Russia) (name changed to Severomorsk Territorial Administration in 2019) CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora CMS Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals CV Coefficient of Variation ETP Endangered, threatened or protected species FFA Federal Fisheries Agency (Russia) FSB Federal Security Service (Russia) ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea IMR Institute of Marine Research (Norway) JNRFC Joint Norwegian–Russian Fisheries Commission MSE Management Strategy Evaluation MSY Maximum sustainable yield NAFO Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation NAMMCO North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission NEAFC North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission NEZ Norwegian Economic Zone NMTIF Norwegian Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries PINRO Knipovich Polar Research Institute for Marine Fisheries and Oceanography (since 2019: Polar branch of VNIRO) (Russia) REZ Russian Economic Zone SAM State-spaced Assessment Model STECF Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (European Commission) TAC Total allowable catch VME Vulnerable marine ecosystems VMS Vessel monitoring system VNIRO All-Russian Research Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography

MSC FCP v2.2 Reporting Template v1.2 LR 05112020, page 9 of 244 www.lr.org

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe 3 Executive summary

Draft determination to be completed at Public Comment Draft Report stage

» This report is the Announcement Comment Draft Report (ACDR) which provides details of the MSC assessment process for the fishery for . The process begins with publication of the ACDR on 26th of April and was concluded (to be determined at a later date). » A review of information presented by the client has been scored by the assessment team – please note this does not represent a final scoring outcome or a certification decision. » The scoring presented in this report has not been reviewed by stakeholders, peer reviewers or the client – these steps will all take place from here onwards. Insert site visit details. (for reports beyond ACDR remove opportunity for consultation). » Stakeholders are encouraged to review the scoring presented in this assessment and use the Stakeholder Input Form to provide evidence to the team of where changes to scoring are necessary. » All stakeholder comments will be published ahead of the site visit. Stakeholders can meet with the assessment team during the remote site visit scheduled for 27, 28 and 31 May 2021. » The Target Eligibility Date for this assessment is the date of re-certification

The assessment team for this fishery assessment comprised of Geir Honneland, who acted as team leader and primary Principle 3 specialist; Giuseppe Scarcella who was primarily responsible for evaluation of Principle 1 and Deirdre Hoare who was primarily responsible for evaluation of Principle 2.

Client strengths » Norebo is a well-established fishery actor in the Barents Sea. It is well integrated in the management process in Russia and at the bilateral level with Norway. » Two of the target stocks are joint Norwegian-Russian stock, managed by the Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission, which is generally considered to be a very effective management regime. The third stock is managed by Norway alone, which is also considered to have a well-established and well-functioning management regime.

» The stock status of each species is relatively good. It has been above BMSY or at Bpa for many years. » There is extensive and detailed bycatch recording using software, making it possible to generate maps and help with time series distributions of benthic species. » The fishery largely takes place in the Norwegian Exclusive Economic Zone, where the Norwegian Coast Guard carries out monitoring and inspections. The Norwegian enforcement system is generally considered to be comprehensive and effective.

Client weaknesses » No particular weaknesses have been identified at ACDR stage.

Summary of Key Issues for Further Investigation » Unwanted catches (PI 1.2.1 – all three species) » Monitoring of UoA removals (PI 1.2.3 – all three species) » Evidence of MSC Log and move on rule (PI 2.2.2) » Information gap about ETP species and what information is being sought (PI 2.3.3) » Information on benthic mapping (PI 2.4.2) » Implementation of voluntary closed areas (PI 2.4.2) » Continued implementation of software to record by-catch (PI 2.4.3) » Understanding of functions, roles and responsibilities in the management system for all areas of responsibility and interaction, as well as provision by the authorities of information on how stakeholder input is used or not used (PI 3.1.2)

MSC FCP v2.2 Reporting Template v1.2 LR 05112020, page 10 of 244 www.lr.org

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe » Confirmation of inspection and infringement levels by Russian enforcement bodies (PI 3.2.3)

Determination » On completion of the initial review of information and scoring, the assessment team conclude that no PI is likely to score below 60 and weighted average score for any of the three principles to score below 80. Based on the ACDR provisional scoring this fishery is likely to pass the assessment against the MSC standard criteria, however, this is subject to client, peer and stakeholder review.

Rationale » To be completed at Public Certification Report stage. » There are a number of areas which reflect positively on the fishery; see overview of client strengths above. › …

Conditions & Recommendations Delete as appropriate » The assessment team will review the initial findings of this report and the scoring of performance indicators following the site visit. Following the site visit scoring and identification of conditions and / or recommendations, the report will be sent to the Peer Review College. The assessment team will respond to peer review comments. Once these processes are completed the team will make a determination of whether or not the fishery meets the MSC Standard. If the fishery is found to meet the MSC Standard, the team may identify areas where improvement is needed for which conditions of certification will be raised that will set out milestones for the fishery to achieve. The team’s determination of whether the fishery meets the MSC Standard and any conditions of certification will be set out in later versions of this report. » However, a number of criteria which contribute to the overall assessment score scored less than the unconditional pass mark, and therefore trigger a binding condition to be placed on the fishery, which must be addressed in a specified timeframe (within the 5 year lifespan of the certificate). Full explanation of these conditions is provided in Section 1.3 of the report, but in brief, the areas covered by these conditions are: › … » In addition, the assessment team made a number of recommendations. As these are not the result of a failure to meet the unconditional pass mark, they are non-binding; however, in the opinion of the assessment team, they would make a positive contribution to ongoing efforts to ensure the long term sustainability of the fishery. Details of these recommendations are provided in Section 6.3.1 of this report.

For interested readers, the report also provides background to the target species and fishery covered by the assessment, the wider impacts of the fishery and the management regime, supported by full details of the assessment team, a full list of references used and details of the stakeholder consultation process.

Lloyd’s Register confirm that this fishery is within scope.

MSC FCP v2.2 Reporting Template v1.2 LR 05112020, page 11 of 244 www.lr.org

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe 4 Report details 4.1 Authorship and peer review details Peer reviewer information to be completed at Public Comment Draft Report stage

All team members listed below have completed all requisite training and signed all relevant forms for assessment team membership on this fishery.

Assessment team leader: Geir Honneland Primarily responsible for assessment under Principle 3 Geir Hønneland holds a PhD in political science from the University of Oslo and an LL.M. in the law of the sea from the Arctic University of Norway. As a researcher, he has studied international fisheries management (with main emphasis on enforcement and compliance issues), international environmental politics and international politics in Polar regions. He was affiliated with the Fridtjof Nansen Institute in Oslo for more than 20 years, as PhD student and research fellow (1996-2006), research director (2006-2014) and director (2015-2019). Among his fisheries-related books are Russian Fisheries Management: The Precautionary Approach in Theory and Practice (Martinus Nijhoff/Brill Academic Publishing, 2004) and Making Fishery Agreements Work: Post-Agreement Bargaining in the Barents Sea Fisheries (Edward Elgar, 2012; China Ocean Press, 2016). Before embarking on an academic career, he worked five years for the Norwegian Coast Guard, where he was trained and certified as a fisheries inspector. Geir has been involved in MSC assessments since 2009 and has acted as P3 expert in more than 50 full assessments and reassessments, as well as a number of pre-assessments and surveillance audits. His experience from full assessments includes a large number of demersal, pelagic and reduction fisheries in the Northeast Atlantic, North Pacific and Southern Ocean, including crustaceans, as well as inland, bivalve and enhanced salmon fisheries. In the Northeast Atlantic, he has covered the international management regimes in the Barents Sea, Norwegian Sea, North Sea, Skagerrak, Kattegat and the Baltic Sea, and the national management regimes in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Faroe Islands, Greenland, Finland, Russia, Poland, the UK, the Netherlands and Germany, as well as the EU level. Geir is based in Oslo, Norway. He has studied Russian fisheries management for more than two decades and is fluent in Russian. He was member of the team that performed the first MSC assessment of a Russian Barents Sea fishery in 2010. He has passed MSC training in April 2019 and has no ‘Conflict of Interest’ to declare. Full CV available upon request.

Expert team member: Giuseppe Scarcella Primarily responsible for assessment under Principle 1 Giuseppe Scarcella is an experienced fishery scientist and population analyst and modeller, with wide knowledge and experience in the assessment of demersal stocks. He holds a first degree in Marine Biology and Oceanography (110/110) from the Unversità Politecnica delle Marche, and a Ph.D. in marine Ecology and Biology from the same university, based on a thesis "Age and growth of two rockfish in the Adriatic Sea". After his degree, he was offered a job as project scientist in several research programs about the structure and composition of fish assemblage in artificial reefs, off-shore platform and other artificial habitats in the Italian National Research Council – Institute of Marine Science of Ancona (CNR-ISMAR), now Institute for Biological Resources and Marine Biotechnologies (IRBIM). During the years of employment at CNR-ISMAR first and CNR-IRBIM later he has gained experience in benthic ecology, statistical analyses of fish assemblage evolution in artificial habitats, fisheries ecology and impacts of fishing activities, stock assessment, otolith analysis, population dynamic and fisheries management. Since 2018 Dr. Scarcella is in the permanent staff of CNR-IRBIM as researcher. During the same years, he attended courses of uni-multivariate statistics and stock assessment. He is also actively participating in the scientific advice process of FAO GFCM in the Mediterranean Sea as well as in the European context. He was member of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries for the European Commission (STECF) from 2012 to 2019 and was chair of the STECF-EWG Assessment of balance indicators for key fleet segments and review of national reports on Member States efforts to achieve balance between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities. He is author of more than 50 scientific paper peer reviewed journals and more than 150 national, and international technical reports, most of them focused on the

MSC FCP v2.2 Reporting Template v1.2 LR 05112020, page 12 of 244 www.lr.org

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe evolution of fish assemblages in artificial habitats, stock assessment of demersal species and evaluation of fisheries management plans.

For some years now, Dr Scarcella has been working in fisheries certification applying the Marine Stewardship Council standard for sustainable fisheries, currently concentrating on Principle 1 of the Standard. Dr Scarcella worked in the framework of many MSC projects (full-assessment, pre-assessment, surveillances and re-assessment) in Europe, South Africa, Iceland, Russia, USA, Canada and Chile. He is also part of the MSC peer review college, providing reviews for many fisheries, in particular in the Indian and Pacific Ocean. Furthermore, Dr Scarcella holds the credential as Fishery team leader (MSC v2.0). Giuseppe Scarcella has passed the most updated MSC training and has no Conflict of Interest in relation to this fishery. Giuseppe has passed MSC training in April 2019 and has no ‘Conflict of Interest’ to declare. Full CV available upon request.

Expert team member: Deirdre Hoare Primarily responsible for assessment under Principle 2 Deirdre Hoare is a fisheries consultant with over 15 years of experience in a wide range of projects associated with marine biodiversity and the sustainable use of living aquatic resources. Her principal area of expertise is in relation to stock assessment and ecosystem impacts of both artisanal and commercial fisheries. Her work involves evaluation and verification of fisheries management and sustainability against international standards such as the Marine Stewardship Council standard for sustainable fisheries, concentrating on Principle 2 of the Standard and also the FAO Responsible Fisheries Management standard in Iceland, Alaska and Ireland. Prior to this she worked as a Fisheries Assessment Analyst and as a Scientific and Technical Officer for the Marine Institute in Ireland. This work involved fisheries research and stock assessment for ICES working groups. The work also involved coordination and management of a Fisher Self sampling program in the Irish Sea, with particular emphasis on spatial and temporal discard measurement tools. As well as having worked as a researcher, she completed many trips on commercial fishing vessels in the capacity of scientific observer in the NAFO area, North West Atlantic and Irish Coast. She has also experience on finfish and shellfish aquaculture that she gained working in Scotland. Dierdre has passed MSC training in April 2019 and has no ‘Conflict of Interest’ to declare. Full CV available upon request.

4.2 Peer Reviewers Peer reviewers used for this report were PR1 and PR2. A summary CV for each is available in the Assessment downloads section of the fishery’s entry on the MSC website.

Justification to be added here as to why these particular peer reviewers were appointed - to be framed in terms of their specific areas of expertise relevant to this particular fishery and why they will be in a position to provide expert reviews to ensure the scores and rationales given by the assessment team have taken account of all the available information and can be scientifically justified.

4.3 RBF Training Giuseppe Scarcella has been fully trained in the use of the MSC’s Risk Based Framework (RBF). Information on how RBF was applied in this assessment can be reviewed in section 8.2.3 and outputs in section Error! Reference source n ot found.. RBF was not used for this fishery assessment.

MSC FCP v2.2 Reporting Template v1.2 LR 05112020, page 13 of 244 www.lr.org

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe 4.4 Version details

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

Table 1. Fisheries program documents versions

Document Version number

MSC Fisheries Certification Process Version 2.2

MSC Fisheries Standard Version 2.01*

MSC General Certification Requirements Version 2.4.1

MSC Reporting Template Version 1.2

*Default assessment tree

MSC FCP v2.2 Reporting Template v1.2 LR 05112020, page 14 of 244 www.lr.org

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe 5 Unit(s) of Assessment and Unit(s) of Certification and results overview 5.1 Unit(s) of Assessment and Unit(s) of Certification 5.1.1 Unit(s) of Assessment

The CAB shall include in the report a statement of the CAB’s determination that the fishery is within scope of the MSC Fisheries Standard. For geographical area, the CAB should refer to G7.5.6. Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Sections 7.4 and 7.5

Table 2 – Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA)

UoA 1 Description

Species Cod (Gadus morhua)

Stock Northeast Arctic Cod

Fishing gear type(s) and, if relevant, vessel Demersal Otter Trawl type(s) All member vessels of NOREBO Group targeting Northeast Arctic Cod in ICES Areas I and Client group II, Barents & Norwegian Seas, & within Norwegian and Russian EEZ and International Waters using Demersal Otter Trawl

Other eligible fishers None

ICES Areas I and II, Barents & Norwegian Seas, & within Norwegian and Russian EEZ and Geographical area on the high seas (under international management).

UoA 2 Description

Species Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus)

Stock Northeast Arctic Haddock

Fishing gear type(s) and, if relevant, vessel Demersal Otter Trawl type(s) All member vessels of NOREBO Group targeting Northeast Arctic Haddock in ICES Areas I Client group and II, Barents & Norwegian Seas, & within Norwegian and Russian EEZ and International Waters using Demersal Otter Trawl

Other eligible fishers None

ICES Areas I and II, Barents & Norwegian Seas, & within Norwegian and Russian EEZ and on the high seas Geographical area (under international management)

UoA 3 Description

MSC FCP v2.2 Reporting Template v1.2 LR 05112020, page 15 of 244 www.lr.org

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Species Saithe (Pollachius virens)

Stock Northeast Arctic Saithe

Fishing gear type(s) and, if relevant, vessel Demersal Otter Trawl type(s) All member vessels of NOREBO Group targeting Northeast Arctic Saithe in ICES Areas I Client group and II, Barents & Norwegian Seas, & within Norwegian and Russian EEZ and International Waters using Demersal Otter Trawl

Other eligible fishers None

ICES Areas I and II, Barents & Norwegian Seas, & within Norwegian and Russian EEZ and Geographical area on the high seas (under international management)

5.1.2 Unit(s) of Certification

If there are changes to the proposed Unit(s) of Certification (UoC), the CAB shall include in the report a justification. Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.5

Table 3 – Unit(s) of Certification (UoC)

UoC X Description

Species

Stock

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

Client group

Geographical area

UoC X Description

Species

Stock

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

MSC FCP v2.2 Reporting Template v1.2 LR 05112020, page 16 of 244 www.lr.org

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Client group

Geographical area

UoC X Description

Species

Stock

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

Client group

Geographical area

5.2 Assessment results overview 5.2.1 Determination, formal conclusion and agreement To be drafted at Public Comment Draft Report stage

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

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

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

5.2.2 Principle level scores To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage

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

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.17

Table 4 - Principle level scores

Principle UoA 1 UoA 2 UoA 3 UoA 4

Principle 1 – Target species

Principle 2 – Ecosystem impacts

Principle 3 – Management system

MSC FCP v2.2 Reporting Template v1.2 LR 05112020, page 17 of 244 www.lr.org

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

5.2.3 Summary of conditions To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage

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

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.18

Table 5 - Summary of conditions

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

5.2.4 Recommendations To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage If the CAB or assessment team wishes to include any recommendations to the client or notes for future assessments, these may be included in this section.

MSC FCP v2.2 Reporting Template v1.2 LR 05112020, page 18 of 244 www.lr.org

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe 6 Traceability and eligibility 6.1 Eligibility date The Target Eligibility Date for this assessment is the date of re-certification. As follows from section 7.2 below, the assessment team considers traceability and segregation systems in the fishery to be appropriately implemented.

6.2 Traceability within the fishery Norwegian and Russian fishery law requires that all vessels keep detailed logbooks with real time information on the species and quantities on board (electronic catch logbooks). Round weight is recorded after each haul, and conversion factors for each product established by the JNRFC are applied. When the catch is brought on board, the different species are immediately separated into different processing lines. The fish is frozen in blocks and the boxes labelled by species and weight. Each species is stored separately in the holds. ‘Fish masters’ are responsible for ensuring species are marked and stored appropriately and that certified and non-certified fish are not mixed. All crew members involved in the processing of the fish are also trained to ensure segregation of species throughout the process.

The Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries/sales organisations inspect all landings by Russian vessels in Norwegian ports, while the Norwegian Coast Guard performs spot checks at sea (in the NEZ and the Protection Zone around Svalbard), including inspections at check points that foreign vessels have to pass when entering or leaving the NEZ. Daily reporting is required within the REZ and the FFA (in the northern basin: the Severomorsk Territorial Administration (formerly BBTA) as the Agency’s regional branch) keeps track of how much fish each company has fished at any moment. VMS data is used to monitor vessels and cross check logbook entries with area fished. There is close collaboration between enforcement authorities in Norway, Russia and other NEAFC states, and there is no immunity from prosecution when fishing in other jurisdictions.

The European Union regulation (EC 1224/2009) is designed to ensure full traceability of all marine fishery products traded with the European Community. This is achieved by means of a catch certification scheme in cooperation with third countries (such as Russia). Fishery products can now only be imported into the European Community when accompanied by a catch certificate, issued by the competent authorities of the flag State (in this instance Severomorsk Territorial Administration of the Federal Fisheries Agency in Russia) certifying that the catches concerned have been made in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and international conservation and management measures. Fish caught in the Russian EEZ must be cleared by Russian customs in Murmansk before being exported. The Border Service under the FSB inspects fishing vessels within the REZ. When Russian vessels land in other European ports, they are subject to the NEAFC port state control scheme. Transhipments are performed in Norwegian waters and some in the port of Murmansk. All transhipments must be notified to Norwegian or Russian authorities in advance, so they have the possibility to check the operations. See the scoring table for PI 3.2.3 on enforcement and compliance below for further details about the enforcement system for the UoA fishery.

The internal procedures on board the vessels (required by Norwegian and Russian fishery law) as well as a high level of enforcement activities by authorities in Norway, Russia and other NEAFC states are considered sufficient to ensure fish and fish products are clearly identified and their origin is known.

Table 6 - Traceability within the fishery

Table 6.1 – Traceability information

Factor Description

Will the fishery use gears that are not part of the UoC?

If yes, please describe: No - If this may occur on the same trip, on the same vessels, or during the same season; - How any risks are mitigated.

MSC FCP v2.2 Reporting Template v1.2 LR July 2020, page 19 of 244 www.lr.org

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Will vessels in the UoC also fish outside the UoC geographic area? Some vessels may operate outside of the UoC but If yes, please describe: targeting other species. - If this may occur on the same trip; - How any risks are mitigated. Do the fishery client members ever handle certified and non-certified products during any of the activities covered by the fishery certificate? This refers to both at- sea activities and on-land activities.

- Transport No (only different species but with no risk of mixture) - Storage - Processing - Landing - Auction

If yes, please describe how any risks are mitigated. Does transhipment occur within the fishery? Yes, all transhipment operations are under strict control If yes, please describe: and subject to VMS procedures. In waters under both - If transhipment takes place at-sea, in port, or Norwegian and Russian jurisdiction, all transhipment both; operations occur in the presence of a state fishery - If the transhipment vessel may handle product inspector. The vessels do not handle products outside from outside the UoC; of the UoC. - How any risks are mitigated. Are there any other risks of mixing or substitution between certified and non-certified fish? No

If yes, please describe how any risks are mitigated.

6.3 Eligibility to enter further chains of custody To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage The CAB shall include in the report a determination of whether the seafood product will be eligible to enter certified chains of custody, and whether the seafood product is eligible to be sold as MSC certified or carry the MSC ecolabel.

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

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

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

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.9

MSC FCP v2.2 Reporting Template v1.2 LR 02122020, page 20 of 244 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe 7 Scoring 7.1 Summary of Performance Indicator level scores

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

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.17

Table 7 – Summary of Performance Indicator level scores

Principle Component Performance Indicator (PI) 1 2 3

1.1.1 Stock status ≥ 80 ≥ 80 ≥ 80 Outcome 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding ≥ 80 ≥ 80 ≥ 80 1.2.1 Harvest strategy ≥ 80 ≥ 80 ≥ 80 1 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools ≥ 80 ≥ 80 ≥ 80 Management 1.2.3 Information & monitoring ≥ 80 ≥ 80 ≥ 80 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status ≥ 80 ≥ 80 ≥ 80 2.1.1 Outcome ≥ 80 ≥ 80 ≥ 80 Primary species 2.1.2 Management ≥ 80 ≥ 80 ≥ 80 2.1.3 Information ≥ 80 ≥ 80 ≥ 80 2.2.1 Outcome ≥ 80 ≥ 80 ≥ 80 Secondary species 2.2.2 Management ≥ 80 ≥ 80 ≥ 80 2.2.3 Information ≥ 80 ≥ 80 ≥ 80 2.3.1 Outcome ≥ 80 ≥ 80 ≥ 80 2 ETP species 2.3.2 Management ≥ 80 ≥ 80 ≥ 80 2.3.3 Information 60-79 60-79 60-79 2.4.1 Outcome 60-79 60-79 60-79 Habitats 2.4.2 Management ≥ 80 ≥ 80 ≥ 80 2.4.3 Information ≥ 80 ≥ 80 ≥ 80 2.5.1 Outcome ≥ 80 ≥ 80 ≥ 80 Ecosystem 2.5.2 Management ≥ 80 ≥ 80 ≥ 80 2.5.3 Information ≥ 80 ≥ 80 ≥ 80 3.1.1 Legal & customary framework ≥ 80 ≥ 80 ≥ 80 Governance and policy 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibilities ≥ 80 ≥ 80 ≥ 80 3.1.3 Long term objectives ≥ 80 ≥ 80 ≥ 80 3 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives ≥ 80 ≥ 80 ≥ 80

3.2.2 Decision making processes ≥ 80 ≥ 80 ≥ 80 Fishery specific ≥ 80 ≥ 80 ≥ 80 management system 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement Monitoring & management ≥ 80 ≥ 80 ≥ 80 3.2.4 performance evaluation

MSC FCP v2.2 Reporting Template v1.2 LR July 2020, page 21 of 244 www.lr.org

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

7.2 Principle 1 7.2.1 Principle 1 background 7.2.1.1 Cod (Gadus morhua) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic) Status of the stock - One of the target species for the fishery under assessment is the stock of northeast arctic cod (Gadus morhua). This report does not aim to provide a scientifically comprehensive description of the species. Interested readers should refer to sources that have been useful in compiling the following summary description of the species. These may include: Fishbase: http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/speciesSummary.php?ID=69&genusname=Gadus&specie s%20name=morhua&lang=English. Descriptions provided by national scientific and management Norwegian bodies, the IMR and the Fiskeridirektoratet respectively: IMR: http://www.imr.no/temasider/fisk/torsk/nordaustarktisk_torsk_skrei/111219/en Fiskeridirektoratet: http://www.fisheries.no/ecosystems-and- stocks/marine_stocks/fish_stocks/cod/ The references listed above provide only a general overview of the species and have not been used to inform the detailed scoring of the fishery. The fisheries, life history, stock fluctuation and management in a 100-year perspective are described in Hyles et al (2008). According to Fishbase the trophic level of Gadus morhua is 4.1 ±0.2 se (Based on diet studies). Therefore, is not considered a Low Trophic Level (LTL) Species. Genetic studies support the distinctness of different populations in the Atlantic Ocean (Bradbury et al. 2013), being two stocks identified in the Barents Sea: NE Arctic and Norwegian coastal waters. There is some overlap over the spawning season in the Norwegian coast but the stocks are assessed by ICES separately as following: cod in Subareas I and II (Northeast Arctic cod) and cod in Subareas I and II (Norwegian coastal waters cod). The annual stock assessment is the responsibility of the ICES Working group Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG). The assessments methodology was benchmarked in 2015, ICES (2015) and for Northeast Arctic (NEA) cod again in April 2017 (ICES 2017a). AFWG bases its work on a State-spaced assessment model (SAM; ICES, 2017). For a review of the SAM model see Aeberhard et al (2018). ICES scientific advice on the NEA cod was updated in June 2019, ICES 2019a. This update was based on the 2019 report of the ICES Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), ICES 2019b and from the interbenchmark protocol on assessment model changes for cod in subareas 1 and 2 (ICES 2019c; IBPNEACod2019). The most recent advice for the Cod stock in ICES 1+2 (Barents Sea) was issued June 2020, ICES (2020a, b). The spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has been above MSY Btrigger since 2002. The SSB reached a peak in 2013 and now shows a downward trend. Fishing mortality (F) was reduced from well above Flim in 1997 to below FMSY in 2008. It remained below FMSY until 2018 when it increased close to FMSY. There has been no strong recruitment since the 2004- and 2005-year classes. ICES assess that fishing pressure on the stock is below FMSY, while the spawning stock size is above MSY Btrigger, Bpa, and Blim. Figure 1 presents stock status and stock trends.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Figure 1: Cod in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). Catch, recruitment, F, and SSB. Confidence intervals (95%) are indicated in the plots for recruitment, F, and SSB. For this stock, FMGT ranges from 0.40 to 0.60 and there are three SSBMGT values (460 000 tonnes, 920 000 and 1 380 000 tonnes) which are not shown. (Source: ICES 2020b, https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5909).

ICES assesses that fishing pressure on the stock is below FMSY, while the spawning stock size is above MSY Btrigger, Bpa, and Blim. The basis of the assessment are reported in Table 8.

Table 8: Cod in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). Basis of the assessment and advice. Source: http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2019/2019/cod.27.1- 2.pdf

In 2019 assessment, there were some conflicting signals from the different surveys and catch-at-age data. This increases the uncertainty of the assessment. An increasing proportion of older fish in the stock is outside the age range in the survey data used in the assessment; this may require a revision of the model tuning. The estimated selectivity-at-age is dome-shaped with selectivity sharply decreasing above age 12, which is not currently informed by survey data. These issues were investigated in 2019 (ICES, 2019c). However, no adequate solution was found so it will have to be investigated further at the next benchmark. The Russian bottom trawl survey was not conducted in 2018 and the joint ecosystem survey had a complete lack of coverage in southeastern part of the survey area. This adds uncertainty to the assessment in the final year. The sampling level from commercial catches was reduced around 2010 and remained at a lower level in the following years but has improved in 2016–2018. Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Fisheries targeting NEA cod take a bycatch of golden redfish (Sebastes norvegicus), and the bycatch of the latter species is still above any sustainable catch level. Measures to minimize bycatch are essential. Bycatch of coastal cod should be kept as low as possible in order to promote rebuilding of the coastal cod (Gadus morhua) stock.

Management – The Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission (JNRFC) agreed on a cod TAC of 725 000 t for 2019, and in addition 21 000 t Norwegian coastal cod. The total reported catch of 732 716 t in 2019 was 13 284 t below the agreed TAC. Since 2015 JNRFC has decided that Norway and Russia can transfer to next year or borrow from last year 10% of the cod country’s quota. That may lead to some deviation between agreed TAC and reported catch. Ignoring quota transfers, Norwegian catches in 2019 were about 6 000 t below the TAC, while third country catches were about 7 000 t below the TAC and Russian catches were very close to the TAC. The advice for 2020 given by ACOM in 2019 was 689 672 t based on the agreed harvest control rule. The quota established by JNRFC for 2020 was equal to 738 000 tonnes. Thus, the TAC was not set according to the agreed HCR. In addition, the TAC for Norwegian Coastal Cod was set to the same value for 2020 as for 2019: 21 000 t. At the 46th JNRFC in October 2016, the previously used management plan was amended, and the current plan is as follows: The TAC is calculated as the average catch predicted for the coming 3 years, using the target level of exploitation (Ftr). The target level of exploitation is calculated according to the SSB in the first year of the forecast as follows:

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

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

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

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

where FMSY = 0.40 and Bpa = 460 000 tonnes.

If the SSB in the present year, the previous year, and each of the three years of prediction is above Bpa, the TAC should not be changed by more than ±20% compared with the previous year’s TAC. In this case, Ftr should however not be below 0.30. In 2014, JNRFC decided that from 2015 onwards, Norway and Russia can transfer to or borrow from the following year up to 10% of the country's quota. ICES evaluated this harvest control rule in 2016 (ICES, 2016a) and concluded that it is precautionary. The History of the advice, catch, and management is summarised in Table 9. Table 9: Cod in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). ICES advice, agreed TACs, and the official and ICES catches. All weights are in tonnes. Source: Source: ICES 2020b, https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5909

Year ICES advice Catch Agreed Official ICES Unreported corresponding TAC catches catches landings to advice (included in ICES catches) 1987 Gradual reduction in F 595,000 560,000 552,000 523,071 1988 F = 0.51; TAC (Advice November 1987, revised 530,000 590000 459,000 434,939 advice May 1988) (320,000 – (451000) 60,000) 1989 Large reduction in F 335,000 300,000 348,000 332,481 1990 F at Flow; TAC 172,000 160,000 210,000 212,000 25,000 1991 F at Flow; TAC 215,000 215,000 294,000 319,158 50,000 1992 Within safe biological limits 250,000 356,000 421,000 513,234 130,000 1993 Healthy stock 256,000 500,000 575,000 581,611 50,000 1994 No long-term gains in increased F 649,000 700,000 795,000 771,086 25,000 1995 No long-term gains in increased F 681,000 700,000 763,000 739,999 1996 No long-term gains in increased F 746,000 700,000 759,000 732,228 1997 Well below Fmed < 993,000 850,000 792,000 762,403 Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

1998 F less than Fmed 514,000 654,000 615,000 592,624 1999 Reduce F to below Fpa 360,000 480,000 506,000 484,910 2000 Increase B above Bpa in 2001 110,000 390,000 414,870 2001 High prob. of SSB >Bpa in 2003 263,000 395,000 426,471 2002 Reduce F to well below 0.25 181,000 395,000 535,045 90,000 2003 Reduce F to below Fpa 305,000 395,000 551,990 115,000 2004 Reduce F to below Fpa 398,000 486,000 606,445 117,000 2005 Take into account coastal cod and redfish 485,000 485,000 641,276 166,000 bycatches. Apply catch rule. 2006 Take into account coastal cod and redfish 471,000 471,000 537,642 67,100 bycatches. Apply amended catch rule. 2007 Take into account coastal cod and redfish 309,000 424,000 486,883 41,087 bycatches. Fpa 2008 Take into account coastal cod and redfish 409,000 430,000 464,171 15,000 bycatches. Apply catch rule. 2009 Take into account coastal cod and redfish 473,000 525,000 523,431 0 bycatches. Apply catch rule. 2010 Take into account coastal cod and redfish 577,500 607,000 609,983 0 bycatches. Apply catch rule. 2011 Take into account coastal cod and redfish 703,000 703,000 719,829 0 bycatches. Apply catch rule. 2012 Take into account coastal cod and redfish 751,000 751,000 727,663 0 bycatches. Apply catch rule. 2013 Take into account coastal cod and S. 940,000 1,000,000 966,209 0 marinus ^^ bycatches. Apply catch rule. 2014 Take into account coastal cod and S. 993,000 993,000 986,449 0 marinus^^ bycatches. Apply catch rule. 2015 Take into account coastal cod and S. norvegicus 894,000 894,000 864,384 0 bycatches. Apply catch rule. 2016 Take into account coastal cod and S. norvegicus 805,000 894,000 849,422 0 bycatches. Apply catch rule. 2017 Take into account coastal cod and S. norvegicus ≤ 805000 890000 ^ 868,276 0 bycatches. Apply management plan. 2018 Take into account coastal cod and S. norvegicus 712,000 775,000 778,627 0 bycatches. Apply management plan. 2019 Take into account coastal cod and S. 674,678 725,000 692,608 0 norvegicus bycatches. Apply management plan 2020 Apply management plan ≤ 689,672 738,000 2021 Apply management plan ≤ 885,600 ^ 2017 TAC was set according to the new management plan agreed by JNRFC in October 2016. ^^ Until 2014 this species was named Sebastes marinus, thereafter Sebastes norvegicus. empty cell = no data

Data source – The provisional catch for 2019 reported to the working group is 692 608 t. The historical practice (considering catches between 62°N and 67°N for the whole year and catches between 67°N and 69°N for the second half of the year to be Norwegian coastal cod) has been used for estimating the Norwegian landings of Northeast Arctic cod up to and including 2011 (Table 3.2). The catches of coastal cod calculated this way for the period 1960—2019 are given in Table 3.2 together with the coastal cod catches calculated based on otolith types (used in the coastal cod assessment as described in Section 2). For 2012–2019 the Norwegian catches have been analysed by an ECA-version designed for simultaneously providing estimates of catch numbers-at-age for each of the two stocks. By this procedure the amount of Norwegian catches calculated to be coastal cod in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 is 35.2, 25.7, 33.6, 35.8, 54.9, 51.0, 36.3 and 40.1 thousand tonnes. Table 3.2 includes ECA estimates of coastal cod for the whole period 1984—2019. The plan at the 2015 benchmark was for both stocks to use the ECA estimates for this whole period. As described in the coastal cod section (section 2) these tabulated ECA-results are still considered preliminary, and there is a need for further work on this before the whole time-series is applied. The distribution of catches by areas and gears in 2019 was similar to 2018. There is information on cod discards, but it was not included in the assessment because this data are fragmented and different estimates are in contradiction with each other. Moreover, the level of discards is relatively small in the recent period and inclusion of these estimates in the assessment should not change our perception on NEA cod stock size. In summer/autumn 2018, a Norwegian vessel caught 450 t of cod in the Jan Mayen EEZ, which is a part of ICES area 2a, mostly by long-line. Cod is known to occasionally occur in this area, but rarely in densities which are suitable for commercial fisheries. The cod caught in this area in 2018 was large (65–110 cm), and otolith readings and genetics both showed this cod to be a mix of Northeast Arctic Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe and Icelandic cod. Norway did in 2019 carry out an experimental fishery during four different periods in order to investigate further the occurrence of cod in this area in space and time as well as stock identity. The size distribution and genetic composition of the cod caught in this area in 2019 was similar to that in 2018. Most of the cod caught in April-May 2019 was spawning or spent. Cod spawning in this area has not been observed previously. Total catches in 2019 amounted to 638 t. An experimental fishery will also be carried out in this area in 2020 in a similar way as in 2019, the quota set aside for this fishery in 2020 is 800 t. The 2018 catches in this area were counted against the Norwegian TAC for cod north of 62°N, while the 2019 and 2020 TAC for this area comes in addition to the Norwegian TAC for cod as agreed by JNRFC. These catches have not been included in the assessment. In the years 2002–2008 certain quantities of unreported catches (IUU catches) have been added to the reported landings. There are no reliable data on level of IUU catches outside the periods 1990–1994 and 2002–2008, but it is believed that their level was not substantial enough to influence on historical stock assessment. According to reports from the Norwegian-Russian analysis group on estimation of total catches the total catches of cod since 2009 were very close to officially reported landings. CPUE series of the Norwegian and Russian trawl fisheries are available in ICES 2020a (see: http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Forms/DispForm.aspx?ID=36726). The data reflect the total trawl effort, both for Norway and Russia. The Norwegian series is given as a total for all areas. Norwegian data for 2011–2019 are not necessarily compatible with data for 2007 and previous years. CPUE has been relatively stable since 2016. Fishery independent data are provided by four surveys carried out in the area: 1. Joint Barents Sea winter survey (bottom trawl and acoustics) Acronyms: BS-NoRu-Q1 (BTr) and BS-NoRu-Q1 (Aco). The preliminary swept area estimates and acoustic estimates from the Joint winter survey on demersal fish in the Barents Sea in winter 2020 are available in ICES 2020a (see: http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Forms/DispForm.aspx?ID=36726). The total area covered was smaller than in 2019 as the coverage was limited by ice particularly in the area east and north of Bear Island and by time and weather constraints in parts of the Russian zone. Before 2000 this survey was made without participation from Russian vessels, while in 2001—2005, 2008—2016 and 2018-2020 Russian vessels have covered important parts of the Russian zone. In 2006—2007 the survey was carried out only by Norwegian vessels. In 2007 and 2016 the Norwegian vessels were not allowed to cover the Russian EEZ. In 5 of the 6 adjusted years (including 2017) the adjustments were not based on area ratios, but the “index ratio by age” was used. This means that the index by age for the covered area was scaled by the observed ratio between total index and the index for the same area observed in the years prior to the survey. The adjustments for 2017 were based on average index rations by age for 2014–2016. Adjustments were also made in 2020 using the average index ratios by age for 2018-2019. Regarding the older part of this time-series it should be noted that the survey prior to 1993 covered a smaller area (Jakobsen et al. 1997), and the number of young cod (particularly 1- and 2-year old fish) was probably underestimated. Other changes in the survey methodology through time are described by Jakobsen et al. (1997), while the surveys for the years 2007—2012 and 2013—2018 are reported in Mehl et al. (2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017a). Note that the change from 35 to 22 mm mesh size in the cod end in 1994 is not corrected for in the time-series. This mainly affects the age 1 indices. The new method for calculating bottom trawl indices is described in Mehl et al. (2017b) and re-vised acoustic indices are given in Mehl et al. (2018a). With the recent expansion of the cod distribution it is likely that in recent years the coverage in the February survey (BS-NoRu-Q1 (BTr) and BS-NoRu-Q1 (Aco)) has been incomplete, in particular for the younger ages. This could cause a bias in the assessment, but the magnitude is un-known. The 2014–2020 surveys covered considerably larger areas than earlier winter surveys and showed that most age groups of cod (particularly ages 1 and 2) were distributed far outside the standard survey area. The survey estimates within the standard area were used for the tuning data. If a wider coverage is continued in coming years, improved data for tuning and recruitment predictions might be obtained. In 2020 coverage of the northern area was only possible west of Spitsbergen, due to ice. 2. Lofoten acoustic survey on spawners Acronym: Lof-Aco-Q1. The estimated abundance indices from the Norwegian acoustic survey off Lofoten and Vesterå-len (the main spawning area for this stock) in March/April are available in ICES 2020a (see:

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Forms/DispForm.aspx?ID=36726). A description of the survey, sampling effort and details of the estimation procedure can be found in Korsbrekke (1997). The 2020 survey results in biomass terms was 556 thousand tonnes, this is 16% below the 2019 level. The survey was carried out from south to north, i.e. in the opposite direction to all previous years. This was due to covid-19 restrictions on where personnel could be exchanged. Russian autumn survey Acronym: RU-BTr-Q4. Abundance estimates from the Russian autumn survey (November-December) are given in ICES 2019b, both in term of acoustic estimates and bottom trawl estimates. The entire bottom trawl timeseries was in 2007 revised backwards to 1982 (Golovanov et al., 2007, WD3), using the same method as in the revision presented in 2006, which went back to 1994. The new swept-area indices reflect Northeast Arctic cod stock dynamics more precisely compared to the previous one - catch per hour trawling. The index shows a reliable internal consistence and it was decided to use it in the assessment. This survey was not carried out in 2018 and will likely be discontinued. This change of direction for the coverage was not considered to have any noticeable effect on the results. 3. Joint Ecosystem survey Acronym: Eco-NoRu-Q3 (Btr). Swept area bottom trawl estimates from the joint Norwegian-Russian ecosystem survey in Au-gust-September for the period 2004– 2019 are available in ICES 2020a (see: http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Forms/DispForm.aspx?ID=36726). This survey normally covers the entire distribution area of cod at that time of the year. In 2014 this survey had an essential problem with area coverage in the north-west region because of difficult ice conditions. In the area covered by ice in 2014 a substantial part of population was distributed during 2013 survey. So, based on those observations AFWG decided in 2015 to exclude 2014 year from that tuning series in current assessment. In 2016 there was incomplete coverage in the international waters and close to the Murman coast. An adjustment for this incomplete coverage was made based on interpolation from adjacent areas (Kovalev et al 2017, WD 12). At this time of the year, usually a relatively small part of the cod stock is found in the area which was not covered in 2016. In 2017 and 2019 the coverage was close to complete, although the far northeastern part of the survey area (west of the north island of Novaya Zemlya) was not covered due to military restrictions. In 2018, a large area in the eastern part of the Barents Sea was not covered Thus it was decided not to include 2018 data from this survey in the assessment. The survey indices have been revised using the StoX calculation method, but the tuning series have not been updated as this was considered a benchmark issue. 4. Russian autumn survey Acronym: RU-BTr-Q4. Abundance estimates from the Russian autumn survey (November-December) are available in ICES 2020a (see: http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Forms/DispForm.aspx?ID=36726). The entire bottom trawl time-series was in 2007 revised backwards to 1982 (Golovanov et al., 2007, WD3), using the same method as in the revision presented in 2006, which went back to 1994. The new swept area indices reflect Northeast Arctic cod stock dynamics more precisely compared to the previous one - catch per hour trawling. The Russian autumn survey in 2006 was carried out with reduced area coverage. Divisions 2a and 2b were adequately investigated in the survey in contrast to Subarea 1, where the survey covered approximately 40% of the long-term average area coverage. The Subarea 1 survey indices were calculated based on actual covered area (40 541 sq. miles). The 2007 AFWG decided to use the “final" year class indices without any correction because of satisfactory internal correspondence between year class abundances at age 2—9 years according to the 2006 survey and ones due to the previous surveys. This survey was not conducted in 2016, but was carried out in 2017, when 79% of the standard survey area was covered (Sokolov et al 2018, WD 11). The index shows a reliable internal consistence and it was decided to use it in the assessment. This survey was not carried out in 2018-2019 and will likely be discontinued. The Joint winter survey in 2020 showed a noticeable decrease in size at age values for most ages (Table A6). For ages 2-6 and 8 the observed values were the lowest observed in the revised time series going back to 1994. For ages 2,3 and 8 the values were also below the minimum in the period prior to 1994. Most of the decrease is due to slower growth in length, changes in condition factor were minor. In the BESS 2019 survey decrease in size at age is not expressed as distinctly but low lengths and weights were observed for ages 2 and 3. Length and weight at age in the Lofoten survey is stable. The joint Norwegian-Russian work on cod otolith reading has continued, with regular exchanges of otoliths and age readers. The results of fifteen years of annual comparative age readings are described

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe in Yaragina et al. (2009). Zuykova et al. (2009) re-read old otoliths and found no significant difference in contemporary and historical age determination and subsequent length-at-age. However, age at first maturation in the historical material as determined by contemporary readers is younger than that determined by historical readers. Taking this difference into account would thus have effect on the spawning stock-recruitment relationship and thus on the biological reference points. The overall percentage agreement for the 2015–2016 exchange was 88.7% (Mjanger and Godiksen, 2018). The main reason for cod ageing discrepancies between Russian and Norwegian specialists remains the same, representing the latest summer growth zone, and different interpretations of the false zones. The general trend is that the Russian readers assign slightly lower ages than the Norwegian readers compared to the modal age for all age groups. This is opposite of what we have seen in previous readings, where the Russian readers has tended to be slightly overestimating the age compared to the Norwegian readers. The trend with bias in NEA cod age determination registered for some years of the period 1992– 2016 between experts of both countries is a solid argument to continue comparative cod age reading between PINRO and IMR to monitor the situation.

7.2.1.2 Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic) Status of the stock - One of the target species for the fishery under assessment is the stock of NEA haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus). This report does not aim to provide a scientifically comprehensive description of the species. Interested readers should refer to sources that have been useful in compiling the following summary description of the species. These may include: Fishbase: https://www.fishbase.se/summary/1381 Descriptions provided by national scientific and management Norwegian bodies, the IMR and the Fiskeridirektoratet respectively: IMR: https://www.hi.no/hi/temasider/arter/hyse Fiskeridirektoratet: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/meld.-st.-20- 20142015/id2408321/ Haddock in the NEA is considered as a single stock (Olsen et al. 2010) and ICES assesses this unit yearly. According to Fishbase the trophic level of Melanogrammus aeglefinus is 4.0 ±0.2 se (Based on diet studies). Therefore, is not considered a LTL Species. Haddock is mainly fished by trawl as bycatch in the fishery for cod. Also, a directed trawl fishery for haddock is conducted. The proportion of the total catches taken by direct fishery varies between years. On average approximately 30% of the catch is with conventional gears, mostly longline, which in the past was used almost exclusively by Norway. Some of the longline catch are from a directed fishery, which is restricted by national quotas. In the Norwegian management, the quotas are set separately for trawl and other gears. The fishery is also regulated by a minimum landing size, a minimum mesh size in trawls and Danish seine, a maximum bycatch of undersized fish, closure of areas with high density/catches of juveniles and other seasonal and area restrictions. The exploitation rate of haddock has been variable. The highest fishing mortalities for haddock have occurred at low to intermediate stock levels and historically show little relationship with the exploitation rate of cod, despite haddock being primarily caught as bycatch in the cod fishery. However, the more restrictive quota regulations introduced around 1990 have resulted in a more stable pattern in the exploitation rate. The exceptionally strong year classes 2004—2006 have contributed to the strong in-crease to all-time high levels of stock size and SSB that we have seen in last decade. Their importance in the catches is now decreasing rapidly. The following year classes are at a much lower level. We are experiencing some years with a decreasing SSB, which again will result in lower catch advice. The 2016-year class is strong and if bycatch mortality and natural mortality is at a low level in the coming years, the catches are expected to increase when this year class enter the fishery. In 2020, ICES advised that when the Joint Russian–Norwegian Fisheries Commission management plan is applied, catches in 2021 should be no more than 232 537 tonnes (ICES, 2019a, c). The spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has been above MSY Btrigger since 1989. Due to the strong Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe recruitment-at-age 3 in 2007–2009 (2004–2006 year classes), the stock reached an all-time high level in 2013 and afterwards began to decrease; however, it is still well above MSY Btrigger (Figure 3). Recruitment in 2019 is among the highest. Fishing mortality (F) has increased since 2013 and was above FMSY in 2019. However, the status of the stock does not need to be rescored, taking into account that the biomass is still above a level consistent with MSY (ICES, 2020a, c; Figure 2). The basis of the assessment are reported in Table 10.

Table 10: Haddock in subareas 1 and 2. Basis of the assessment and advice. Source: ICES 2020c, had.27.1-2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5948

For 2019 assessment only indices from the Joint Barents Sea winter survey for 2019 were used, since the Russian bottom trawl survey was not conducted in 2018 and the joint ecosystem survey had a complete lack of coverage in the southeastern part of the survey area where most of the haddock is distributed. This adds uncertainty in the final year. There is a likelihood of higher catch of undersized fish in the next year(s) due to strong cohorts entering the fisheries. It is therefore important that the fishery is regulated by spatial and temporal closures in the next couple of years as this will reduce the likelihood of high catch and possible discarding of undersized fish of the abundant 2016–2017-year classes. The 2020 assessment is consistent with the assessment carried out at the latest benchmark (ICES, 2020d). The retrospective pattern in SSB in previous years had raised concerns about the reliability of the assessment. The model settings and data were changed during the benchmark. The changes, especially the extension of the age range by including a plus group in the survey-tuning series, improved the retrospective bias (ICES, 2020a, 2020c). The benchmark did not result in changes to the reference points values. As the strong 2016 and 2017 cohorts enter the fisheries there is a likelihood of higher catch of undersized fish in the coming year(s). It is therefore important that the fishery is regulated additionally by spatial and temporal closures, as this will reduce the likelihood of high catch and possible discarding of undersized fish from the abundant 2016 and 2017 year classes. The 2018 and 2019 year classes are estimated as below average of the year classes 1990–2017.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Figure 2: Haddock in subareas 1 and 2. Summary of the stock assessment (weights in thousand tonnes). Confidence intervals (95%) for recruitment, F, and SSB are shown in the plots. For this stock, FMGT = FMSY and SSBMGT = MSY Btrigger = Bpa; therefore, the horizontal lines representing these points in the graph overlap. Source: ICES 2020c, had.27.1-2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5948

Management – The stock is managed in cooperation between Norway and Russia under the JNRFC (JNRFC, 2016). The current HCR for haddock is as follows (see details in Protocol of the 46th Session of the Joint Norwegian–Russian Fisheries Commission – JNRFC, 2016): TAC for the next year will be set at level corresponding to FMSY. The TAC should not be changed by more than ±25% compared with the previous year TAC.

If the spawning stock falls below Bpa, the procedure for establishing TAC should be based on a fishing mortality that is linearly reduced from FMSY at Bpa to F= 0 at SSB equal to zero. At SSB- levels below Bpa in any of the operational years (current year and a year ahead) there should be no limitations on the year-to-year variations in TAC. At the 46th Session of the JNRFC in 2016 it was decided to keep the existing HCR for haddock for the next five years. Quota flexibility: In 2014, JNRFC decided that from 2015 onwards, Norway and Russia can transfer to, or borrow from, the following year up to 10% of the country’s quota. ICES evaluated this HCR in 2016 (ICES, 2016) and rechecked it in 2020 (ICES, 2020d). ICES concluded that the HCR is precautionary. The history of the advice, catch, and management is summarized in Table 11.

Table 11: Haddock in subareas 1 and 2. ICES advice, TACs, and official and ICES landings. All weights are in tonnes. Source: ICES 2020c, had.27.1-2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5948 Year ICES advice Catch Agreed Official Unreported ICES corresponding TAC landings* landings landings** to advice 1987 No increase in F; TAC 160 000 250 000 154 916 154 916 1988 No increase in F < 240 000 240 000 95 255 95 255 1989 Large reduction in F 69 000 83 000 58 518 58 518 1990 No directed fishery - 25 000 27 182 27 182 1991 No directed fishery - 28 000 36 216 36 216 1992 Within safe biological limits 35 000 63 000 59 922 59 922 1993 No long-term gains in increasing F 56 000 72 000 82 379 82 379 1994 No long-term gains in F > Fmed 97 000*** 120 000 135 186 135 186

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

1995 No long-term gains in F > Fmed 122 000*** 130 000 142 448 142 448 1996 No long-term gains in F > Fmed 169 000*** 170 000 178 128 178 128 1997 Well below Fmed < 242 000 210 000 154 359 154 359 1998 Below Fmed < 120 000 130 000 100 630 100 630 1999 Reduce F below Fpa < 74 000 78 000 83 195 83 195 2000 Reduce F below Fpa < 37 000 62 000 68 944 68 944 2001 Reduce F below Fpa < 66 000 85 000 89 640 89 640 2002 Reduce F below Fpa < 64 000 85 000 96 062 18 736 114 798 2003 Reduce F below Fpa < 101 000 101 000 105 700 33 226 138 926 2004 Reduce F below Fpa < 120 000 130 000 124 502 33 777 158 279 2005 Reduce F below Fpa < 106 000 117 000 118 015 40 283 158 298 2006 Reduce F below Fpa < 112 000 120 000 131 706 21 451 153 157 2007 Limit catches < 130 000 150 000 146 972 14 553 161 525 2008 Limit catches to 2001–2004 < 130 000 155 000 149 776 5 828 155 604 average 2009 Apply management plan < 194 000 194 000 200 061 0 200 061 2010 Apply management plan < 243 000 243 000 249 200 0 249 200 2011 Apply management plan < 303 000 303 000 309 785 0 309 785 2012 Apply management plan < 318 000 318 000 315 627 0 315 627 2013 Apply management plan < 238 000 200 000 193 744 0 193 744 2014 Apply management plan < 150 000 178 500 177 522 0 177 522 2015 Apply management plan < 165 000 223 000 194 756 0 194 756 2016 Apply management plan < 244 000^ 244 000 233 416 0 233 183 2017 Apply management plan ≤ 233 000 233 000 227 588 0 227 588 2018 Apply management plan ≤ 202 305 202 305 191 276 0 191 276 2019 Apply management plan ≤ 152 000 172 000 175 402 0 175 402 2020 Apply management plan ≤ 215 000 215 000 2021 Apply management plan ≤ 232 537 ^ This advice was updated on 7 July 2015 in response to a special request (ICES, 2015) after a mid- year change in TAC in 2015 (from 178 500 tonnes to 223 000 tonnes). * Coastal haddock in Norwegian statistical areas 06 and 07 (south of Lofoten) are included. ** Unreported landings in 2002–2008 are included. *** Predicted landings at Fmed. empty cell = no data

Data source - The highest landing of haddock historically was 322 kt in 1973. Since 1973 the highest catches observed were about 316 kt in 2012. In 2013–2015 stock biomass started to decline and the level of landings in 2018 and 2019 was below 200 kt. In 2006 it was decided to include reported Norwegian landings of haddock from the Norwegian statistical areas 06 and 07 (i.e. between 62°N and Lofoten) not previously included in the total landings of NEA haddock used as input for this stock assessment (ICES CM 2006/ACFM:19; ICES CM 2006/ACFM:25). This practice is continued. Estimates of unreported catches (IUU catches) of haddock have been added to reported landings for the years from 2002 to 2008. Two estimates of IUU catches were available, one Norwegian and one Russian. At the benchmark in 2011 it was decided to base the final assessment on the Norwegian IUU estimates (ICES CM 2011/ACOM:38). ICES continues to include the estimates of IUU catches as in previous years, but the IUU is negligible for 2009–2019 and therefore set to zero. Russia provided indices for 1982–2015 and 2017 for the Barents Sea trawl and acoustic survey (TAS) which was carried out in October-December. The survey was discontinued in 2018. The Joint Barents Sea winter survey (bottom trawl NoRu-BTr-Q1 and acoustics NoRu-Aco-Q1) provides swept area estimates and acoustic estimates in the Barents Sea in winter 2020. The survey area has been extended the last years with additional northern areas (N) covered. The extended area is now included in total and standard survey index calculations for haddock (WKDEM 2020). Like in previous years, the distribution of haddock extends further to the north and to the east than what was common in the 1990s. Overall, this survey tracks both strong and poor year classes well. At the survey in 2020 young haddock (<35 cm) was aggregated in the south-eastern Barents Sea. These are from the year classes 2015–2017. The Joint Barents Sea ecosystem survey (Eco-NoRu-Q3 (Btr) is a bottom-trawl survey providing estimates from the joint ecosystem survey in August-September started in 2004. This survey covers the main distribution area of haddock. At the benchmark in 2011 it was decided to include this survey as tuning series. The survey in 2019 covered the haddock distribution well. Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Length- and weight-at-age from the NoRu-BTr and RU-BTr-Q4 bottom-trawl surveys are given in ICES 2020a. There was no Russian bottom-trawl survey in 2018 and therefore no new data. Age and length compositions of the landings in 2019 were available from Norway and Russia in Subarea 1 and Division 2.b, from Norway, Russia, and Germany in Division 2.a. The biological sampling of NEA haddock catches is considered good for the most important ages in the fisheries. Relevant data of estimated catch-at-age obtained from InterCatch for the period 2008–2018 and historical values from 1950 is listed in ICES 2020a. The mean weight-at-age in the catch was obtained from InterCatch as a weighted average of the weight-at-age in the catch for Norway, Russia, and Germany. Since 1983 the stock weights at age are calculated taking the average of the weight-at-age estimate from the Joint Barents Sea winter survey and the Russian bottom-trawl survey. These averages are assumed to give representative values for the beginning of the year. However, the Russian bottom-trawl survey was not conducted in 2018 and therefor stock weights-at-age was calculated using a correction factor. The same correction was also applied when the Russian bottom-trawl survey was lacking in 2016. Stock weights seem to be stable with only small year-to-year differences for the last years. The estimates of maturity-at-age are shown in ICES 2020a. Smoothed estimates were produced separately for the Russian autumn survey and the joint winter survey are later combined using an arithmetic average. These averages are assumed to give representative values for the beginning of the year. Since there was no Russian autumn survey in 2018, a correction was applied. The same correction was also applied in 2016. Values for year classes 1993 and onwards changed somewhat compared the values used in the assessment last year.

7.2.1.3 Saithe (Pollachius virens) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic) Status of the stock - One of the target species for the fishery under assessment is the stock of NEA Saithe (Pollachius virens). This report does not aim to provide a scientifically comprehensive description of the species. Interested readers should refer to sources that have been useful in compiling the following summary description of the species. These may include: Fishbase: https://www.fishbase.se/summary/Pollachius-virens.html Descriptions provided by national scientific and management Norwegian bodies, the IMR and the Fiskeridirektoratet respectively: IMR: https://www.hi.no/en/hi/temasider/species/northeast-arctic-saithe Fiskeridirektoratet: https://fromnorway.com/seafood-from-norway/saithe/ According to Fishbase the trophic level of Pollachius virens is 4.3 ±0.4 se (Based on diet studies). Therefore, is not considered a LTL Species The stock structure is not totally clear; migrations are detected among the areas according to tagging experiments (ICES, 2014). Magnitude of migrations seem to differ among the areas studied due to the topography or distance and further studies are recommended (Homrum et al., 2013). Four assessment units are considered within the NE Atlantic region for evaluation of the stock condition as well as for management purposes: 1 – Barents Sea (Subareas I and II, Northeast Arctic), mainly along the coast of Norway south to 62ºN (this profile). Haddock and cod are also targeted in this fishery. 2 – Icelandic (Division Va), 3 – North Sea, Skagerrak, west of Scotland and the Rockall (Divisions IIIa, IV and Subarea VI). 4 – Faroe Islands (Division Vb). Currently the main fleets targeting saithe include trawl, purse-seine, gillnet, handline, and Danish seine. Landings of saithe were highest in 1970-1976 with an average of 239 000 t and a maximum of 265 000 t in 1970. This period was followed by a sharp decline to a level of about 160 000 t in the years 1978– 1984, while in 1985 to 1991 the landings ranged from 67 000-123 000 t. After 1991 landings increased, ranging between 136 000 t (in 2000) and 212 000 t (in 2006), followed by a decline to 132 000 t in 2015. In 2018 landings increased to 181 282 t.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Discarding, although illegal, occurs in the saithe fishery, but is not considered a major problem in the assessment. Due to its nearshore distribution saithe is virtually inaccessible for commercial gears during the first couple of years of life and there are no reports indicating overall high discard rates in the Norwegian fisheries. There are reported incidents of slipping in the purse-seine fishery, mainly related to minimum landing size. Observations from non-Norwegian commercial trawlers indicate that discarding may occur when vessels targeting other species catch saithe, for which they may not have a quota or have filled it. However, there are no quantitative estimates of the level of discarding available.

In 2020 assessment shows that the spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has been above Bpa since 1996 and is presently estimated to be well above Bpa. The fishing mortality (F) has been below Fpa since 2013. Recruitment (R) has been close to the long-term geometric mean level in the last decade. ICES assesses that fishing pressure on the stock is below Fpa, Flim, and FMP, and that the spawning stock size is above Bpa, Blim, and SSBMGT. The advised catch for 2021 is higher than that advised for 2020 because the stock in 2020 is estimated to be larger than in 2019 (ICES, 2020a, e). Figure 3 summarises stock status and stock trends.

Figure 3: Saithe in subareas 1 and 2. Historical development of the stock from the summary of stock assessment (weights in thousand tonnes). Uncertainty boundaries (95%) for recruitment (R), fishing mortality (F), and spawning- stock biomass (SSB) are shown in the plots. Predicted recruitment values are not shaded. Source: ICES 2020e, 27.1-2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5831.

ICES assessed that fishing pressure on the stock is below Fpa, Flim, and FMP, and that the spawning stock size is above Bpa, Blim, and SSBMGT. The assessment is fairly consistent over recent years. The variability in the assessment is taken into account by the harvest control rule in the management plan. Predicted catches are dependent upon assumptions of average recruitment as reliable recruitment estimates are lacking. The current catch of Golden Redfish (Sebastes norvegicus), taken as bycatch in fisheries targeting NEA saithe, constitutes a considerable part of the total Sebastes norvegicus catch. Bycatch of Sebastes norvegicus should be kept as low as possible because of the poor status of this stock. Bycatch of coastal cod should be kept as low as possible in order to obtain the reductions in fishing mortality implied by the coastal cod rebuilding plan. The basis of the assessment are summarized in Table 12.

Management - The HCR, as revised in 2013 and communicated to ICES by the Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs, contains the following elements: Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Estimate the average TAC level for the coming 3 years based on FMP = 0.32. TAC for the next year will be set to this level as a starting value for the 3-year period. The year after, the TAC calculation for the next 3 years is repeated based on the updated information about the stock development. However, the TAC should not be changed by more than +/− 15% compared with the previous year’s TAC. If the SSB in the beginning of the year for which the quota is set (first year of prediction), is below Bpa, the procedure for establishing TAC should be based on a fishing mortality that is linearly reduced from FMP at SSB = Bpa to 0 at SSB equal to zero. At SSB levels below Bpa in any of the operational years (current year and 3 years of prediction) there should be no limitations on the year-to-year variations in TAC.

The HCR was last evaluated by ICES in 2011 (ICES, 2011b), with FMP = 0.35. The evaluation concluded that the HCR is precautionary. The FMP was lowered to the current value of 0.32 by Norwegian authorities in 2013. The inter-benchmark for this stock in 2014 (ICES, 2014) did not result in significantly different estimates of stock dynamics and the former HCR evaluation is still considered valid.

Table 12: Saithe in subareas 1 and 2. Basis of the assessment and advice. Source: http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2019/2019/pok.27.1- 2.pdf

The history of the advice, catch, and management are summarized in Table 13.

Table 13: Saithe in subareas 1 and 2. ICES advice, TAC and catches. All weights are in tonnes. Source: ICES 2020e, 27.1-2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5831.

Year ICES advice Catch Agreed TAC§ ICES catches corresponding to advice 1994 No increase in F 158000# 145000 146950 1995 No increase in F 221000# 165000 168378 1996 No increase in F 158000# 163000 171348 1997 Reduction of F to Fmed or below 107000 125000 143629 1998 Reduction of F to Fmed or below 117000 145000## 153327 1999 Reduce F below Fpa 87000 144000### 150375 2000 Reduce F below Fpa 89000 125000^ 135928 2001 Reduce F below Fpa < 115000 135000 135853 2002 Maintain F below Fpa < 152000 162000^^ 154870 2003 Maintain F below Fpa < 168000 164000 161592 2004 Maintain F below Fpa < 186000 169000 164636 2005 Take account of Sebastes marinus bycatch. Maintain F below Fpa < 215000 215000 178568 2006 Take account of Sebastes marinus bycatch. Maintain F below Fpa < 202000 193500 212557 2007 Take account of Sebastes marinus bycatch. Maintain F below Fpa < 247000 222525 198967 2008 Take account of Sebastes marinus bycatch. Maintain F below FHCR < 247000 < 247000 184840 2009 Take account of Sebastes marinus bycatch. Apply management plan < 225000 225000 161865 2010 Take account of Sebastes marinus bycatch. Apply management plan < 204000 204000 195554 2011 Take account of Sebastes marinus bycatch. Apply management plan < 173000 173000 157048 2012 Take account of coastal cod and S. marinus* bycatch. Apply < 164000 164000 160960 management plan. 2013 Take account of coastal cod and Sebastes marinus* bycatch. Apply < 164000 140000^^^ 131629 management plan.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

2014 Take account of coastal cod and Sebastes marinus* bycatch. Stabilize < 140000 119000^^^ 132070 SSB. 2015 Take account of coastal cod and Sebastes norvegicus bycatch. Apply < 122000 122000 132275 management plan. 2016 Take account of coastal cod and Sebastes norvegicus bycatch. Apply < 140000 140000 141768 management plan. 2017 Take account of coastal cod and Sebastes norvegicus bycatch. Apply ≤ 150000 150000 145819 management plan. 2018 Take account of coastal cod and Sebastes norvegicus bycatch. Apply ≤ 172500 172500 181280 management plan. 2019 Take account of coastal cod and Sebastes norvegicus bycatch. Apply ≤ 149550 149550 163180 management plan. 2020 Apply management plan. ≤ 171982 171982 2021 Apply management plan. ≤ 197779 # Predicted catch at status quo F. ## TAC first set at 125 000 tonnes, then increased in May 1998 after an intersessional assessment. ### TAC set after an intersessional assessment in December 1998. ^ TAC set after an intersessional assessment in December 1999. ^^ TAC first set at 152 000 tonnes, then increased in June 2003 after the spring 2002 assessment. ^^^ Set by Norwegian authorities based on national advice where CPUE was excluded from the assessment. § TAC set by Norwegian authorities. * Until 2014 this species was named Sebastes marinus, thereafter Sebastes norvegicus. empty cell = no data

Data source - The NEA saithe Inter-benchmark Protocol (IBP) (ICES 2014) recommended leaving out the CPUE time-series in the model tuning. An ad hoc subgroup of the AFWG was held to review proposed changes to several survey series using the new “StoX” survey computation methodology. The survey series reviewed included the coastal survey for saithe for the period 2003 to 2017. StoX is a new program developed at IMR Norway, to produce a more robust, transparent, and automated method of computing survey series. Though the echo abundance in 2019 (ICES, 2019e) estimated using StoX decreased by 24% compared to 2018 (which in 2018 had decreased by 15% compared to the previous year), and was about 72% of the average for 2003–2017, the estimated biomass increased due to increased abundances of 5-, 6-, and 8-year old saithe, which were well above the average (2003–2017) for those age classes. The 4-year-old saithe (2014-year class) was most abundant, followed by 5-year- old fish (2013 year class), while the index for 3 year olds was well below the 2003-2017 average. The proportion of saithe in the southern part of the survey area (subareas C+D) increased from about 20% in 1997 to above 60% in 2008, decreased in later years to below 20% in 2017, and was approximately 21% in 2018. Owing to the nearshore distribution of juvenile saithe, obtaining early estimates of recruitment for ages 0-2 has not been possible so far. The survey recruitment indices are strongly dependent on the extent to which 2-4-year-old saithe have migrated from the coastal areas and become available to the acoustic saithe survey on the banks, and this varies between years. Also, observations from an observer programme, established in 2000 to start a 0-group index series (ICES, 2019e). did not seem to reflect the dynamics in year-class strength very well. Total Norwegian landings by gear in 2018 and 2018 landings data for all other countries were updated based on the official total catch (preliminary) reported to ICES or to Norwegian authorities. Age composition data for 2018 were available for Norway and Germany. An ALK for Norwegian trawl was applied to Russian length data for subareas 2.a, and for 2.b and 1 combined. Landings from other countries were assumed to have the same age composition as the combined Norwegian trawl catches. The biological sampling of some vessel groups, periods and areas may have become critically low after the termination of the Norwegian port-sampling program in 2009. Sampling of age data from purse-seine catches had improved by 2016, but catches from some areas and particularly quarter 3 in 2017 were not sampled adequately. Catch-at-age data were estimated by ECA (ECA is an open source software for use in assessment) for the 2019 assessment of NEA saithe. This is the third year that catch-at-age estimates from ECA are used as input in the SAM. In previous years catch-at-age was estimated manually. In 2016, it was not possible due to time constraints to apply the manual method to 2017 to compare the 2016 data. A comparison of ECA and manual allocation data using 2015 catch data, showed that ECA produced somewhat lower estimates of number of younger fish, while it produced slightly higher estimates for older fish. However, a comparison of two respective SAMs run with 2016 ECA and manually allocated data showed that estimates of numbers by age for the intermediate year (2016) did not differ substantially. They also showed very similar trends

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe in SSB and estimated fishing mortality (Fbar), though the SSB estimated with ECA data showed a slightly higher SSB estimate than the estimate based on manually allocated data. Constant weights-at-age values are used for the period 1960–1979. For subsequent years, annual estimates of weight-at-age in the catches are used. Weight-at-age in the stock is assumed to be the same as weight-at-age in the catch. Compared to last year negligible differences in weight-at-age for the most important age groups in 2018 were estimated, with an increase in weight of 3-year-old fish most notable. A 3-year running average is used for the period from 1985 and onwards (2-year average for the first and last year). Inconsistencies between proportion mature fish and trends in SSB and recruitment since 2008 resulted in the NEA saithe IBP to recommend the use of a constant maturity curve for the years from 2007 and onwards based on the average 2005–2007 (ICES, 2014). Until the 2005 WG, the XSA tuning was based on three data series: CPUE from Norwegian purse-seine and Norwegian trawl and indices from a Norwegian acoustic survey. The 2005 WG found rather large and variable log q residuals and large S.E. log q for the purse-seine fleet, as well as strong year effects, and in the combined tuning the fleet got low scaled weights. The WG decided not to include the purse- seine tuning fleet in the analysis. This was confirmed by new analyses at the 2010 benchmark assessment (ICES, 2010). The trawl CPUE series on the other hand does not show the trends in stock size abundance of NEA saithe in later years. In the most recent years there are signs of changes in fishing strategy, with fewer and shorter fishing periods and a smaller proportion of directed saithe fishery. Analyses of the two remaining tuning series done at the 2010 benchmark assessment indicated that there had been a shift in catchability around year 2002. The survey was redesigned in 2003, and the fishery to a larger degree targeted older ages. Permanent breaks were made in both tuning series in 2002. The acoustic survey, compared with the trawl CPUE time-series, seems to track the stock changes better, both in abundance and distribution. The trawl CPUE series does not show the trends in stock size abundance of NEA saithe in later years. In the most recent years there are signs of changes in fishing strategy, with fewer and shorter fishing periods and a smaller proportion of directed saithe fishery. The acoustic survey, on the other hand, seems to track the stock changes better, both in abundance and distribution. The sensitivity runs presented to the IBP clearly show that the residual pattern gets worse (strong year effects) when using both tuning series in SAM. It becomes obvious that SAM tries to fit something in between both contradicting data sources. Therefore, it had to be decided whether one data source is more reliable or whether both data sources should be taken into account leading to a fit in between both extremes. Given that CPUE series should not be used when larger changes in fishing patterns occur (selectivity, spatial distribution of the fleet, change between targeted and bycatch fishery) it was recommended to leave out the CPUE time-series in its current form for now. Another reason was that the proportion of catches covered by the index has decreased steadily between 2002 and 2011 further questioning the representativeness of the CPUE.

7.2.1.5 Fisheries management and data collection in Barents Sea In this section information is provided to document other vessels from other countries targeting the target species. There are currently 14 nations with fisheries targeting the stocks in this ecoregion. The country with the highest landings is Norway, followed by Russia. Lower landings are made by Denmark, Estonia, Faroe Islands, France, Germany, Iceland, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Belarus, and the UK. Norway also has the highest fishing effort (note that data from Russia is lacking; ICES, 2019f). Prior to the establishment of exclusive economic zones in the ecoregion in the late 1970s, several nations were fishing in the area. The major fishing fleets were from Norway and Russia. Historically, landings by all nations were dominated by demersal species such as cod and haddock; redfish (beaked and golden) and Greenland halibut were, however, also important up to about 1990.Landings of capelin, the only major pelagic fish species in the area, peaked at three million tonnes in 1977. The capelin stock ‘collapsed’ to very low levels in the mid-1980s. Before the establishment of a minimum landing size for Norwegian spring-spawning herring, for which the Barents Sea serves as a nursery area, large catches of immature herring were also taken in the ecoregion; this was mainly by Norwegian and Russian fishers. In recent years, Norway has fished some legal-sized herring in a restricted coastal purse-seine fishery inside four nautical miles off the Finnmark coast. In the southwestern part of the ecoregion, an international herring fishery has operated in some seasons. Norway dominates the Northern shrimp Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe fishery. Catches increased considerably from 2018, with much of that increase coming from fleets fishing in the international waters between the Norwegian Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), the Fisheries Protection Zone around Svalbard, and the Russian EEZ. Red king crab are fished by Russia in near-coastal Russian waters, and by Norway in the coastal waters of the northernmost counties of Norway, Troms and Finnmark. A fishery has developed for the snow crab in recent years; this is a species first encountered in the ecoregion in 1996. This fishery is mainly carried out by a Russian fleet, in the Russian part of the Barents Sea shelf. Commercial hunting of Barents Sea harp seals started with vessels from northern Norway in 1867. In general, there has been a lack of capacity to take recommended TACs since 2000. Norwegian whaling, targeting minke whales, started in the late 1920s. A total quota was introduced in 1976. The effect of this was to move the catch effort from coastal areas with relatively low catch rates to the Barents Sea, as well as off the west coast of Spitsbergen. Following the moratorium on all whaling as declared by the International Whaling Commission (IWC), Norway stopped all commercial minke whale hunt temporarily after the 1987 season. The hunt was started again in 1993, and has continued in all subsequent years (ICES, 2019f). Norway The Norwegian fleet fishing in the ecoregion consists of about 3000 active vessels; these vessels are fishing gadoids, flatfish, other demersal fish, pelagic fish, and shellfish. Small coastal vessels (the majority being < 11 m in length) fishing with gillnets and pots make up around 94% of the fleet, while the remaining 6% are predominantly ocean-going trawlers > 28 m in length. 539 Norwegian vessels participated in the 2018 quota-regulated red king crab fishery east of 26°E, consisting exclusively of coastal vessels (6–22 m in length). West of this line, fishing for red king crab is unregulated and the number of vessels unknown. The snow crab fishery in the Norwegian part of the ecoregion is still developing, because of the relatively recent westward spread of snow crab. There are currently 16 Norwegian vessels in this fishery. The harp seal hunt in the ecoregion has traditionally been conducted with large, ice-going sealers of which only 2–5 vessels remain today. Approximately 10–15 vessels participate in the minke whale hunt. Russia The Russian fleet operating in the Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea ecoregions is composed of about 215 vessels. 90% of these catch demersal species, including fish and crustaceans, and 15% catch pelagic species. Approximately 25% of the fleet targeting demersal species are below 34 m in length, and operate near the Russian coast using trawls and traps, catching several fish species and crabs. Vessels of size 34–65 m average around 60% of the fleet and mainly target cod, haddock, saithe, redfish, Greenland halibut, wolffish, long rough dab, and European plaice using trawls and longlines, crabs using traps, and shrimp using trawls. The industrial factory ships (10 vessels of 65–100 m; 20 vessels > 100 m) are predominantly trawlers that use bottom and midwater trawls. They account for most of the landings of capelin, but also catch cod, haddock, and saithe. The Russian harp seal hunt is performed using 2–3 helicopters, where the seals (generally pups) are hunted on the ice. Denmark The Danish fleet targets (small amounts of) demersal fish in ICES Subdivision 2.a.2. The vessels are all pelagic trawlers or combined trawl/purse-seiners, ranging in length between 60 m and 90 m. Estonia The Estonian fleet fishing in the area consists of 5 vessels with an average length of 64 m, operating in the Northwest Atlantic, Northeast Atlantic, and Svalbard. The fleet targets mainly Northern shrimp and Greenland halibut with bottom trawls, with cod and long rough dab as bycatch. Faroe Islands The Faroese fleet in the ecoregion currently consists of four vessels targeting cod, haddock, Greenland halibut, shrimp, redfish, and flatfish. These vessels are between 50 m and 80 m in length. Germany The German fleet operating in the ecoregion consists of about five vessels (> 40 m in length). The pelagic freezer trawlers target mainly herring, blue whiting, and redfish, while the demersal trawlers target mainly cod, saithe, and haddock. Greenland

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

The Greenland fishing fleet consists of eight vessels. Two of these are 82–88 m long stern trawlers that mainly target cod, saithe, and haddock; with minor bycatches of plaice and wolffish. The remaining six vessels are pelagic trawlers and purse-seiners, 66–88 m in length that mainly fish for mackerel. One vessel targets Northern shrimp. Iceland The Icelandic fleet consists of nine vessels, all demersal trawlers larger than 60 m in length. These vessels target cod in accordance with bilateral agreements between Iceland and Norway, and between Iceland and Russia. Lithuania The Lithuanian fleet in the North Atlantic consists of two demersal trawlers > 40 m in length, targeting shrimp in the ecoregion. Another trawler > 40 m in length operates in ICES divisions 2.a and 14.b, targeting redfish with midwater otter trawl. Poland One Polish vessel (> 40 m in length) is active in the region, targeting cod, haddock, saithe, redfish, and Greenland halibut. Portugal Two Portuguese stern trawlers (> 60 m in length) operate in the area; they mainly target cod, since quotas for redfish, haddock, and pollock are small. Spain The Spanish fleet consists of seven vessels. Four of these are between 48–87 m in length, targeting cod with otter bottom trawls. France French vessels target cod, haddock, saithe, redfish, and Greenland halibut in the area. The fleet usually consists of one freezer trawler of 80 m in length, targeting cod and associated species (haddock and saithe) with otter bottom trawls. UK Three or four demersal vessels operate throughout the year in the ecoregion, mainly targeting species such as cod, haddock, saithe, and Greenland halibut. The average size of these vessels is around 4830 kW horsepower and > 80 m in total length. There are between one and three vessels that fish for herring in Division 2.a. Others Smaller amounts of saithe, redfish, and Greenland halibut have been landed by Ireland, the Netherlands, and Latvia in some years. Belarus vessels also catch a small amount of cod annually. Discards Norway launched a discard ban on cod and haddock in 1987. This was gradually expanded to other species and from 2009 an obligation to land all catches was introduced, albeit with certain exemptions. Discarding is, nevertheless, a problem, e.g. in haddock fisheries where discards are highly related to the abundance of haddock close to, but below, the minimum legal catch size. Documentation of redfish (mainly beaked redfish) taken as bycatch and then discarded in the Norwegian shrimp fishery since 1984 shows that shrimp trawlers removed significant numbers of juvenile redfish during the early 1980s. After sorting grids became mandatory in 1993, bycatch and discard of redfish was substantially reduced. The bycatch and discard of cod and haddock in shrimp fisheries consists mainly of 1- and 2- year-olds, but is generally small compared to other reported sources of mortality, like catches and discards in the demersal fisheries (ICES, 2019g). The Barents Sea ecoregion includes all or parts of the EEZs of Russia and Norway, as well as most of the Fisheries Protection Zone around Svalbard. Management is conducted in accordance with the fisheries policies of Russia and Norway, and catch opportunities for stocks in the area are agreed during meetings of the Joint Norwegian–Russian Fisheries Commission. National authorities manage activities in coastal waters (i.e. within 12 nautical miles of the coast) of Russia and Norway. The status of Svalbard waters is partly unresolved. All nations that have historically fished in the Svalbard area are still active

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe in the area, but Norway monitor and regulate the zone. Located centrally in the Barents Sea is a small area beyond national jurisdiction; this area of high seas is called “the Loophole” (ICES Division 1.a) and the fishing there is managed based on agreements by the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) and by coastal states. A small salmon fishery is managed nationally, based on agreements at the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO). International fisheries advice and advice on harp seals is provided by ICES. Total allowable catch (TAC) is the main fishery management tool in the ecoregion. TACs were introduced for most stocks in the later part of the 1980s. Several technical measures are in place in the ecoregion. It is mandatory in all groundfish trawl fisheries to use a sorting grid to avoid catching undersized fish. There are two exceptions: an area open for targeting redfish, and an area in the southwestern part of the ecoregion, where trawling without sorting grids is permitted to catch haddock from 1 January to 30 April. From 2011 onwards, the minimum mesh size for bottom-trawl fisheries for cod and haddock is 130 mm for the entire Barents Sea. At the same time, a change/harmonization of the minimum legal catch size for cod from 47 cm (Norway) and 42 cm (Russia) to 44 cm, and for haddock from 44 cm (Norway) and 39 cm (Russia) to 40 cm, took place. It has been mandatory since 1992 to use a sorting grid in the shrimp fishery. Spatial management also occurs, both for fisheries and ecosystem reasons, with permanent and temporary closed areas to protect e.g. juvenile fish and deep-water coral reefs. The Norwegian government has implemented an “Integrated Management Plan for the Marine Environment of the Barents Sea–Lofoten Area”, which is a framework for the sustainable use of natural resources and goods derived from the area, including fishing. Red king crab and snow crab fisheries are managed separately by Norway and Russia. Red king crab is a coastal fishery in Norway, and there are two spatial management regimes: east of 26° longitude the management aim is to maintain a long-term fishery through a TAC, while west of 26°E there is a free non-legislated fishery with a discard ban aimed at limiting further spread, and keeping the stock as low as possible. Norway and Russia share exclusive access to the snow crab fishery but manage their fisheries with separate TACs. The JNRFC manages seal hunting. Fisheries of saithe are managed by Norway. Minke whale quotas are set by Norway. Commercial minke whaling is based on the International Whaling Committee’s (IWC) Revised Management Procedure (RMP). The RMP requires catch history and abundance estimates as input, and calculates annual quotas for six-year period (ICES, 2019g). Fishery removals are monitored by extensive catch and sampling statistics programs and by at-sea inspection by the Norwegian coast guard at sea, through scientific observer (Russian fishery) and reference fleet (Norwegian fishery) programs. EU fleets contribute through an Observer’s program on board the assessed vessels as part of the EU DCF, this including data reporting to ICES. The programme includes biological sampling of around 40 trips per year. If fishing in the Russian zone the fishery is subject to a detailed observer programme with a 100% coverage. The fishery operates under a discard ban and while information on discarding is limited, based on the analyses of the at sea observations, it is not considered a major issue in the cod, haddock and saithe fisheries. A range of surveys and commercial catch rate information provide annual indices of abundance. There is a wide array of environmental and other data available in the Barents Sea ecosystem, some of which is used to inform the harvest strategy. For instance, estimates of cod recruitment in the 3-year projections of the HCR are based upon relationships with environmental drivers such as ice coverage, temperature and oxygen saturation at the Kola section, air temperature at Murman coast, and capelin biomass (ICES, 2019g). The main Norwegian sampling program for demersal fish in ICES subareas 1 and 2 has been port sampling and at sea sampling, carried out on board a vessel travelling from port to port for approximately 6 weeks each quarter. A detailed description of this sampling program is given in Hirst et al. (2004). However, this program was, for economic reasons, terminated 1 July 2009. Sampling by the ‘reference fleet’ and the Coast Guard has increased in recent years. However, the reduction in port sampling of many different vessels seems to have increased the uncertainty in the catch-at-age estimates from 2009 onwards (WD6, 2010). A Norwegian port sampling program was restarted in 2011, although with a lower effort, but this improved the basis for the 2011–2017 catch-at-age estimates. From 2014 this program is run by 4-year contracts of a vessel that sails between fish landing sites along the coast from about 66°N to Varanger (70°N, 30°E) three periods a year during the 1st, 2nd and 4th quarters, altogether up to 120 days. This is a reduction compared to about 180 days a year prior to 2009. The catch sampling is done of landed fish, mainly from the fleet fishing in coastal waters, and usually inside the plant, and the rented vessel acts as a transport, accommodation and working (age reading, data work) platform. In ICES 2019b the development of the Norwegian, Russian, Spanish and German sampling of commercial catches in the period 2008–2018 is reported. The data show the total sampling effort, but do not show how well the sampling covers the fishery. Indices of coverage should be

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe developed to indicate this. The main reason for the general strong decrease in numbers of Norwegian samples in the first part of this period is the termination of the port sampling program in northern Norway. This program is now up and running again. It should be considered whether catch sampling carried out by different countries fishing by trawl for the same time and area could be coordinated and data shared on a detailed level (ICES, 2019g). Regarding cod, haddock and saithe, previous concerns regarding poor biological sampling from the fishery were less of an issue in 2018, as available catch-at-age and length data covered the largest portion of catches by the respective fisheries. However, the aggregation level (time and space) used when splitting these catches into Northeast arctic cod and Norwegian Coastal Cod is also an important issue. Despite the improvement in sampling coverage in 2016–2018, the number of samples should be increased in coming years, with the aim of covering all quarters and areas contributing highest catches (ICES, 2019g). 7.2.2 Catch profiles

The catch profiles for the 3 target stocks are available in Figure 1,Figure 2 andFigure 3.

7.2.3 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data Table 14. Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data

TAC (Cod) Year 2020 Amount 738 kt

UoA share of TAC Year 2020 Amount 322 277 t

UoA share of total TAC Year 2020 Amount 322 277 t

Year (most Total green weight catch by UoC 2020 Amount 90 067 t recent) Year (second Total green weight catch by UoC 2019 Amount 94 090, t most recent)

2020 TAC (Haddock) Year Amount 215 kt

2020 UoA share of TAC Year Amount 6 159 t

2020 UoA share of total TAC Year Amount 96 159 t

Year (most 2020 Total green weight catch by UoC Amount 24 848 t recent) Year (second 2019 Total green weight catch by UoC Amount 21 103, t most recent)

TAC (Saithe) Year 2020 Amount 172 kt

UoA share of TAC Year 2020 Amount 12 000 t

UoA share of total TAC Year 2020 Amount 12 000 t

Year (most Total green weight catch by UoC 2020 Amount 1 466 t recent) Year (second Total green weight catch by UoC 2019 Amount 2 084, t most recent)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

7.2.4 Principle 1 Performance Indicator scores and rationales

PI The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low 1.1.1 probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue Stock status relative to recruitment impairment It is likely that the stock is above It is highly likely There is a high degree of a Guide the point where recruitment that the stock is certainty that the stock is post would be impaired (PRI). above the PRI. above the PRI.

Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The following evidences indicate SG 60, SG80 and SG100 are met: ICES (2020 a, b) classifies the stock as having full reproductive capacity and being harvested sustainably. Figure 1 shows that since 2007, the NEA cod spawning stock biomass (SSB) has been well above Blim , (the point where recruitment would be impaired and estimated as the change point regression, see ICES 2003 for further details), as well as above Bpa (The lowest SSB estimate having >90% probability of remaining above Blim). Latest estimate of NEA cod SSB (see below ‘Stock Status & Reference Points’), with the lowest range of confidence intervals (95%) being in 2020 equal to 1017 kt, well above Blim (220 kt). Thus, current SSB is above Blim with a high degree of certainty (95th %ile). Stock status in relation to achievement of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) The stock is at or There is a high degree fluctuating around a level of certainty that the b Guide consistent with MSY. stock has been fluctuating around a level

post consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale The following evidences indicate SG80 and SG100 are met: ICES and the cod management plan of the JNRFC do not use an explicit BMSY reference point. The target is to maintain the fishing mortality around FMSY. SSB has been sustained at levels well above BPA since the HCR was put in place in 2007. According to the GSA2.2.3.1 of the MSC Fisheries Standard (Annexes S) and Guidance v2.01: “reference points such as BPA that are used as a precautionary buffer to reduce the chance of declining to a limit level such as the PRI should also not be assumed to be consistent with BMSY. The BMSYtrigger approach used in ICES, for example, should be regarded as setting a lower limit to the likely range of values that BMSY may take, and not as an estimated value for BMSY. In ICES assessments, fisheries with B>BMSYtrigger may be regarded as “fluctuating around BMSY” (thereby achieving an 80 score)”.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

However, in the annual catch scenarios, SSB in 2021 achieved fishing at FMSY was 1,127 kt, this value can be considered an accurate proxy of BMSY because it is determined in accordance with an exploitation at MSY level starting from a level of relative high biomass. The last estimate of SSB (1367 kt) was higher than the proxy of SSBMSY. The SSB has been higher than this level since 2007, thus for more than one generation time, estimated as around 10 years (GT = 1/M + A50% = 1/0.33 + 6.5; see https://www.fishbase.in/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?ID=69&AT=Cod). According to GSA2.2.2 of the MSC Fisheries Standard, a score of 100 can be reached if a series of estimates of stock size that have been above BMSY in all years of the last one generation time, as in the present case. Therefore SG 80 and 100 are met. References ICES. 2020a. Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG). ICES Scientific Reports. 2:52. http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.6050 ICES. 2020b. Cod (Gadus morhua) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2020. ICES Advice 2020, cod.27.1-2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5909.

Stock status relative to reference points Type of reference point Value of reference point Current stock status relative to reference point Reference Blim = Change point 220 kt 6.2 point used in regression scoring stock relative to PRI (SIa) Reference BMSY = estimated from 1,127 kt 1.3 point used in the catch scenario at scoring stock FMSY. relative to MSY (SIb)

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

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Condition number (if relevant)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Where the stock is reduced, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a PI 1.1.2 specified timeframe Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Rebuilding timeframes A rebuilding timeframe is The shortest practicable specified for the stock rebuilding timeframe is that is the shorter of 20 specified which does not years or 2 times its exceed one generation a Guide generation time. For time for the stock. post cases where 2 generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years. Met? NA NA

Rationale The stock is not depleted

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

Rationale The stock is not depleted

References

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

Information gap indicator -

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

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Condition number (if relevant)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue Harvest strategy design The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is expected to achieve responsive to the state of responsive to the state of stock management the stock and the the stock and is Guide objectives reflected in PI elements of the harvest designed to achieve a 1.1.1 SG80. strategy work together stock management post towards achieving stock objectives reflected in PI management objectives 1.1.1 SG80. reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The following evidence indicates SG 60 is met: The harvest strategy is expected to achieve MSY objectives through setting TACs and other regulations for the fishery based on scientific input. The strategy is based on existing reference points which are used in the scientific advice and are embedded in the HCRs. The strategy is expected, based on experience and simulation studies, to achieve MSY-like stock management objectives. The HCRs developed based on this strategy have been specifically designed to achieve management objectives reflected in target and limit reference points and have been tested as being precautionary. The following evidence indicates SG 80 is met: The strategy is responsive to the state of the stock based on input from the annual ICES assessments that in turn are based on data on exploitation and stock abundance. These assessment results are input to the HCRs that are designed to react to changes in stock status. Although the TAC remains the main control tool, other technical measures are applied to improve the performance of the fishery. These include mandatory use of grids, minimum mesh size, minimum landing size, a maximum bycatch of undersized fish and/or non-target species and seasonal or permanent areas closures to fishing to protect juveniles and bycatch species. These elements work together to achieve objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. The following evidence indicates SG 100 is met: As noted above the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the strategy is designed to achieve MSY objectives. TACs have been generally consistent with the HCR and thus ICES advice and catches have been within the TACs indicating that the elements of the strategy are working together. The stock status is at levels consistent with the reference points both in term of fishing mortality and spawning biomass. Harvest strategy evaluation The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy may The performance of the likely to work based on not have been fully harvest strategy has prior experience or tested but evidence been fully evaluated b Guide plausible argument. exists that it is achieving and evidence exists to its objectives. show that it is achieving post its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale The following evidence indicates SG 60 is met: The NEA cod stock has been at a high level for more than a decade. Current status is that SSB is well above BMSY (or surrogates) and fishing mortality below the management plan’s target (FMP = FMSY). The following evidence indicates SG 80 is met: The strategy has been in place for about two decades and the outcome, in term of status of the stock (see PI 1.1.1), suggests that the strategy is working. Furthermore, the strategy has been subject to numerous analyses, particularly focusing on the HCR while also other elements has been considered. The following evidence indicates SG 100 is met: There is an established HCR which is based on annual stock assessment and independent scientific advice (ICES) based on existing reference points. The management decision making is well informed, and consideration is given to a range of issues including stock dynamics, assessment process including uncertainties, and implementation error. The performance of the harvest strategy is evaluated as required (e.g. when changes are made to the HCR) to confirm that it remains precautionary and is achieving management objectives. The cod strategy was reviewed in 2010 and again in 2016 during which it underwent testing under a range of assessment and implementation uncertainties and was determined by ICES to be precautionary. The evidence from the annual ICES stock assessments (high SSB and F~FMSY) is that the strategy is able to achieve its FMSY objective and is maintaining the stocks at SSB levels above reference levels. The annual catch scenarios demonstrate that fishing at level consistent with the management plan would produce a an SSB in 2021 in line with the BMSY estimate. Harvest strategy monitoring Monitoring is in place that c Guide is expected to determine post whether the harvest strategy is working.

Met? Yes

Rationale The following evidence indicates SG 60 is met: There are sufficient data available to allow annual assessments based on an age-based analytical model (SAM). See section 7.2.1.1 for a detailed list of input data used in the assessment. The annual stock assessments of the AFWG of ICES evaluate stock status in relation to reference points of the management plan as well as the ICES precautionary and MSY approach. Harvest strategy review

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

Rationale The following evidence indicates SG 100 is met: The initial management plans for the demersal stocks Barents Sea were put in place by mid 2000s: cod (2004), haddock (2007) and saithe (2007). A central concept of each plan is that it is based on science and takes a precautionary approach, implying a need for revision as new knowledge becomes available (Olsen et al., 2007). JNRFC has evaluated the strategy almost annually and modifications have been introduced on several occasions based on ICES reviews that have been

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe conducted each time the strategy has been changed. The plans were modified based on ICES evaluations in 2010 and again in 2016. ICES found the plans remained in accordance with the precautionary approach not in contradiction to the MSY approach. The next reviews will take place in 2021 as part of the five-year cyclical review of the harvest strategies. Therefore, SG100 is met. Shark finning It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree e Guide finning is not taking shark finning is not taking of certainty that shark post place. place. finning is not taking place. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale The stock is not a shark. Review of alternative measures There has been a review There is a regular review There is a biennial of the potential of the potential review of the potential effectiveness and effectiveness and effectiveness and practicality of alternative practicality of alternative practicality of alternative f Guide measures to minimise measures to minimise measures to minimise post UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of the unwanted catch of the unwanted catch of the target stock. target stock and they are target stock, and they are implemented as implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale The fishery is subject to a discard ban that is strictly enforced. Hence, there is no unwanted catches of the target stock. There are move-on rules and real-time closures in place to protect against catch of undersized fish. According to ICES 2019a discarding is considered to be negligible. Therefore, this SG was not scored. During the site visit will be confirmed if discards in the UoA are negligible.

References ICES. 2015. Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Arctic Stocks (WKARCT), 26–30 January 2015, ICES Headquarters, Denmark. ICES CM 2015/ACOM:31. 126 pp.. ICES. 2016a. Norway/Russia request for evaluation of harvest control rules for Northeast Arctic cod and haddock and for Barents Sea capelin. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2016. ICES Advice 2016, Book 3, Section 3.4.1. 12 pp. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/Special_Requests/Norway- Russia_HCR_Northeast_Artic_cod_haddock_capelin.pdf. ICES. 2020a. Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG). ICES Scientific Reports. 2:52. http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.6050 ICES. 2020b. Cod (Gadus morhua) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2020. ICES Advice 2020, cod.27.1-2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5909. JNRFC 2016. Documents retrieved from: www.jointfish.org Olsen, E., Gjøsæter, H., Røttingen, I., Dommasnes, A., Fossum, P., and Sandberg, P. 2007. The Norwegian ecosystem-based management plan for the Barents Sea – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64. Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Draft scoring range ≥80 More information sought Information gap indicator More info about unwanted catches

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

Condition number (if relevant)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 HCRs design and application Generally understood HCRs Well defined HCRs are in The HCRs are expected to are in place or available that place that ensure that the keep the stock fluctuating are expected to reduce the exploitation rate is reduced as at or above a target level exploitation rate as the point the PRI is approached, are consistent with MSY, or a Guide of recruitment impairment expected to keep the stock another more appropriate post (PRI) is approached. fluctuating around a target level taking into account the level consistent with (or ecological role of the stock, above) MSY, or for key LTL most of the time. species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The following evidence indicates SG 60 is met: JNRFC has developed and agreed HCRs for cod and haddock. These have been effective since 2004 for cod. The HCRs have been modified on various occasions by the JNRFC, the current version was evaluated by ICES and found precautionary is from 2016, see section 6.2.10. Hence there “generally understood harvest rules” in place. The following evidence indicates SG 80 is met: These HCRs are well defined and effectively implemented by JNRFC. The HCRs ensure that the fishing mortality is reduced as reference points are approached. The strategy and embedded HCR is expected to keep the stock fluctuating around level consistent with MSY. The following evidence indicates SG 100 is met: The strategy and embedded HCR is expected to keep the stock fluctuating around MSY. The ecological role of cod is accounted for through the studies of the Barents Sea ecosystem as well as in Norwegian Sea and Russian EEZ (ICES, 2013). and through the inclusion of the link to the capelin and the cannibalism in the assessment. The historic TACs are set under the understanding that is embedded in the 2016 revised HCR that above FMSY TACs are acceptable in situations when the stock biomass is well above BMSY levels as has been the case over the recent decade. The stock is now at sustainable (judging based on the reference points) productivity levels. HCRs robustness to uncertainty The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account of a robust to the main wide range of uncertainties b Guide uncertainties. including the ecological role of the stock, and there is post evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties.

Met? Yes Yes

Rationale Variants of the HCR have been evaluated since 2002. The evaluation of the latest HCR undertaken in 2010 used the same model formulation as that used in 2005 (ICES, 2005) but with the more recent rules. The exercise was repeated in 2016 using updated software. The operating model incorporated a

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe range of biological knowledge, including a stock-recruitment relationship and catch and stock weights at age dependent on stock biomass. Cannibalism was not modelled directly because stock-recruitment relationship was based on a time series of spawning stock and recruitment where cannibalism was not included. The impact of different natural mortality values on ages 3 and 4 was explored. Assessment and implementation error and bias was modelled explicitly as percentages of stock overestimation and level of overfishing. Assessment bias and error was modelled as age-dependent, with no correlation between age groups, based on an historical analysis. Implementation error and bias was modelled using the same percentage for all age groups. To explore the amount of bias and error to introduce, the relation between catch and quota for the period 1987-2003 was fit to a normal distribution with unreported catches added to the catch statistics during 1990-1994 and 2002-2003. Rebuilding under two scenarios of recruitment (low and high) were explored (ICES, 2005). The simulations showed that the HCR has attributes which should maintain good performance, notably the limitation on TAC change when the biomass falls below BPA and thus is precautionary. These evaluations took into account the main uncertainties in the stock and fishery. The following evidence indicates SG 100 is met: The evaluations presented in ICES (2016) includes investigations of effects of variations in growth and maturity. Further for cod the growth is studied in relation to capelin abundance. Compared to previous studies a wide range of uncertainties are included in the simulations. HCRs evaluation There is some evidence that Available evidence Evidence clearly shows tools used or available to indicates that the tools in use that the tools in use are c Guide implement HCRs are are appropriate and effective effective in achieving the post appropriate and effective in in achieving the exploitation exploitation levels required controlling exploitation. levels required under the under the HCRs. HCRs. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The following evidence indicates SG 60 and 80 are met: Norwegian and Russian authorities have the administrative mechanisms and enforcement infrastructure to ensure compliance with the HCR. The JNRFC sets the cod TAC and quotas. These apply for each nation’s fleet participating in the fishery and the fishery can be closed when quotas are taken. Catches recorded in the electronic logbook are reported after every haul and catch landing of all fishing vessels is subject to regular monitoring. Catches are monitored and counted against the TAC during the year. Prior to 2009, although TAC regulations were in place, there was a significant amount of unreported landings mostly affecting the cod and haddock landings mostly due to quota control evasion through trans-shipping of fish from the Barents Sea. In 2009, a Barents Sea wide catch monitoring and reporting system was put in place which has effectively addressed the IUU issue (see PI 1.2.3). While discarding is thought to occur, although it is illegal, in the fishery, it is considered minor. The following evidence indicates SG 100 is not met: The most recent assessment is evidence that catch and thus fishing mortality are above MSY level in 2018 (see ICES 2020b). During the site visit this was discussed with PINRO and IMR scientists, who confirmed that in the agreed TAC is above the catch corresponding to advice since 2017 due to negotiations carried out by industry and the managers. References ICES. 2005. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), 19–28 April 2005, Murmansk, Russia. ICES CM 2005/ACFM:20. 564 pp. ICES. 2013. Report of the Working Group on the ICES ACOM/SCICOM Workshop on Ecosystem Overviews (WKECOVER), 7–11 January 2013, ICES HQ, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2013/ACOM/SCICOM:01. 131 pp.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

ICES. 2020b. Cod (Gadus morhua) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2020. ICES Advice 2020, cod.27.1-2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5909. JNRFC 2016. Documents retrieved from: www.jointfish.org.

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

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Condition number (if relevant)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Range of information Some relevant information Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of related to stock structure, information related to stock information (on stock stock productivity and fleet structure, stock productivity, structure, stock productivity, composition is available to fleet composition and other fleet composition, stock a Guide support the harvest strategy. data are available to support abundance, UoA removals the harvest strategy. and other information such as post environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale The following evidence indicates SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 are met: Life history information is extensive allowing a full understanding of the stock structure and the temporal and spatial distribution of all life stages. Long-term trends in recruitment, growth and natural mortality are available in stock assessments. For NEA cod there are special concerns. A component of natural mortality is due to the cannibalism of young cod by older cod. This component is accounted for in the stock assessment based on data on food habits data collected on surveys. Cod in ICES I and II have two components: Barents Sea cod and Norwegian coastal cod. The Barents Sea cod only occurs offshore and therefore the Arkhangelsk trawl fleet which operates outside the 12 nm zone does not interfere with the coastal cod stock. Fishery removals are monitored by extensive catch and sampling statistics programs and by at-sea inspection by the Norwegian coast guard at sea, through scientific observer (Russian fishery) and Norwegian fleet programs. Spain contributes through an Observer’s program on board the assessed vessels as part of the EU Data Collection Framework, this including data reporting to ICES. The data collection programme includes biological samplings carried out approximately during 40 fishing trips per year. If fishing in the Russian zone the fishery is subject to a detailed observer programme with a 100% coverage. The fishery operates under a discard ban and while information on discarding is limited, based on the analyses of the at sea observations, it is not considered a major issue in the cod, haddock and saithe fisheries. A range of surveys and commercial catch rate information provide annual indices of abundance. There is a wide array of environmental and other data available in the Barents Sea ecosystem as well as in Norwegian Sea (ICES, 2016b), some of which is used to inform the harvest strategy. For instance, estimates of recruitment in the 3-year projections of the HCR are based upon relationships with environmental drivers such as ice coverage, temperature and oxygen saturation at the Kola section, air temperature at Murman coast, and capelin biomass. Monitoring Stock abundance and UoA Stock abundance and UoA All information required by removals are monitored and removals are regularly the harvest control rule is b at least one indicator is monitored at a level of monitored with high Guide available and monitored with accuracy and coverage frequency and a high degree sufficient frequency to consistent with the harvest of certainty, and there is a post support the harvest control control rule, and one or good understanding of rule. more indicators are inherent uncertainties in the available and monitored with information [data] and the sufficient frequency to robustness of assessment

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

support the harvest control and management to this rule. uncertainty. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale The following evidences indicate SG 60 and SG 80 are met: The annual stock assessments (see PI 1.2.4) provide estimates of SSB and fishing mortality to inform the HCRs. Removals in the stock assessment are based upon the statistical programs and monitoring by Norwegian and Russian authorities. Keeping a detailed electronic logbook on-board is mandatory for vessels including the Spanish vessels active in the area. The Norwegian authorities requires recording on a haul basis (not daily) using the electronic logbook. The fisheries are controlled by inspections of the trawler fleet at sea, and include requirement to report to control points when entering and leaving the EEZs, VMS satellite and tracking, and by random inspections of fishing vessels when landing the fish. Prior to 2009, IUU fishing was a significant issue but administrative mechanisms put in place by NEAFC (port state obligations) are considered to have largely addressed this problem. The age/size composition of the removals is determined through the Russian at-sea observer program and the Norwegian port sampling and Reference fleet programs. The Spanish fleet only fish in the Norwegian and Svalbard zones at present. The available data are summarised in section 6.2.10. These indices are available since the mid-1980s, representing about 2.5 cod generations. Areal coverage of these surveys has varied over the time series. The ICES AFWG has spent considerable resources to ensure that these survey time series provide consistent indices of abundance. The following evidence indicates SG 100 is not met: Recent issues with sampling to characterise the age/size composition of the catch are a concern. The Norwegian reference fleet has undergone significant changes in recent years and there are concerns that the precision of catch at age estimates has declined. The AFWG has made adjustments for IUU fishing and made simulations to test the HCR, the simulations have included implementation error (e.g. uncertainty in the catch), even so it is not clear how robust the SAM assessment is to 10-40% CVs (Coefficient of Variation) in the catch at age other than inference from more general studies on the methodology. Also, it is not clear how the adjustments to the survey time series have affected the estimates of uncertainty (both precision and bias) in these data and how robust the management strategy is to these. However, specific question about the monitoring of UoA removals will be further discussed during the site visit Comprehensiveness of information

Guide There is good information on c all other fishery removals post from the stock.

Met? Yes

Rationale The following evidence indicates SG 80 is met: The primary sources of non-UoA fishery removals of NEA cod are vessels fishing offshore not included in the certification and vessels fishing in coastal Norway. These vessels are all MSC certified based under other MSC certificates. Removals are monitored using the similar administrative mechanisms as the UoA fisheries and also monitoring of the coastal fishery by Norway uses similar mechanisms as the rest of the Norwegian fleet. The control system built by the Norwegian coast guard and the Russian observer scheme assures that there is good information on all removals. In addition, relevant ICES reports (e.g. ICES, 2020 a, b) provide information on catches by gear and country. References

ICES. 2015. Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Arctic Stocks (WKARCT), 26–30 January 2015, ICES Headquarters, Denmark. ICES CM 2015/ACOM:31. 126 pp.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

ICES. 2016a. Norway/Russia request for evaluation of harvest control rules for Northeast Arctic cod and haddock and for Barents Sea capelin. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2016. ICES Advice 2016, Book 3, Section 3.4.1. 12 pp. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/Special_Requests/Norway- Russia_HCR_Northeast_Artic_cod_haddock_capelin.pdf. ICES. 2016b. Final report of the Working Group on the Integrated Assessments of the Norwegian Sea (WGINOR), 7–11 December 2015, Reykjavik, Iceland. ICES CM 2015/SSGIEA:10. 149 pp.

ICES. 2020a. Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG). ICES Scientific Reports. 2:52. http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.6050 ICES. 2020b. Cod (Gadus morhua) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2020. ICES Advice 2020, cod.27.1-2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5909.

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

Draft scoring range ≥80 More information sought Information about the monitoring of UoA Information gap indicator removals will be further discussed during the site visit

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

Condition number (if relevant)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration The assessment is The assessment takes into appropriate for the stock and account the major features Guide a for the harvest control rule. relevant to the biology of the post species and the nature of the UoA. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale The following evidence indicates SG 80 is met: Life history data available allow elucidation of the stock structure and the temporal and spatial distribution of all life stages. Long-term trends in recruitment, growth and natural mortality are available in stock assessments. Fishery removals are monitored both at sea through scientific observer (Russian fishery) and reference fleet (Norwegian fishery) programs and at landings based on a discard ban. A range of surveys provide annual indices of abundance. There is a wide array of environmental and other data available in the Barents Sea ecosystem, although it is not used directly in the stock assessment. The database available for the stock assessment is considerable including data from the commercial fishery as well as abundance indices from research vessel surveys. The principal assessment model is the SAM model (state-space assessment model) which is suitable for the available data and sufficient to provide indices of SSB and fishing mortality to inform the HCR. Furthermore, SAM provides confidence limits of the estimated SSB and F. SAM is an age structured stock assessment, and has been tested and is generally considered robust. Stock-specific processes are incorporated into the model as appropriate. The assessment methodology was benchmarked ICES (2015). The following evidence indicates SG 100 is met: The NEA cod implementation of SAM includes growth and maturity data which are density dependent on SSB. Cannibalism (older cod eating younger cod) is incorporated into the estimation of natural mortality. Density-dependent changes in the survey indices’ selectivity at age are extensively explored in the model. Assessment approach The assessment estimates The assessment estimates stock status relative to stock status relative to Guide b generic reference points reference points that are post appropriate to the species appropriate to the stock and category. can be estimated. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale The following evidences indicates SG 60 and SG80 are met: SSB and fishing mortality are estimated by the SAM model applied and through the HCR are stated relative to biological reference points. See ICES 2020a for values and their technical basis and references. The assessment estimates of stock status are comparable to the reference points (See ICES2020 a, b), are available (estimated) and are appropriate to assess the status of the stock. c Uncertainty in the assessment

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

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

Rationale

The following evidence indicates SG 60 is met: The AFWG has identified the major sources of uncertainty as being associated with the catch at age (landings, discards and sampling) and inconsistencies in the surveys. The following evidence indicates SG 80 is met: Biased catch statistics have been considered through generating alternative unreported catch estimates which have been added to the total catch in the stock assessment to account for IUU fishing. Considerable effort has been spent in recent years decreasing IUU catch making data collection more reliable in estimating catches, thereby decreasing uncertainty in the assessment. The AFWG has considered analyses of discards and considered it not to be a major issue. Uncertainty in the fishery sampling may have increased in recent years and is somewhat addressed in the details (e.g. sample allocation process) of the construction of the catch at age matrices. Regarding surveys, the AFWG has expended considerable resources ensuring consistency in each time series. Also, through the HCR simulations, assessment or observation errors are examined in deciding whether or not the strategy is precautionary The following evidence indicates SG 100 is met: The SAM model incorporates observation error in the catch and survey data. Some parts of, process error (e.g. in the estimation of recruitment) can be examined. The model estimates confidence limits for the Recruitment, SSB and F estimates. Thus, statements associated with stock status describe error in quantitative terms. Moreover, the assessment provides annual catch scenarios that are providing information about stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Evaluation of assessment The assessment has been tested and shown to be Guide robust. Alternative d post hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Met? Yes

Rationale The following evidence indicates SG 100 is met: The SAM model has been extensively tested both in the context of NEA stocks as well as more broadly and has been shown to be robust. A number of alternate models, which consist of different hypotheses, have been explored. These include XSA, TISVPA, ‘Survey calibration’ and GADGET. The latter is a multispecies model which allows the incorporation of ecosystem interactions. The results of all these models are in broad agreement with SAM output. Peer review of assessment Guide The assessment of stock The assessment has been e status is subject to peer internally and externally post review. peer reviewed. Met? Yes Yes

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Rationale

The following evidence indicates SG 80 is met: The assessments are subject to internal review through the AFWG process, which produces a consensus report. The report itself is externally reviewed (by correspondence) and reviewers’ comments are published as an annex to the report. Although not in depth (for example, reviewers cannot request sensitivity runs for that year’s assessment), the process still allows independent assessment of the working group’s results which has a demonstrable impact within the management cycle. The following evidence indicates SG 100 is met: The assessment is also subject to more extensive review through the benchmark process. These in- depth reviews occur less frequently but include external experts invited to critique the assessment data and assumptions in a workshop environment. References

ICES. 2015. Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Arctic Stocks (WKARCT), 26–30 January 2015, ICES Headquarters, Denmark. ICES CM 2015/ACOM:31. 126 pp.. ICES. 2016a. Norway/Russia request for evaluation of harvest control rules for Northeast Arctic cod and haddock and for Barents Sea capelin. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2016. ICES Advice 2016, Book 3, Section 3.4.1. 12 pp. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/Special_Requests/Norway- Russia_HCR_Northeast_Artic_cod_haddock_capelin.pdf. ICES. 2020a. Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG). ICES Scientific Reports. 2:52. http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.6050 ICES. 2020b. Cod (Gadus morhua) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2020. ICES Advice 2020, cod.27.1-2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5909 Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Condition number (if relevant)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

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 Stock status relative to recruitment impairment It is likely that the stock It is highly likely that the There is a high degree a Guide is above the point where stock is above the PRI. of certainty that the post recruitment would be stock is above the PRI. impaired (PRI). Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The following evidences indicate SG 60, SG80 and SG100 are met: ICES (2020 a, c) classifies the stock as having full reproductive capacity and being harvested sustainably. Since 2000, SSB has been well above BLIM (50 kt), as well as BPA (80 kt; estimated as Blim × exp (1.645 × σ), where σ = 0.3). Blim is estimated as Bloss (the lowest biomass observed in the time series). It is appropriate to consider this level consistent with PRI because the stock showed in the following years good recruitments even at such low level of biomass. Thus, current SSB is above Blim with a high degree of certainty (the low confidence limit (2.5 percentile) is above Blim). Stock status in relation to achievement of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) The stock is at or There is a high degree fluctuating around a level of certainty that the b Guide consistent with MSY. stock has been fluctuating around a level

post consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years. Met? Yes No

Rationale The following evidences indicate SG80 is met: ICES and the haddock management plan of the JNRFC do not use an explicit BMSY reference point. The target is to maintain the fishing mortality around FMSY. SSB has been sustained at levels well above BPA since the HCR was put in place in 2007. According to the GSA2.2.3.1 of the MSC Fisheries Standard (Annexes S) and Guidance v2.01: “reference points such as BPA that are used as a precautionary buffer to reduce the chance of declining to a limit level such as the PRI should also not be assumed to be consistent with BMSY. The BMSYtrigger approach used in ICES, for example, should be regarded as setting a lower limit to the likely range of values that BMSY may take, and not as an estimated value for BMSY. In ICES assessments, fisheries with B>BMSYtrigger may be regarded as “fluctuating around BMSY” (thereby achieving an 80 score)”. However, in the annual catch scenarios, SSB in 2022 achieved fishing at FMSY was 272 kt, this value can be considered an accurate proxy of SSBMSY because it is determined in accordance with an exploitation at MSY level starting from a level of relative high biomass. The last estimate of SSB was 243 kt, lower than the proxy of SSBMSY, but in line with 90% SSBMSY (245 kt) and the SSB is fluctuating around the SSBMSY proxy since 2010. Therefore SG 80 is met, in accordance with GSA2.2.2 of MSC Guidance v2.0.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

The following evidences indicate SG100 is not met: SSB was higher than SSBMSY proxy from 2011 to 2018, thus for less than one generation time, estimated as around 10 years (GT = 1/M + A50% = 1/0.28 + 6.5; see https://www.fishbase.in/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?ID=69&AT=Haddock). According to GSA2.2.2 of the MSC Fisheries Standard, a score of 100 can be reached if a series of estimates of stock size that have been above BMSY in all years of the last one generation time. Therefore, SG 100 is not met. References ICES. 2020a. Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG). ICES Scientific Reports. 2:52. http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.6050 ICES. 2020c. Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2020. ICES Advice 2020, had.27.1-2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5948.

Stock status relative to reference points Type of reference point Value of reference point Current stock status relative to reference point Reference Blim = Bloss 50 4.9 point used in scoring stock relative to PRI (SIa) Reference BMSY = estimated from 272 0.9 point used in the catch scenario at scoring stock FMSY. relative to MSY (SIb)

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

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Condition number (if relevant)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Rationale The stock is not depleted

References

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

Information gap indicator -

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

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Condition number (if relevant)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Rationale

The following evidence indicates SG 60 is met: The first JNRFC management plan was formulated in 2002 and the resultant HCRs applied for the first time in setting the quotas for 2004. The plan was reviewed and amended by the JNRFC in 2009. In 2015 Norway and Russia made a request to ICES for the evaluation of alternative HCRs for NEA cod, haddock and capelin (ICES, 2016b). For cod ICES investigated and evaluated a series of ten HCRs including the existing one. ICES concluded that they were all in accordance with the ICES standard that the annual probability of SSB being below the biomass limit level should be no more that 5%. For haddock, it was decided to retain the existing HCRs for the next five years. Therefore, the plan is designed to meet objectives laid down in PI 1.1.1 SG80 as it makes explicit reference to ICES reference points. The following evidence indicates SG 80 is met: The cod and haddock plans both define target fishing mortality and biomass target and limit reference points. The plans have been evaluated by ICES and found to be precautionary, ICES (2016). Both plans are based on a stepped reduction in exploitation rate if SSB falls below specified reference levels. Therefore, the plan is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points, which are in accordance with MSY level. The following evidence indicates SG 100 is met: The management plans are supported by a set of technical measures including minimum mesh size in the cod-end (130 mm) minimum landing size, a maximum bycatch of undersized fish linked to a move- on rule. The number of vessels allowed to operate in the fishery is limited through a license scheme. The JNRFC HCR includes provision for the reduction of exploitation rate should the stock fall below MSY Btrigger. Moreover, the management plans considers an Ftarget (Fmgt) in line or below the FMSY estimated in stochastic long-term simulations. Taking into account the high level of biomass, the HCRs will keep the stock at MSY level. Harvest strategy evaluation The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy may The performance of the likely to work based on not have been fully harvest strategy has prior experience or tested but evidence been fully evaluated b Guide plausible argument. exists that it is achieving and evidence exists to post its objectives. show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

maintain stocks at target levels.

Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale The following evidence indicates SG 60 is met: The Harvest strategy has been fully tested through ICES Management Strategy Evaluations (MSE), most recently ICES (2016). This evaluation considered a range specific HCRs for both cod and haddock. The current status of both the cod and haddock stock presents evidence that the strategy is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels The following evidence indicates SG 80 is met: The strategy has been in place for about two decades and the outcome, in term of stock status (see PI 1.1.1), suggests that the strategy is working. Furthermore, the strategy has been subject to numerous analyses, particularly focusing on the HCR while also other elements has been considered. The following evidence indicates SG 100 is met: The Harvest strategy has been fully tested through ICES MSE evaluations, most recently ICES (2016). Experience with harvest strategy is extensive and the stock status is safely within sustainable limits. ICES checked again the HCRs in 2020 (ICES, 2020d) and concluded that the HCR is precautionary. Harvest strategy monitoring Monitoring is in place that c Guide is expected to determine post whether the harvest strategy is working.

Met? Yes

Rationale The following evidence indicates SG 60 is met: There is a comprehensive IMR-PINRO stock monitoring and assessment programme in place that includes environmental, biological and acoustic surveys, plus rigorous fishery monitoring, control and surveillance which lead to an annual evaluation of the success of the harvest strategy. The fishery- based monitoring programme is strongly supported by appropriate fishery independent surveys which provide valuable tuning indices in support of the annual stock assessment. ICES publishes an annual evaluation of current stock status in relation to fishing mortality at Fmsy, the precautionary approach Fpa and Flim and F management plan levels. For the stock biomass the evaluation is provided in relation to MSY B trigger, the precautionary approach Bpa and Blim levels and the SSB management plan level. This evaluation clearly demonstrates whether or not the harvest strategy is working. Harvest strategy review The harvest strategy is Guide d periodically reviewed and post improved as necessary. Met? Yes

Rationale The following evidence indicates SG 100 is met:

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

The management plans and HCRs have been reviewed and changed three times over the last decade and are reviewed at each meeting of the JNRFC (annual). A central concept of the plan is that it is based on science and takes a precautionary approach, implying a need for revision as new knowledge becomes available (Olsen et al., 2007). The most recent Management Plan Evaluation for cod and haddock took place in 2016. This evaluation considered a number of formulations of the HCRs for both cod and haddock. As a result, a new Harvest strategy (Management Plan) is now in place for cod while the evaluation concluded that the strategy for haddock should remain in place for a further five years. Shark finning It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree e Guide finning is not taking shark finning is not taking of certainty that shark post place. place. finning is not taking place. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale The fishery is subject to a discard ban that is strictly enforced. Hence, there is no unwanted catches of the target stock. There are move-on rules and real-time closures in place to protect against catch of undersized fish. According to ICES 2020c discarding is considered to be negligible. Therefore, this SG was not scored

During the site visit will be confirmed if discards in the UoA are negligible.

References ICES. 2015. Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Arctic Stocks (WKARCT), 26–30 January 2015, ICES Headquarters, Denmark. ICES CM 2015/ACOM:31. 126 pp.. ICES. 2016a. Norway/Russia request for evaluation of harvest control rules for Northeast Arctic cod and haddock and for Barents Sea capelin. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2016. ICES Advice 2016, Book 3, Section 3.4.1. 12 pp. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/Special_Requests/Norway- Russia_HCR_Northeast_Artic_cod_haddock_capelin.pdf. ICES. 2020a. Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG). ICES Scientific Reports. 2:52. http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.6050 ICES. 2020c. Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2020. ICES Advice 2020, had.27.1-2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5948. ICES. 2020d. Benchmark Workshop for Demersal Species (WKDEM). ICES Scientific Reports, 2:31. 136 pp. http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.5548.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

JNRFC 2016. Documents retrieved from: www.jointfish.org Olsen, E., Gjøsæter, H., Røttingen, I., Dommasnes, A., Fossum, P., and Sandberg, P. 2007. The Norwegian ecosystem-based management plan for the Barents Sea – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64. Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage Draft scoring range ≥80 More information sought Information gap indicator More info about unwanted catches

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

Condition number (if relevant)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

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

Rationale

The following evidence indicates SG 60 is met: The current strategy is to set an annual TAC, which forms the HCR, in accordance with the harvest strategy. The harvest strategy provides the ‘route map’ for managing the stocks in accordance with the agreed JNRFC management plans. The structured plans are inextricably linked to the SSB reference levels and provide an advised exploitation level. This fishing mortality level then forms the basis for the ICES advice on the annual TAC. The annual TAC is therefore firmly based on the predicted catch corresponding to the ICES advice. These TAC rules are generally understood and are clearly consistent with the Harvest Strategy in reducing exploitation in line with declining SSB and as limit reference points are approached. The following evidence indicates SG 80 is met: The TAC rules are also very well defined, easily understood and firmly linked to the Harvest Strategy. The structure of the strategies for both species is clearly designed to ensure that the exploitation rate, on which the annual TAC is based, is reduced as SSB reduces towards limit reference points. The following evidence indicates SG 100 is met: The management plans considers HCRs based on Ftarget (Fmgt) in line or below the FMSY estimated in stochastic long-term simulations. Taking into account the high level of biomass, the HCRs will keep the stock at MSY level. Moreover, taking into account that the natural mortality of the model is also dependent on the cod biomass for the last years, it is possible to conclude that the HCRs considers the ecological role of the stock, most of the time. HCRs robustness to uncertainty The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account of a robust to the main wide range of uncertainties b Guide uncertainties. including the ecological role of the stock, and there is post evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties.

Met? Yes Yes

Rationale The following evidence indicates SG 80 is met:

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Variants of the HCR have been evaluated since 2002. The evaluation of the latest HCR undertaken in 2010 used the same model formulation as that used in 2005 (ICES, 2005) but with the more recent rules. The exercise was repeated in 2016 using updated software. The operating model incorporated a range of biological knowledge, including a stock-recruitment relationship and catch and stock weights at age dependent on stock biomass. Cannibalism was not modelled directly because stock-recruitment relationship was based on a time series of spawning stock and recruitment where cannibalism was not included. The impact of different natural mortality values on ages 3 and 4 was explored. Assessment and implementation error and bias was modelled explicitly as percentages of stock overestimation and level of overfishing. Assessment bias and error was modelled as age-dependent, with no correlation between age groups, based on an historical analysis. Implementation error and bias was modelled using the same percentage for all age groups. To explore the amount of bias and error to introduce, the relation between catch and quota for the period 1987-2003 was fit to a normal distribution with unreported catches added to the catch statistics during 1990-1994 and 2002-2003. Rebuilding under two scenarios of recruitment (low and high) were explored (ICES, 2005). The simulations showed that the HCR has attributes which should maintain good performance, notably the limitation on TAC change when the biomass falls below BPA and thus is precautionary. These evaluations took into account the main uncertainties in the stock and fishery. The following evidence indicates SG 100 is met: The haddock HCR includes less consideration of the ecosystem impact on the haddock dynamics than for the cod. Natural mortalities from cod consumption of ages 1–6 are included and for the period from 1984 to 2016 and actual data from predation by cod have been used. The robustness of this assessment provides sufficient evidence that a wide range of appropriate uncertainty is addressed in determining the harvest control rules (see also ICES 2020d). HCRs evaluation There is some evidence that Available evidence Evidence clearly shows tools used or available to indicates that the tools in use that the tools in use are c Guide implement HCRs are are appropriate and effective effective in achieving the post appropriate and effective in in achieving the exploitation exploitation levels required controlling exploitation. levels required under the under the HCRs. HCRs. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The following evidence indicates SG 60 and 80 are met: The range of tools in use which includes the annual TAC and technical measures are required to deliver sustainable exploitation of the stock. Sustainable exploitation is measured against maximum sustainable targets for both biomass and fishing mortality. The 2020 assessment of the stock shows that the stock is well above the MSY biomass trigger level and well below the MSY fishing mortality level. The ICES advice for the fishery in 2020 concludes that the stock is in full reproductive capacity and is being harvested sustainably. Moreover, in the last decade the catches were generally below the TACs, and these were almost always in line with the ICES advice. The following evidence indicates SG 100 is not met: The most recent assessment is evidence that fishing mortality is above MSY level. Moreover, the agreed TAC is above the catch corresponding to ICES advice in 2019. References ICES. 2015. Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Arctic Stocks (WKARCT), 26–30 January 2015, ICES Headquarters, Denmark. ICES CM 2015/ACOM:31. 126 pp.. ICES. 2016a. Norway/Russia request for evaluation of harvest control rules for Northeast Arctic cod and haddock and for Barents Sea capelin. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2016. ICES Advice 2016, Book 3, Section 3.4.1. 12 pp. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/Special_Requests/Norway- Russia_HCR_Northeast_Artic_cod_haddock_capelin.pdf.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

ICES. 2020a. Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG). ICES Scientific Reports. 1:30. 930 pp. http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.5292 ICES. 2020c. Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2020. ICES Advice 2020, had.27.1-2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5948. ICES. 2020d. Benchmark Workshop for Demersal Species (WKDEM). ICES Scientific Reports, 2:31. 136 pp. http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.5548. JNRFC 2016. Documents retrieved from: www.jointfish.org

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

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Condition number (if relevant)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Rationale The following evidence indicates SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 are met: There is a comprehensive range of data available for NEA haddock. Life history information is extensive and built up over many decades of research. This research provides valuable information on the stock structure and the temporal and spatial distribution of all life stages for NEA haddock. Long-term trends in recruitment, growth and natural mortality are available in stock assessments. Fishery removals are monitored both at sea through scientific observer (Russian fishery) and reference fleet (Norwegian fishery) programs. While information on discarding is limited, based on the analyses of the at-sea observations, it is not considered a major issue in the haddock fishery. The Norwegian institute operates a ‘Norwegian vessels which provides fisheries data in more detail than the data generally collected from the fishery. A range of surveys and commercial catch rate information provide annual indices of abundance. There is a wide array of environmental and other data available from the Barents Sea ecosystem survey, some of which is used to inform the harvest strategy. The stocks are the subject of annual fishery independent abundance surveys including acoustic surveys and an annual ecosystem survey covering the distribution area of both stocks (Eriksen, 2014). The collection of Fisheries statistics is in place which covers all fleet components including the non- Norwegian/Russian components (EU, Faroese, Icelandic). This system provides the stock assessment team with a very reliable estimate of all fishery dependent and fishery independent mortality. Monitoring Stock abundance and UoA Stock abundance and UoA All information required by removals are monitored and removals are regularly the harvest control rule is at least one indicator is monitored at a level of monitored with high available and monitored with accuracy and coverage frequency and a high degree b Guide sufficient frequency to consistent with the harvest of certainty, and there is a support the harvest control control rule, and one or good understanding of post rule. more indicators are inherent uncertainties in the available and monitored with information [data] and the sufficient frequency to robustness of assessment support the harvest control and management to this rule. uncertainty. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

The following evidences indicate SG 60 and SG 80 are met: The fishery is subject to detailed monitoring. All operators fishing for haddock in the Barents Sea provide accurate fisheries statistics based on logbooks and on landing statistics. All vessels fishing offshore are subject to mandatory VMS surveillance. There is long term experience with the sampling programme, although some sampling stopped in 2009. There is good understanding of uncertainties. There are annual fisheries independent abundance surveys which provide tuning indices for haddock stock size, used in the stock assessment process. Survey estimates are provided with confidence limits. The assessment has gone through ICES benchmarks and the robustness of the assessments are tested and found to be good. The SAM assessment model provides 95% confidence interval estimates for all the outputs from the assessment. The recent management plan evaluation ICES (2016) still found the HCRs to be precautionary and include the adjustments to the survey time series have affected the estimates of uncertainty (both precision and bias) in these data and how robust the management strategy is to these. Implementation error (e.g. overshooting the TAC or IUU fishing) is not considered an issue (ICES, 2016). The following evidence indicates SG 100 is not met: Prior to 2018 biological sampling from the fishery was less of an issue as available catch-at-age and length data covered the largest portion of catches by the respective fisheries. However, for Haddock in recent years there have been concerns raised regarding poor biological sampling and it has been suggested the number of samples should be increase in coming year, with the aim of covering all quarters and areas contributing to the highest catches. However, specific question about the monitoring of UoA removals will be further discussed during the site visit

Comprehensiveness of information

Guide There is good information on c all other fishery removals post from the stock.

Met? Yes

Rationale The following evidence indicates SG 80 is met: Norwegian, EU, Faroese, Icelandic, Russian fisheries statistics systems are good and accurate. Landings from all vessels operating in the North East Arctic are well monitored. There is a rigorously enforced total discard ban on all commercial species throughout the North East Arctic. All fish caught must be retained, recorded and landed. In addition, all vessels fishing in the Russian zone must carry a Russian observer; supporting information in the Norwegian zone is collected through the reference fleet. Thus, there is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. In addition, relevant ICES reports (e.g. ICES, 2019b-d) provide information on catches by gear and country. References

Eriksen, E. (Ed.) 2014. Survey report from the joint Norwegian/Russian ecosystem survey in the Barents Sea and adjacent waters, August–October 2014. IMR/PINRO Joint Report Series, No. 1/2015. 153 pp. ISSN 1502-8828. ICES. 2020a. Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG). ICES Scientific Reports. 1:30. 930 pp. http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.5292 ICES. 2020c. Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2020. ICES Advice 2020, had.27.1-2, ttps://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.4713

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

Draft scoring range ≥80

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

More information sought Information about the monitoring of UoA Information gap indicator removals will be further discussed during the site visit

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

Condition number (if relevant)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Rationale The following evidence indicates SG 80 is met: The benchmark Workshop on Arctic stocks, in 2015 (ICES, 2015) concluded that for NEA haddock the State Space assessment model, SAM, should replace XSA as the main assessment model. For this stock, XSA has been shown to be very sensitive to the choice of settings, especially use or non- use of population shrinkage. SAM is a statistically based and in general more appropriate model which is now widely used for other stocks within the ICES area including the NEA cod (ICES, 2015). The SAM model uses four fishery independent tuning indices in support of the assessment. The NEA haddock implementation of SAM includes growth and maturity data. The following evidence indicates SG 100 is met: The NEA haddock implementation of SAM includes growth and maturity data which are density dependent on SSB. Cod abundance is incorporated into the estimation of natural mortality. Density- dependent changes in the survey indices’ selectivity at age are extensively explored in the model mortality. Density-dependent changes in the survey indices’ selectivity at age are extensively explored in the model. Assessment approach The assessment estimates The assessment estimates stock status relative to stock status relative to Guide b generic reference points reference points that are post appropriate to the species appropriate to the stock and category. can be estimated. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale The following evidences indicates SG 60 and SG80 are met: SSB, fishing mortality and annual recruitment are estimated in the annual assessments. Each parameter is assessed with 95% confidence intervals on the estimates. Biological reference points have been estimated based on medium and long-term considerations. The annual stock status is evaluated relative to biological reference points that are appropriate for the stock. Uncertainty in the assessment The assessment identifies The assessment takes The assessment takes into major sources of uncertainty. uncertainty into account. account uncertainty and is c Guide evaluating stock status post relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Met? Yes Yes Yes

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Rationale

The following evidence indicates SG 60 is met: The AFWG has identified the major sources of uncertainty as being associated with the catch at age (landings, discards and sampling) and inconsistencies in the surveys. The following evidence indicates SG 80 is met: Biased catch statistics have been considered through generating alternative unreported catch estimates which have been added to the total catch in the stock assessment to account for IUU fishing. Considerable effort has been spent in recent years decreasing IUU catch making data collection more reliable in estimating catches, thereby decreasing uncertainty in the assessment. The AFWG has considered analyses of discards and considered it not to be a major issue. Uncertainty in the fishery sampling may have increased in recent years and is somewhat addressed in the details (e.g. sample allocation process) of the construction of the catch at age matrices. Regarding surveys, the AFWG has expended considerable resources ensuring consistency in each time series. Also, through the HCR simulations, assessment or observation errors are examined in deciding whether or not the strategy is precautionary. The following evidence indicates SG 100 is met: The SAM model incorporates observation error in the catch and survey data. Some parts of the process error (e.g. in the estimation of recruitment) can be examined. The SAM model estimates confidence limits for the Recruitment, SSB and F estimates. Thus, statements associated with stock status describe error in quantitative terms. Moreover, the assessment provides annual catch scenarios that are providing information about stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Evaluation of assessment The assessment has been tested and shown to be Guide robust. Alternative d post hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Met? Yes

Rationale The following evidence indicates SG 100 is met: The SAM model has been extensively tested both in the context of NEA stocks as well as more broadly and has been shown to be robust. A number of alternate models, which consist of different hypotheses, have been explored. These include XSA and TISVPA. The results of all these models are in broad agreement with SAM output. Peer review of assessment Guide The assessment of stock The assessment has been e status is subject to peer internally and externally post review. peer reviewed. Met? Yes Yes

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

The following evidence indicates SG 100 is met: The assessment is also subject to more extensive review through the benchmark process. These in- depth reviews occur less frequently but include external experts invited to critique the assessment data and assumptions in a workshop environment. References

I ICES. 2020a. Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG). ICES Scientific Reports. 2:52. http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.6050 ICES. 2020c. Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2020. ICES Advice 2020, had.27.1-2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5948. ICES. 2020d. Benchmark Workshop for Demersal Species (WKDEM). ICES Scientific Reports, 2:31. 136 pp. http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.5548.

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

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Condition number (if relevant)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Rationale

The following evidences indicate SG 60, SG80 and SG100 are met: ICES (2020a, e) classifies the stock as having full reproductive capacity and being harvested sustainably. Since 2000, SSB has been well above BLIM (136 kt; the point where recruitment would be impaired and estimated as the change point regression, see ICES 2005 for further details),as well as Bpa (220 kt; estimated as Blim × exp (1.645 × σ), where σ = 0.3). Thus, current SSB is above Blim with a high degree of certainty (the low confidence limit (95% low) is above Blim. Stock status in relation to achievement of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) The stock is at or There is a high degree fluctuating around a level of certainty that the b Guide consistent with MSY. stock has been fluctuating around a level

post consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale The following evidences indicate SG80 is met: ICES does not use an explicit BMSY reference point for this stock. The target is to maintain the fishing mortality around a low level of exploitation. SSB has been sustained at levels well above Bpa since the HCR was put in place in 2007. According to the GSA2.2.3.1 of the MSC Fisheries Standard (Annexes S) and Guidance v2.01: “reference points such as BPA that are used as a precautionary buffer to reduce the chance of declining to a limit level such as the PRI should also not be assumed to be consistent with BMSY. The BMSYtrigger approach used in ICES, for example, should be regarded as setting a lower limit to the likely range of values that BMSY may take, and not as an estimated value for BMSY. In ICES assessments, fisheries with B>BMSYtrigger may be regarded as “fluctuating around BMSY” (thereby achieving an 80 score)”. AFWG (2011a) undertook a re-evaluation of the NEA saithe HCR using the same population model as used in 2007 but taking into account the changes made to the assessment as a consequence of the 2010 benchmark review (ICES, 2010b; Mehl and Fotland, 2011). These simulations indicated that the highest long-term yield was obtained for F = 0.20 although the yield curve was almost flat, ranging 160,000 t – 168,000 t for F between 0.10 and 0.38 (Bogstad, pers. comm). Given the high uncertainty in the estimation of FMSY, these analyses suggest that the target fishing mortality of the management plan (FMP = 0.32) is within the range of estimates of FMSY. Fishing at FMP implies a long term SSB in

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe the order of 300,000 t, just above Bpa, which can be taken as a notional estimate of SSBMSY (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Long-term yield (top panel) and SSB (bottom panel) of NEA saithe based on population simulations across a range of fully recruited (ages 4 – 7) fishing mortality; from ICES (2011) The last estimate of SSB 552 kt and the lower confidence limit in 2019 are higher than the proxy of SSBMSY. The SSB was higher than this level since 2012. The following evidences indicate SG100 is met: Considering that the SSB estimates are above the SSBMSY proxy in the last 9 years, thus more than one generation time of the species (Generation time: 7.3 (5.6 - 11.0) years. Estimated as median LN(3)/K based on 12 growth studies.; see: https://www.fishbase.se/summary/Pollachius-virens.html) is possible to conclude that the stock has been fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years with high degree of certainty. References ICES. 2011a. Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Roundfish and Pelagic Stocks, Lisbon 24-31 January 2011. ICES C.M. 2011/ACOM:38, 418 pp. ICES. 2020a. Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG). ICES Scientific Reports. 2:52. http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.6050 ICES. 2020e. Saithe (Pollachius virens) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2020. ICES Advice 2020, pok.27.1-2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5831.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Stock status relative to reference points Type of reference point Value of reference point Current stock status relative to reference point Reference Blim = Change point 136 kt 4.18 point used in regression scoring stock relative to PRI (SIa) Reference BMSY = notional 300 kt 1.8 point used in estimate. scoring stock relative to MSY (SIb)

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

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Condition number (if relevant)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Rationale The stock is not depleted

References

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

Information gap indicator -

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

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Condition number (if relevant)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Harvest strategy design The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is expected to achieve stock responsive to the state of the responsive to the state of the management objectives stock and the elements of the stock and is designed to Guide a reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. harvest strategy work achieve stock management post together towards achieving objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 stock management objectives SG80. reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The following evidence indicates SG 60 is met: The elements for a good responsive harvest strategy are present. The strategy has been specifically designed to achieve management objectives reflected in target and limit reference points and has been tested as being precautionary. There is an agreed HCR which is based on annual stock assessment and independent scientific advice (ICES). The management decision making appears to be well informed and consideration is given to a range of issues including stock dynamics, assessment process and observation uncertainties, and implementation error. The performance of the harvest strategy is evaluated on a roughly five-year schedule to confirm that it is being precautionary and achieving management objectives. The following evidence indicates SG 80 is met: Although the TAC remains the main control, other technical measures are applied to improve the performance of the fishery. These include minimum mesh size, minimum landing size, a maximum bycatch of undersized fish and/or non-target species and seasonal or permanent areas closed to fishing to protect juveniles and bycatch species. The number of vessels allowed to operate in the fishery are limited by licences. The effects of these regulations have not been evaluated, although data exist which might allow an evaluation to take place. Since 2007, TACs set by the NMTIF (Norwegian Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries) have been consistent with the HCR and thus ICES advice and catches have been within the TACs indicating that the elements of the strategy are working together. The following evidence indicates SG 100 is not met: The Harvest Strategy has been implemented only by Norway and is not clear how other countries (as Russia) are following it. Therefore, is not possible to conclude that is designed to meet stock management objectives in accordance with MSY level. Harvest strategy evaluation The harvest strategy is likely The harvest strategy may not The performance of the to work based on prior have been fully tested but harvest strategy has been experience or plausible evidence exists that it is fully evaluated and evidence Guide argument. achieving its objectives. exists to show that it is b post achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale The following evidence indicates SG 60 is met:

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

The strategy was reviewed in 2007 during which it underwent testing under a range of assessment and implementation uncertainties and was determined by ICES to be precautionary. The evidence from the annual ICES stock assessment since then is that the strategy is able to achieve its Fishery Management Plan objective and can cause SSB to rise to levels observed earlier in the time series. IUU fishing was an issue pre-2009 which was undermining the strategy. The administrative response to IUU has largely addressed this issue (see Saithe UoA Scoring PI 1.2.3). The following evidence indicates SG 80 is met: The strategy has been in place for more than a decade and the outcome, in term of stock status (see PI 1.1.1), suggests that the strategy is working. Furthermore, the strategy has been subject to numerous analyses, particularly focusing on the HCR while also other elements has been considered. The following evidence indicates SG 100 is not met: The performance of the HS has not been fully tested and no recent management strategy evaluations have been performed. Harvest strategy monitoring Monitoring is in place that is c Guide expected to determine post whether the harvest strategy is working.

Met? Yes

Rationale The following evidence indicates SG 60 is met: The annual stock assessments of the AFWG of ICES evaluate stock status in relation to the reference points of the management plan as well as the ICES precautionary and MSY approach. Harvest strategy review The harvest strategy is Guide d periodically reviewed and post improved as necessary. Met? No

Rationale The following evidence indicates SG 100 is not met: The initial management plan was put in place in 2007 and was evaluated in that year and concluded that it is consistent with the precautionary approach, providing the assessment uncertainty and error are not greater than those calculated from historical data. This also holds true for implementation error (difference between TAC and catch). Reviews of the strategy appear to be undertaken as and when required. However, no subsequent review of the strategy has yet been planned by the NMTIF (Bogstad, pers comm). Shark finning

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

Rationale The stock is not a shark. f Review of alternative measures

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

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

Rationale The fishery is subject to a discard ban that is strictly enforced. Hence, there is no unwanted catches of the target stock. There are move-on rules and real-time closures in place to protect against catch of undersized fish. According to ICES (2020a, e) discarding is considered to be negligible. Therefore, this SG was not scored

During the site visit will be confirmed if discards in the UoA are negligible.

References ACOURA, 2016. Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe fishery Public Certification Report September 2016 ICES. 2011a. Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Roundfish and Pelagic Stocks, Lisbon 24-31 January 2011. ICES C.M. 2011/ACOM:38, 418 pp. ICES. 2020a. Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG). ICES Scientific Reports. 2:52. http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.6050 ICES. 2020e. Saithe (Pollachius virens) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2020. ICES Advice 2020, pok.27.1-2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5831. .

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

Draft scoring range ≥80 More information sought Information gap indicator More info about unwanted catches

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

Condition number (if relevant)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

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

Rationale

The following evidence indicates SG 60 is met: Since 2007, a well-defined HCR has informed annual TAC setting which is consistent with the strategic objectives of the fishery (maintaining high long-term yield, year-to-year stability, and full utilization of all available information on stock dynamics). The HCR aims to maintain F at FPA = 0.32 and restrict between-year TAC change to ±15% unless SSB falls below BPA; in this case the target F is reduced. This ensures that F is reduced as BLIM is approached. The following evidence indicates SG 80 is met: Based on a 2007 evaluation, ICES considers the management plan to be in accordance with the precautionary approach and not in contradiction to the MSY approach (ICES, 2008b). The following evidence indicates SG 100 is not met: Taking into account the decreasing trend of biomass observed after 2007, after the HCR was in place, is not possible to conclude HCRs are expected to keep the stock fluctuating at or above a target level consistent with MSY. HCRs robustness to uncertainty The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account of a robust to the main wide range of uncertainties b Guide uncertainties. including the ecological role of the stock, and there is post evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties.

Met? Yes No

Rationale The following evidence indicates SG 80 is met: The evaluation of the latest HCR undertaken in 2011 used the same model formulation as that used in 2007 but explored MSY dynamics. The operating model incorporated as much biological knowledge as possible. This included a stock-recruitment relationship (Beverton and Holt with lognormal error), and catch and stock weights at age dependent on stock biomass. Assessment error was modelled as age-dependent, with no correlation between age groups. Implementation error and bias was modelled using the same percentage for all age groups. The simulations showed that the Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

HCR has attributes which should maintain good performance, notably the limitation on TAC change when the biomass falls below Bpa and thus is precautionary. These evaluations took into account the main uncertainties in the stock and fishery. The following evidence indicates SG 100 is not met: The evaluation of the management strategy did not formally include the assessment process which would have allowed greater examination of the observation uncertainties. Also, the impact of uncertainty in the growth and maturity was not examined. Fishery-related uncertainty such as changes in fishery selectivity and discarding was not examined. HCRs evaluation There is some evidence that Available evidence Evidence clearly shows tools used or available to indicates that the tools in use that the tools in use are c Guide implement HCRs are are appropriate and effective effective in achieving the post appropriate and effective in in achieving the exploitation exploitation levels required controlling exploitation. levels required under the under the HCRs. HCRs. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The following evidence indicates SG 60 and 80 are met: Norwegian and Russian authorities have the administrative mechanisms and enforcement infrastructure to ensure compliance with the HCR. The NMTIF sets the TAC and quotas for each nation’s fleet participating in the cod fishery and the fishery can be closed when quotas are taken. The activity and catch landing of all fishing vessels is subject to regular monitoring. Catches are monitored and counted against the TAC during the year. Prior to 2009, although TAC regulations were in place, there was a significant amount of unreported landings, mostly due to quota control evasion through trans-shipping of fish from the Barents Sea. In 2009, a Barents Sea wide catch monitoring and reporting system was put in place which has effectively addressed the IUU issue (see PI 1.2.3). While discarding is thought to occur, although it is illegal, in the saithe fishery, it is considered minor (ICES, 2014; B. Bogstad, pers. Comm). Since 2000, fishing mortality has been controlled to around FMP. The following evidence indicates SG 100 is not met: The most recent assessment indicates that during the period in which the HCR was in place, fishing mortality has increased and has fluctuated just above FMP. Until there is clear evidence that the HCR can control fishing mortality to the management target is not possible to conclude that evidence clearly shows that the tools in use are effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs. References ACOURA, 2016. Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe fishery Public Certification Report September 2016 ICES. 2011a. Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Roundfish and Pelagic Stocks, Lisbon 24-31 January 2011. ICES C.M. 2011/ACOM:38, 418 pp. ICES. 2020a. Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG). ICES Scientific Reports. 2:52. http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.6050 ICES. 2020e. Saithe (Pollachius virens) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2020. ICES Advice 2020, pok.27.1-2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5831.

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

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

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

Condition number (if relevant)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Rationale The following evidence indicates SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 are met: There is a comprehensive range of data available for NEA saithe. Life history allows elucidation of the stock structure and the temporal and spatial distribution of all life stages. Long-term trends in recruitment, growth and natural mortality are available in stock assessments. Fishery removals are monitored both at sea through scientific observer (Russian fishery) and Norwegian fleet programs. Information on discarding is based on the analyses of the at-sea observations and is considered to be an issue when large year-classes enter the fishery. A range of surveys provide annual indices of abundance. There is a wide array of environmental and other data available in the Barents Sea ecosystem (Eriksen, 2014), although it is not used in the stock assessment. However, saithe consumption of herring is explicitly recognized in the fishing mortality target of saithe (see ICES, 2020a). Monitoring Stock abundance and UoA Stock abundance and UoA All information required by removals are monitored and removals are regularly the harvest control rule is at least one indicator is monitored at a level of monitored with high available and monitored with accuracy and coverage frequency and a high degree b Guide sufficient frequency to consistent with the harvest of certainty, and there is a support the harvest control control rule, and one or good understanding of post rule. more indicators are inherent uncertainties in the available and monitored with information [data] and the sufficient frequency to robustness of assessment support the harvest control and management to this rule. uncertainty. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale The following evidences indicate SG 60 and SG 80 are met: The annual stock assessment (see PI 1.2.4) provides estimates of SSB and fishing mortality to inform the HCR. Removals in the stock assessment are based upon monitoring by Norwegian and Russian authorities. Keeping a detailed fishing logbook on-board is mandatory for most vessels, and large parts of the fleet report to the authorities on a daily basis. The fisheries are controlled by inspections of the trawler fleet at sea, i.e. by a requirement to report to control points when entering and leaving the EEZs, VMS satellite tracking, and by random inspections of fishing vessels when landing the fish. Prior to 2009, IUU fishing was a significant issue but administrative mechanisms put in place by Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

NEAFC are considered to have largely addressed this problem. Information on discards is available through both Russian at-sea scientific observers and a Norwegian Reference fleet although is not considered a major problem in this fishery. The age/size composition of the removals is determined through the Russian at-sea observer program (5-10% coverage) and the Norwegian port sampling and Reference fleet programs. The latter has undergone significant changes in recent years and there are concerns that the precision of catch at age estimates has declined. The stock assessment uses one Norwegian acoustic survey index in the SAM model (see PI 1.2.4) which is available since the mid-1980s, representing about 2.5 saithe generations. There have been issues with the seasonal timing and data processing of this survey that the AFWG has attempted to address. The following evidence indicates SG 100 is not met: While recent issues with the monitoring of removals appear to have been addressed, estimates of discards are imprecise. This may particularly be an issue with saithe which is not a primary targeted species as cod and haddock are. Recent issues with sampling to characterize the age/size composition of the catch are a concern. While simulations to test the HCR have included implementation error (e.g. uncertainty in the catch), the new SAM model provides the opportunity to evaluate the robustness of the harvest strategy to assessment error as well. It is not clear how robust the harvest strategy is to uncertainties in the catch at age other than inference from published more general studies on the methodology. Also, it is not clear how the adjustments to the survey time series have affected the estimates of uncertainty (both precision and bias) in these data and how robust the management strategy is to these. Finally, an issue is the lack of an index of recruitment in the assessment. Young saithe are generally found in coastal waters, complicating sampling. However, specific question about the monitoring of UoA removals will be further discussed during the site visit

Comprehensiveness of information

Guide There is good information on c all other fishery removals post from the stock.

Met? Yes

Rationale The following evidence indicates SG 80 is met The primary sources of non-UoC fishery removals of NEA saithe are vessels not included in the certification. These are monitored using the same administrative mechanisms as other UoC fisheries and provide good information on these removals. In addition, relevant ICES reports (e.g. ICES, 2019b- e) provide information on catches by gear and country. References

Eriksen, E. (Ed.) 2014. Survey report from the joint Norwegian/Russian ecosystem survey in the Barents Sea and adjacent waters, August–October 2014. IMR/PINRO Joint Report Series, No. 1/2015. 153 pp. ISSN 1502-8828. ICES. 2011a. Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Roundfish and Pelagic Stocks, Lisbon 24-31 January 2011. ICES C.M. 2011/ACOM:38, 418 pp. ICES. 2020a. Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG). ICES Scientific Reports. 1:30. 930 pp. http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.5292 ICES. 2020e. Saithe (Pollachius virens) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2020. ICES Advice 2020, pol.27.1-2, ttps://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.4713

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

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator More information sought

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Information about the monitoring of UoA removals will be further discussed during the site visit

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

Condition number (if relevant)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Rationale The following evidence indicates SG 80 is met: The principal assessment model is the SAM model which is suitable for the available data and sufficient to provide indices of SSB and fishing mortality to inform the HCR. In 2014, the SAM was chosen in preference to the previous XSA which had exhibited a number of undesirable features indices in support of the assessment. The following evidence indicates SG 100 is met: SAM models, like the XSA and related SCAA models, describe stock and fishery dynamics through time taking account of temporal changes in the parameters associated with each process. The current SAM model addresses most of the major features in the stock’s biology. Assessment approach The assessment estimates The assessment estimates stock status relative to stock status relative to Guide b generic reference points reference points that are post appropriate to the species appropriate to the stock and category. can be estimated. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale The following evidences indicates SG 60 and SG80 are met: SSB, fishing mortality and annual recruitment are estimated in the annual assessments. Each parameter is assessed with 95% confidence intervals on the estimates. Biological reference points have been estimated based on medium and long-term considerations. The annual stock status is evaluated relative to biological reference points that are appropriate for the stock, even in the case they are not explicit BMSY or FMSY (see 1.1.1). Uncertainty in the assessment The assessment identifies The assessment takes The assessment takes into major sources of uncertainty. uncertainty into account. account uncertainty and is c Guide evaluating stock status post relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The following evidence indicates SG 60 is met:

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

The AFWG has identified the major sources of uncertainty as being associated with the catch at age (discards and sampling) and dependence on one survey index. The SAM model is recognized as meeting a number of issues and uncertainties in the previous XSA model. The AFWG has considered analyses of discards and considered it not to be a major issue, also considering the implementation of landings obligation. The following evidence indicates SG 80 is met: Uncertainty in the fishery sampling may have increased in recent years and is somewhat addressed in the details (e.g. sample allocation process) of the construction of the catch at age matrices. Contrary to the XSA model, the SAM model allows the incorporation of observation error in the catch at age as well as in the survey index. It also allows for process error although these sources of error have not been extensively explored. The following evidence indicates SG 100 is met: It is evident that SAM provides a platform for more comprehensive examination of assessment errors than was the case with the previous XSA. Moreover, in the current formulation of the saithe SAM, SSB and fishing mortality are stated in relation to reference points and the assessment provides annual catch scenarios that are delivering information about stock status in a probabilistic way. Evaluation of assessment The assessment has been tested and shown to be Guide robust. Alternative d post hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Met? No

Rationale The following evidence indicates SG 100 is not met: The current SAM model is the latest and most sophisticated in the evolution of assessment models considered by the AFWG. The SAM model has been extensively tested both in the context of NEA saithe as well as more broadly and has been shown to be robust as long as the assumptions are met. Contrary to the previous assessment since 2019 ICES did not provide alternative models as XSA. Peer review of assessment Guide The assessment of stock The assessment has been e status is subject to peer internally and externally post review. peer reviewed. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale The following evidence indicates SG 80 is met: The assessments are subject to internal review through the AFWG process, which produces a consensus report. The report itself is externally reviewed (by correspondence) and reviewers’ comments are published as an annex to the report. Although not in depth (for example, reviewers cannot request sensitivity runs for that year’s assessment), the process still allows independent assessment of the working group’s results which has a demonstrable impact within the management cycle. The following evidence indicates SG 100 is met: The assessment is also subject to more extensive review through the benchmark process. These in- depth reviews occur less frequently but include external experts invited to critique the assessment data and assumptions in a workshop environment References

ICES. 2020a. Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG). ICES Scientific Reports. 2:52. http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.6050 Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

ICES. 2020e. Saithe (Pollachius virens) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2020. ICES Advice 2020, pok.27.1-2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5831.

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

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Condition number (if relevant)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

7.2.5 Principle 1 - References

Eriksen, E. (Ed.) 2014. Survey report from the joint Norwegian/Russian ecosystem survey in the Barents Sea and adjacent waters, August–October 2014. IMR/PINRO Joint Report Series, No. 1/2015. 153 pp. ISSN 1502-8828. Homrum, E. ́, Hansen, B., Steingrund, P., and Hátún, H. 2013. Growth, maturation, diet and distribution of saithe (Pollachiusvirens) in Faroese waters (NE Atlantic). Marine Biology Research,8: 246 – 254. Hylen A., Nakken O. and Nedreaas K., 2008. Northeast Arctic Cod: Fisheries, life history, stock fluctuation and management. In Norwegian Spring-spawning Herring and Northeast Arctic Cod: 100 years of Research and Management. O. Nakken (ed.) Bergen Norway. Tapir Academic Press: 83-118 ICES. 2003. Report of the Study Group on Biological Reference Points for Northeast Arctic Cod, 13– 17 January 2003, Svanhovd, Norway. ICES CM 2003/ACFM:11. 39 pp. ICES. 2005. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), 19–28 April 2005, Murmansk, Russia. ICES CM 2005/ACFM:20. 564 pp. ICES. 2006a. ICES Workshop on Biological Reference Points for North East Arctic Haddock (WKHAD). Svanhovd, Norway, 6-10 March 2006. ICES C.M. 2006/ACFM:19, 102 pp. ICES. 2006b. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group, Copenhagen 19-28 April 2006. ICES C.M.2006/ACFM:25, 594 pp. ICES. 2010. Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Roundfish (WKROUND), 9-16 February 2010, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2010/ACOM: 36. 183 pp. ICES. 2011a. Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Roundfish and Pelagic Stocks, Lisbon 24-31 January 2011. ICES C.M. 2011/ACOM:38, 418 pp. ICES. 2011b. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), 28 April–4 May 2011, Hamburg, Germany. ICES CM 2011/ACOM:05. 659 pp. ICES. 2012. Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG). ICES Scientific Reports. 1:30. 930 pp. ICES. 2013. Report of the Working Group on the ICES ACOM/SCICOM Workshop on Ecosystem Overviews (WKECOVER), 7–11 January 2013, ICES HQ, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2013/ACOM/SCICOM:01. 131 pp ICES. 2014. Report of the Inter-Benchmark Protocol on Northeast Arctic Saithe in Subareas I and II (IBP NEAsaithe), March/April 2014, By correspondence. ICES CM 2014/ACOM:53. 97 pp. ttp://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2014/IBP%20 NEAsaithe%202014/ibp_nea_saithe_2014.pdf ICES. 2015. Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Arctic Stocks (WKARCT), 26–30 January 2015, ICES Headquarters, Denmark. ICES CM 2015/ACOM:31. 126 pp. ICES. 2016a. Norway/Russia request for evaluation of harvest control rules for Northeast Arctic cod and haddock and for Barents Sea capelin. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2016. ICES Advice 2016, Book 3, Section 3.4.1. 12 pp. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/Special_Requests/Norway- Russia_HCR_Northeast_Artic_cod_haddock_capelin.pdf. ICES. 2016b. Final report of the Working Group on the Integrated Assessments of the Norwegian Sea (WGINOR), 7–11 December 2015, Reykjavik, Iceland. ICES CM 2015/SSGIEA:10. 149 pp. ICES. 2017a. Report of the Inter-Benchmark Protocol on Northeast Arctic cod (IBPArcticCod), 4–6 April 2017, ICES HQ, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2017/ACOM:29. 5 pp. ICES. 2017b. Report of the Working Group on Inter-Benchmark Protocol on Northeast Arctic cod (IBPArcticCod), 4–6 April 2017, ICES HQ, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2017/ACOM:29. 236 pp. ICES. 2018. Advice basis. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2018. ICES Advice 2018, Book 1, Section 1.2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.4503. ICES. 2019a. Cod (Gadus morhua) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2019. ICES Advice 2019, cod.27.1-2, https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.4710

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

ICES. 2019b. Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG). ICES Scientific Reports. 1:30. 930 pp. http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.5292 ICES. 2019c. Interbenchmark Protocol on assessment model changes for Cod (Gadus morhua) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic) (IBPNEACod2019). ICES Scientific Reports. 1:26. 26 pp. http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.5278 ICES. 2019d. Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2019. ICES Advice 2019, had.27.1-2, ttps://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.4713 ICES. 2019e. Saithe (Pollachius virens) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2019. ICES Advice 2019, pok.27.1-2, https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.4714 ICES. 2019f. Barents Sea Ecosystem –Fisheries overview. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2019. ICES Advice 2019, Section 5.2. 28 pp. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5705. ICES. 2019h. Barents Sea Ecoregion –Ecosystem overview. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2019. ICES Advice 2019, Section 5.1, https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5747 ICES. 2020a. Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG). ICES Scientific Reports. 2:52. http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.6050 ICES. 2020b. Cod (Gadus morhua) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2020. ICES Advice 2020, cod.27.1-2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5909 ICES. 2020c. Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2020. ICES Advice 2020, had.27.1-2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5948. ICES. 2020d. Benchmark Workshop for Demersal Species (WKDEM). ICES Scientific Reports, 2:31. 136 pp. http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.5548. ICES. 2020e. Saithe (Pollachius virens) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2020. ICES Advice 2020, pok.27.1-2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5831. JNRFC 2016. Documents retrieved from: www.jointfish.org Mjanger H. and J.A. Godiksen. 2018. Report of the workshop on age reading of cod (Gadus morhua L.) and haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) between IMR and PINRO May 30 – June 1 2017. Working Document no. 10. ICES Arctic Fisheries Working Group, ICES CM 2018/ACOM:XX. Olsen, E., Gjøsæter, H., Røttingen, I., Dommasnes, A., Fossum, P., and Sandberg, P. 2007. The Norwegian ecosystem-based management plan for the Barents Sea – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64. Olsen, E., Aanes, S., Mehl, S., Holst, J. C., Aglen, A., and Gjosaeter, H. (2010). Cod, haddock, saithe, herring, and capelin in the Barents sea and adjacent waters: a review of the biological value of the area. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 67, 87–101. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsp229 Yaragina N.A. Nedreaas K.H., Koloskova V., Mjanger H., Senneset H., Zuykova N. and Ǻgotnes P. 2009. Fifteen years of annual Norwegian-Russian cod comparative age readings. Marine Biology Research 5(1): 54-65. Zuykova N.V., Koloskova V.P., Mjanger H., Nedreaas K.H., Senneset H., Yaragina N.A., Ǻgotnes P. and Aanes S. 2009. Age determination of Northeast Arctic cod otoliths through 50 years of history. Marine Biology Research 5(1): 66-74.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

7.3 Principle 2 7.3.1 Principle 2 background

Primary species (MSC Component 2.1) are defined as follows: • Species in the catch that are not covered under P1; • Species that are within scope of the MSC program, i.e. no amphibians, reptiles, birds or mammals; • Species where management tools and measures are in place, intended to achieve stock management objectives reflected in either limit (LRP) or target reference points (TRP). Primary species can therefore also be referred to as ‘managed species’.

Secondary species (MSC Component 2.2) are defined as follows: • Species in the catch that are not covered under P1; • Species that are not managed in accordance with limit or target reference points, i.e. do not meet the primary species criteria; • Species that are out of scope of the programme, but where the definition of ETP species is not applicable (see below)

ETP (Endangered, Threatened or Protected) species (MSC Component 2.3) are assigned as follows: • Species that are recognised by national ETP legislation • Species listed in binding international agreements (e.g. CITES, Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), ACAP, etc.) • Species classified as ‘out-of scope’ (amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) that are listed in the IUCN Redlist as vulnerable (VU), endangered (EN) or critically endangered (CE).

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

In this assessment, vulnerable or valuable species were designated as ‘main’ if they made up more than 2% of the total catch. A cut-off point of 0.01% of total catch volume by weight has been used. Declared landings data were used as the principal data source to determine MSC species designation in this fishery.

In the Barents Sea discarding is not permitted under Norwegian and Russian laws. The Severomorsk Territorial Administration of the Federal Fishery Agency (SVTA) is responsible for the implementation of this fishery regulation. The Border Guard Service of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation and the Norwegian Coast Guard control compliance with fishing regulations at sea, catches and the discarding during fishing.

The main Russian legal acts:

- Federal law of the Russian Federation on fisheries and protection of the aquatic biological resources Nr. 166-FZ of 20.12.2004 (as amended on 08.12.2020).

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

- Fisheries Regulations for Northern Fishery Region approved by the Order of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation Nr. 414 of 30.10.2014 (as amended 26.10.2018).

Norwegian regulations are described in section 15 of the 2009 Norwegian Marine Resources Act, whereby “all catches of fish shall be landed” (except for juvenile Atlantic halibut (<80 cm) which shall be released alive in order to assist stock recovery). This regulation applies to dead or dying fish; viable fish may be released back to the sea. There is a rigorously enforced discard ban on all Norwegian vessels regardless of the area jurisdiction and on all foreign vessels fishing within Norwegian waters. The vessels in the fishery under assessment here additionally use larger mesh sizes than the legal limit. This is to minimise the number of undersized or non-target species in the trawl. In addition, there are permanently closed areas and real time closures (RTC) – the latter are temporary and only enacted in areas when the number of undersized fish, or levels of by-catches, exceeds permitted limits and are hence closed.

There are different permanent and temporal area closures in the Barents Sea which have been designed with the intention of protecting juvenile fish of different stocks. Since 1978 there is a permanent closed area closed for all bottom trawling in the 20- nautical mile zone around Bear Island (Figure 5 below). Besides, since 1984 there is a Real- Time Closure system in the Barents Sea, which imposes temporary closures on areas where the number of fish below the minimum legal size or the level of bycatches exceeds permitted limits (Jakobsen and Ozhigin, 2011).

Figure 5 Permanent closed area around Bear Island (in orange). The figure also includes temporary closed areas for the shrimp fishery (in red) and for the cod fishery (in green) in 2005. (Source: Gullestad et al., 2015)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Catch profiles UoA 1,2,3 Table 15 Catches of commercial species caught in ICES area 1 and 2 in 2017 – 2019 (tonnes live weight). (Source: Client information January 2021) Species Scientific Name Catch (t) % Total MSC Comment Classification Cod (Target Gadus morhua 316150.55 75.94 P1 Target species) Haddock Melanogrammus 76313.53 18.33 P1 Target (Target aeglefinus species) Saithe (Target Pollachius virens 5454.745 1.31 P1 Target species) Greenland Reinhardtius 5843.739 1.40 Primary minor Halibut hippoglossoides Deepwater Sebastes mentella 5809.062 1.40 Primary minor Redfish Golden Redfish Sebastes norvegicus 1245.49 0.30 Primary minor Spotted Wolfish Anarhichas minor 1580.582 0.38 Secondary minor Northern Anarhichas 1453.667 0.35 Secondary Wolfish denticulatus minor Atlantic Wolfish Anarhichas lupus 587.764 0.14 Secondary minor European Pleuronectes platessa 1066.452 0.26 Secondary Plaice minor Long Rough Hippoglossoides 783.659 0.19 Secondary Dab platessoides minor

Table 15 presents the catch profile of the retained species of the fishery across all vessel and all areas as totalled from 2017-2019 (Client information, January 2021). Procedurally on board the vessel, the catch, according to the fishing regulation, is fully identified by fish species and is fully recorded. This also includes plaice, which can also be caught in the bycatch upon target fishing of cod, haddock, saithe. The entire catch of plaice is retained and landed. Each fish species has its own particular coefficient of raw material use (conversion factor) for processed products. Therefore, it is not possible to avoid separation by fish.

The fishery under assessment provided a detailed MSC-log for 2019, recording all those caught species which would then be released back into the sea (Table 16).

Table 16 MSC-log for 2019 (Source: client information January 2021; all specimen/ species are released after recording)

Total catch Comments Common name Scientific name/ group Individuals Weight (kg)

Greenland shark Somniosus microcephalus 2

Spiny-tail skate Bathyraja spinicauda 1954

Rabbitfish Chimaera monstrosa 33

Atlantic halibut Hippoglossus hippoglossus 57

Anglerfish Lophius piscatorius 32

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Lumpfish Cyclopterus lumpus 795 Squid Teuthida 4 60 Octopus Octopoda 5 Echinoderm Echinodermata 23 200.3 Starfish Asteroidea 734 1750 Brittle stars Ophiuroidea 16 5 Gorgonocephalus 15 5 Sea cucumbers Holothuroidea 2 330 Orange-footed Cucumaria frondosa 138 1510 sea cucumber Crinoidea Crinoidea 1

Sea urchins Echinoidea 32 195

Mollusca 49 96.7 Gastropoda 17 80 Bivalvia 17 35 Iceland scallop Chalmys islandica 142 Hydrozoa 30 Sponges Porifera 361 2451

Fish escaping from fishing gear during hauling onboard of the vessel is not considered ‘discards’, nor are those which have been damaged by the fishing gear (Client information January 2021). Where there has been accidental catch of juveniles in the trawl, the vessels’ captains decide to change the vessel position. Current regulations allow 15% of the catch to be juveniles of the UoA species, per haul, before move-on is triggered. In order to accommodate different conditions in the Barents Sea, as well as different reasons as to why there may be a large number of juveniles in an area (e.g., migration) there is no set distance stipulated by the authorities by which a vessel has to move on. In cases where it appears that the juveniles are migrating, the vessel must leave the area altogether for a few days (Client information). Any other fish caught and brought on board is kept and recorded. Measures are in place to reduce by-catch, such as gear design and configuration (see description in background section), and on-board sorting grids are designed to reduce juvenile and small fish bycatch, with the minimum distance between the bars of the sorting grid being at least 55 mm. Any non-commercial fish species as well as any mega-benthos species which are caught in the trawl are usually released straight back into the sea with minimal damage and air exposure, to enhance survivability (Table 16). Information about these species is recorded in the ship's MSC-logs – now electronically available through specially designed software (Bort 2.0, see Section 7.3.6c.ii) including identification and location. Where a large number of these species are found in the trawl, the captains of the vessels change the position of fishing. In addition, it is common practice as part of the fishery management to inform other vessels in the fishery group of such an occurrence to avoid further benthos interaction. 7.3.2 Primary species All Primary species recorded in the catch and designated as ‘minor’ are summarized below. Table 17 Primary species recorded in the catch

Species Assessment Blim MSY Advisory Stock status ICES Advice Unit Category Year/ Section ICES Area Greenland halibut I & II Analytical Full June 2020/ Reinhardtius assessment reproductive ghl.27.1-21 hippoglossoides capacity

1 http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2020/2020/ghl.27.1-2.pdf Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

(Gadget model) I&II Y Y Analytical Full June 2020/ Beaked redfish assessment reproductive reb.27.1-22 Sebastes mentella capacity I&II Y Y Analytical Reduced June 2020/ Golden redfish assessment reproductive reg.27.1-23 Sebastes (Gadget capacity norvegicus model)

Greenland halibut

The ICES advice sheet for this species was not updated in 2020 due to the Covid-19 disruption. ICES advises that when the precautionary considerations are applied, catches in 2021 should be no more than 23 000 tonnes. The 2019 ICES advice on catch and the stock status of Greenland halibut is unchanged from 2018 and the stock is considered to be in a relatively stable state. The stock is considered to be above Bpa and is forecast to remain above Bpa over the next five years, while declining by 20% (if catch remains constant) due to a lack of recruitment.

Redfish There are several species of redfish, among which Beaked redfish (Sebastes mentella) has the highest biomass in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). Golden redfish (Sebastes norvegicus) is difficult to distinguish from the Sebastes mentella stock in the same area, and may make up an unknown percentage of the redfish catch in subareas 1 and 2. Most fisheries report only “redfish”, and the fraction that is S. norvegicus is estimated based on historical landing patterns (ICES, 2018).

4,519 tonnes of beaked redfish were caught by Russian vessels from the client list in 2019, whereas 420 tonnes of golden redfish were caught by Russian vessels in 2019 (Client information January 2021). The most recent ICES advice on the Northeast Arctic Redfish stock was from June 2020 for Beaked redfish (ICES, 20204) and June 2020 for Golden redfish (ICES, 2020b5).

For beaked redfish, spawning–stock biomass (SSB) increased steadily from 1992 to 2007, followed by stabilization slightly below that peak. Whilst the year classes 1996–2003 were weak, there is evidence for strong year classes 2005 – 2010. Recent recruitments are slightly above the long-term average. Fishing mortality has been low but has increased since 2014 (ICES, 2018a).

When fishing for other species in the Norwegian EEZ and Svalbard Fisheries Protection Zone, it has since 2013 been allowed to have up to 20% redfish (both species together) in round weight as bycatch outside 12 nautical miles. The total landings in 2019 was expected to increase due to the raised quota for S. mentella, and thus an increase in bycatch of S. norvegicus was expected.

Table 18 – Scoring elements

Component Scoring elements Designation Data-deficient e.g. P1, Primary, e.g. species or stock Secondary, ETP, Main or Minor Yes / No (SA 3.1.1.1) Habitats, Ecosystems Primary Greenland Halibut Minor No

2 https://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2020/2020/reb.27.1-2.pdf 3 https://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2020/2020/reg.27.1-2.pdf 4 ICES. 2020. Beaked redfish (Sebastes mentella) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2020. ICES Advice 2020, reb.27.1-2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5826 5 ICES. 2020b. Golden redfish (Sebastes norvegicus) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2020. ICES Advice 2020, reg.27.1-2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5827. Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Deepwater Redfish Minor No

Golden Redfish Minor No

Spotted Wolfish Minor No

Northern Wolfish Minor No

Atlantic Wolfish Minor No

Long Rough Dab Minor No

Plaice Minor No

Secondary Greenland shark Minor No

Spiny-tail skate Minor No

Rabbitfish Minor Yes

Atlantic halibut Minor No

Anglerfish Minor No

Lumpfish Minor No

Northern Fulmar NA No

Common or blue skate NA No ETP (Dipturus batis) Spurdog (Squalus NA No acanthias) Blue Ling (Molva NA No dypterygia) Sedimentary substrate Commonly encountered No of gravelly sand, coarser sediments and gravelly pebbles of flat to low relief Habitats hard bottom and soft VME No bottom coral gardens, cold Lophelia - water coral reefs, seapen fields, Ostur sponge aggregations

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

7.3.3 Secondary species The records provided by the client (Client information, January 2021) show a log of interactions with seabirds.

Common name Scientific name 2019 Ivory gull Pagophila eburnea 3 Northern Gannet Morus bassanus 5 Phalacrocorax European Shag aristotelis 1 Northern Fulmar Fulmarus glacialis 117

There is no evidence that mammals were caught, and there were no interactions either (as out of scope species these would have been considered under Secondary – main species, unless they happen to have ETP status), this will be verified at the site visit. All Secondary species recorded are designated ‘minor’.

The list of Secondary species can be seen in the catch profiles given in Table 15 Catches of commercial species caught in ICES area 1 and 2 in 2017 – 2019 (tonnes live weight). (Source: Client information January 2021) and are listed out here.

- Long rough dab Hippoglossoides platessoides - Northern wolffish Anarhichas denticulatus - Plaice Pleuronectes platessa - Spotted wolffish Anarhichas minor - Wolffish Anarhichas spp.

Six non-target species caught were reported in Norebo vessel logbooks as:

- Anglerfish Lophius piscatorius - Atlantic halibut Hippoglossus hippoglossus - Rabbitfish Chimaera monstrosa - Lumpsucker Cyclopterus lumpus - Spinytail Skate Bathyraja spinicauda - Greenland shark Somniosus microcephalus

These species were reported at catch rates of mostly less than 10 individuals per tow.

Common name Scientific name 2019, numbers Somniosus Greenland shark microcephalus 2 Spiny-tail skate Bathyraja spinicauda 1954 Rabbitfish Chimaera monstrosa 33 Hippoglossus Atlantic halibut hippoglossus 57 Anglerfish Lophius piscatorius 32 Lumpfish Cyclopterus lumpus 795

Trawl surveys are included in the Joint Russian-Norwegian Scientific Research Program on Living Marine Resources for 20196. In addition to collecting information on this fishery’s target species, wolfish, Greenland halibut and redfish are identified as species of interest. Apart from basic biological information available there is no stock status on the Secondary species – hence their designation. They are all ‘minor’.

6 JOINT RUSSIAN – NORWEGIAN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PROGRAM ON LIVING MARINE RESOURCES IN 2019 https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/cb939423ea10498aac59dc3f7ac0dcd8/vedlegg-10-joint-russian-norwegian- scientific-research-programme-on-living-marine-resources-in-2019.pdf Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

7.3.4 Unwanted catch and unobserved mortality MSC Fisheries Standard 2.01 definition: the term ‘unwanted catch’ shall be interpreted by the team as the part of the catch that a fisher did not intend to catch but could not avoid and did not want or chose not to use.

Where a UoA has a management plan, some species and sizes may be considered and designated to be ‘unwanted catch’ (including through using terms such as ‘non-target’, ‘bycatch’ or ‘discards’ in the plan). If not designated, unwanted catch of species are those that are not covered under the plan. Unwanted catches of species may also be designated as catch that is prohibited in that fishery. Unwanted catch may also include the part of the catch that has been thrown away or slipped where the components of that catch may not survive after release.

All bycatch of commercial species shall be recorded in compliance with the implemented registration protocols and shall thereafter be retained on board and will be counted against the quota for those species on landing of the catch. (Norebo CoC)

There was no unwanted primary species catch in this fishery, as all catches of primary species are marketable and are landed.

Low levels of retained species in the client fishery are due to a number of factors: • Mesh size in cod end is now usually 138 mm (above the minimum of 130mm harmonised Norwegian/Russian regulation); • A separation/sorting system is used compliant with the decisions of the Joint Russian- Norwegian Fishery Commission for Barents and Norwegian Sea Cod and haddock. This comprises a sort-V with a selective grid 1.2 x 1.0 m, and 55 mm spacing between bars; • Discard bans in Norwegian, Svalbard and Russian sectors; • Move on rule / real time closures in Norwegian waters - to protect juveniles, or in event of high by catch; • Permanently closed areas to protect spawning / nursery grounds; • High concentrations of cod and haddock on the fishing grounds; • Experienced and knowledgeable skippers and crew; • The good recent availability of target stock quotas (reflecting good stock status), which, combined with increased trade in quotas reduces the incentive to ‘high grade’ catches.

Discarding is prohibited while fishing in the Barents Sea and Norwegian sea. The definition of discarding does not include fish released from fishing gear during trawl lifting on board (as a result of the escape of fish through the trawl mesh) or as a result of damage to fishing gear. (Client information January 2021).

There was no unwanted primary species catch in this fishery, unwanted secondary species were recorded and released as quickly as possible to improve survivability. In case of accidental catch of juvenile fish, the masters make the decision on the change of fishing position. Caught juvenile fish must be recorded and landed. There is a strategy in place to manage unwanted by-catch of juveniles by controlling mesh size and sorting grid as part of the trawl gear. Unobserved mortality can include but is not limited to: illegal fishing and/or unregulated catches; animals that are injured and subsequently die as a result of coming in contact with fishing gear; animals that are stressed and die as a result of attempting to avoid being caught by fishing gear; and ghost fishing (mortality of free living or benthic organisms arising from entanglement in lost fishing gear).

Ghost fishing is not an issue in the fishery under assessment (Client information January 2021). Where gear becomes entangled, for example on seabed obstructions, it can and is recovered, by releasing one side and hauling the other. Gear is expensive and there is little economic sense in giving up on a recovery attempt. Good local knowledge and gear design further reduces the chance of snagging.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

7.3.5 ETP Species Specifically, in this fishery, ETP are species recognised by national legislation and/or binding international agreements to which Russia is a party to. Russia is a signatory to a number of conventions on species protection and management, notably the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Species listed under Appendix I of CITES are considered ETP species for the purposes of the MSC assessment. Russia has compiled a “red-list” based on IUCN criteria, with 5 status levels ranging from regionally extinct to near threatened, plus a “data deficient” category.

The existing Russian Red Data Book is used in parallel with the IUCN system (see outcome of workshop in the autumn of 2014: An international workshop on Methods of Assessment of Status of the Threatened species for the Barents Region Red Data books based on IUCN criteria). Thus, protection criteria are based on 5 status levels ranging from regionally extinct to near threatened, plus a “data deficient” category).

As the fishery is also operating in the Norwegian EEZ, it will have to follow Norwegian regulations on protected species, and thus the Norwegian Red List of marine protected species. There is a Norwegian red list of endangered species which demands the protection of these species in the Norwegian territory. The Norwegian Marine Resources Act, through the precautionary approach principle, ensure that management action is taken to avoid redlisting of species. Besides, Norwegian Regulation J-250-20137 specifically protects basking sharks, spurdogs, portbeagle and silky sharks. The OSPAR list of threatened species in the Norwegian Sea and the IUCN Status are also consulted as a guidance of the status of the different species, although species in these lists do not necessarily fulfil the MSC requirements to be considered ETP species.

Observer data are usually the best source of information to determine the extent of interaction between a fishery and ETP species.

The following section outlines the evaluation on what kinds of ETP species may be encountered in the North East Arctic.

Table 19 ETP present in Northeast Arctic (ICES Sub Areas 1, 2a, 2b)

ETP species Scientific Name CITES Russian Norwegian OSPA Appendix Red Data red list R I Book Regio n I Marine Fin whale Balaenoptera Yes No Least N/A mamma physalus Concern ls Blue whale Balaenoptera Yes No Vulnerable Yes musculus Bowhead whale Balaena Yes N/A Critically Yes mysticetus Endangere d Grey whale Eschrichtius Yes N/A N/A N/A robustus Humpback whale Megaptera Yes No Least N/A novaeangliae Concern Minke whale Balaenoptera Yes No Least N/A acutorostrata Concern North Atlantic right Eubalaena Yes N/A Regionally Yes whale glacialis Extinct Northern Hyperoodon Yes No Least N/A bottlenose whale ampullatus Concern

7https://www.fiskeridir.no/Yrkesfiske/Regelverk-og-reguleringer/J-meldinger/Gjeldende-J-meldinger/J-250-2013 Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Sperm whale Physeter Yes No N/A N/A microcephalus Harbour seal Phoca vitulina No Yes Least No Concern Sei whale Balaenoptera Yes No N/A N/A borealis Hooded seal Cystophora No N/A Endangere N/A cristata d Walrus Odobenus No Yes Vulnerable N/A rosmarus Harbour porpoise Phocoena No No Least Yes phocoena concern Birds Pale-bellied brant Branta bernicla No Yes N/A No hrota Barnacle goose Branta leucopsis No Yes N/A No yellow-billed loon Gavia adamsii No Yes N/A No

Northern gannet Morus bassanus No Yes Least No Concern Crested Phalacrocorax No Yes Least No Cormorant aristotelis Concern Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax No Yes N/A No carbo

Steller's eider Polysticta stelleri No Yes Vulnerable Yes

Common eider Somateria No Yes N/A No mollissima Great skua Stercorarius No Yes N/A No skua Common Tadorna tadorna No Yes N/A No shelduck Brunnich’s Uria lomvia No N/A Yes Yes guillemot Black-legged Rissa tridactyla No N/A Endangere Yes kittiwake d Common Uria aalge No N/A Critically No guillemot Endangere d Fulmar Fulmarus No N/A Endangere No glacialis d Ivory gull Pagophila No N/A N/A Yes ebúrnea Razorbill Alca torda No N/A Endangere No d Puffin Fratercula No N/A Vulnerable No arctica Fish European eel Anguilla Anguilla No N/A VU Yes Golden redfish Sebastes No N/A Endangere N/A marinus d Porbeagle Lamna nasus No N/A Vulnerable Yes Basking shark Cetorhinus No N/A Endangere Yes maximus d Spurdog Squalus No N/A Endangere Yes acanthias d Lavaret Coregonus No N/A Least Yes lavaretus concern Thornback ray Raja clavata No N/A Least Yes concern Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Common skate Dipturus batis No N/A Critically Yes Endangere d

Direct interactions would be those caused by the gear getting in touch with the animal. This may result in casualties or injuries for the individual and damage for the nets. Landing records show no reports of interactions or landings of ETP species. As regards indirect effects, these would be those related to biomass removal by the fishery, affecting prey availability for ETP species. ETP populations such as marine mammals are monitored by different programs through population estimates. Detailed in the following sections. i. Marine mammals Barents Sea - The Barents Sea is an important area for marine mammals. The Polar Research Institute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanography- Institute for Marine Research (Havforskninsinstituttet), Norway (PINRO -IMR) Joint Ecosystem work (IMR-PINRO joint ecosystem report 2020) concludes that the most common marine mammal in the Barents Sea is the white-beaked dolphin (Lagenorhynchus albirostris – IUCN Least Concern). The following two figures provide a broad distribution overview of toothed and baleen whales as mapped out by the IMR-PINRO 2019 ecosystem survey.

Figure 6 Distribution of toothed whales in August-October. 2018 (left) and 2019 (right) (Source IMR-PINRO ecosystem survey 2019)8

8 IMR-PINRO 2020 Survey report from the joint Norwegian/Russian ecosystem survey in the Barents Sea and adjacent waters, August-October 2019. IMR/PINRO Joint Report Series 1, 2020 https://www.hi.no/resources/publikasjoner/imrpinro/2010/imr-pinro_1-2010_til_web.pdf Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Figure 7 Distribution of baleen whales in August- October: 2018 (left) and 2019 (right) (Source IMR-PINRO ecosystem survey 2019) Interaction: Although Harp seals are sometimes taken in Barents Sea trawl fisheries, encounters with other species are thought to be rare, and no interactions have been recorded for trawl fisheries. Despite their abundance in the Barents Sea, dolphins are rarely caught in trawls9, and no interactions have been recorded for trawl fisheries under assessment. According to ICES (ICES Advice 2009 Book 3), larger offshore demersal trawl vessels “are regarded as having a relatively low risk for by-catches of marine mammals”. None were reported for this fishery under assessment (Client information).

Norwegian sea- here marine mammal abundance is estimated through counting surveys by the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO). The NAMMCO North Atlantic Sighting Surveys (NASS)10 cover the Northern part of the North Atlantic. These surveys include aerial sightings and vessel observations. Marine mammals present in the northern North Atlantic between Norway and North America are listed in the NAMMCO website.

Two species of seals are present year-round in coastal waters, harbour seal Phoca vitulina and grey seal Halichoerus grypus, with a further five pinniped species as infrequent visitors. The abundance of harbour seals in central Norway has decreased since the late 1990s, mainly from hunting, but abundance is now increasing. Surveys of grey seals have shown a 50–60% reduction in pup production between 2007–2008 and 2014– 2015 in mid-Norway, probably as a result of increased bycatches in gillnet fisheries for monkfish and cod. Twelve cetacean species are commonly observed in Norwegian waters, either on a year-round basis or as seasonal visitors in the productive summer season. The numbers of minke whales in the northeast Atlantic (including the Norwegian Sea) are stable overall (2007–2013). However, a general displacement of minke whales and other baleen whales towards the northeast implies a shift from the Norwegian Sea to the Barents Sea.

The anthropogenic factors that are thought to be most harmful for marine mammals are fisheries interactions, pollution and climate warming. The latter phenomenon is a particularly acute problem in the Arctic, and it is a serious threat factor for all ice-associated marine mammals.

ii. Elasmobranchs Barents Sea - According to the ICES Barents Sea ecosystem survey (ICES 2019) elasmobranchs may occur as bycatch in demersal fisheries. The most abundant skate in the area is the starry ray (also known as thorny skate), which is widespread in the Barents Sea and adjacent waters. Bottom-trawl fisheries targeting cod and haddock, and longline fisheries targeting cod, wolfish, and Greenland halibut

9http://barentsportal.com/barentsportal_v2.5/index.php/en/updated-articles-2013/current-status-2013/human-activities- and-impacts-2013/853-updated-2013-fisheries-and-other-harvesting-important-indirect-effects-of-fisheries-on-the- ecosystem 10 https://nammco.no/topics/abundance-surveys-counting-whales/#1502888669916-d4b2cdad-05c2

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe have an elasmobranch bycatch, which is generally discarded. Data from the Norwegian Reference Fleet indicate that the most commonly landed skates today are larger specimens of thornback ray, spinytail skate, and Arctic skate. These are not abundant in the ecoregion and the information on stock status is lacking. Thornback ray may be locally abundant in some fjords. Further studies are required, particularly for the larger-bodied elasmobranchs, which are generally considered to be more vulnerable to overfishing. Since 2010, all dead or dying skates and other fish in the catches should be landed, whereas live specimens can be discarded as they may survive. Sharks are also taken as bycatch in the area, but data are sparse (ICES 2019).

None of the elasmobranches species occurring in the Barents Sea are protected by CITES. Though some elasmobranchs in the Barents Sea are classified as vulnerable (VU), endangered (EN) or critically endangered (CE), IUCN status alone does not qualify as ETP status for elasmobranchs, as they are not ‘out of scope’ species (see MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01 SA3.1.5).

Norwegian Sea- All large elasmobranchs (sharks and rays) are listed at one level of concern or another by the IUCN. Despite the legal requirement to not discard commercial species, most fishing vessels will return large sharks to the sea if they are still alive. Similarly, spurdog Squalus acanthias is listed as on the IUCN and Norwegian red list (IUCN, Gjosater, 2010). There are specific measures prohibiting targeted fishing for the dogfish, basking shark and porbeagle but if caught they should be landed (in practice, if still alive they are more likely to be released). The catch of these species should be recorded individually as they are easily identified by crew members. Other sharks, skates and rays are taken in too small numbers to justify identifying them by species in the landing statistics and, again, the total quantities involved are very small.

The IUCN system is used in parallel with the existing Russian Red Data Book (see outcome of workshop in the autumn of 2014: An international workshop on Methods of Assessment of Status of the Threatened species for the Barents Region Red Data books based on IUCN criteria.11

iii. Seabirds Barents Sea- The Barents Sea supports at least 20 million seabirds, divided between 40 species and 1600 colonies, in summer. Numbers are lower in winter when most species move southwards. 90% of the birds belong to only 5 species: Brünnich’s guillemot, little auk, Atlantic puffin, northern fulmar and black-legged kittiwake. The distribution of colonies is shown in Figure 8. Population monitoring in Norway and Svalbard has revealed a marked downward trend for several important seabird species the last 30 years, including puffin, Brünnich’s guillemot and kittiwake (Figure 3.8.2.2). The population of common guillemot was decimated in the 1980s mainly due to a collapse in the capelin stock combined with low abundance of alternative prey. The population has increased steadily since then. The status and trends of the large populations of seabirds in the Eastern Barents Sea is less known.

11 https://ib.komisc.ru/add/conf/iucn/en/index.html and Resolution: https://ib.komisc.ru/add/conf/iucn/en/indexccb4.html?page_id=209 Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Figure 8 Major seabird colonies in the Barents Sea. Data compiled from SEAPOP (www.seapop.no), Fauchald et al. (2015), Anker-Nilssen et al. 2000 and The Seabird Colony Registry of the Barents and White Seas. (source: www.Barentsportal.com)

Population monitoring in Norway and Svalbard has revealed a marked downward trend for several important seabird species the last 30 years, including puffin, Brünnich’s guillemot and kittiwake (Figure 9). The population of common guillemot was decimated in the 1980s mainly due to a collapse in the capelin stock combined with low abundance of alternative prey. The population has increased steadily since then. The status and trends of the large populations of seabirds in the Eastern Barents Sea is less known.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Figure 9 Size and trends of puffin, guillemots and kittiwake populations in the Western Barents Sea (Norway and Svalbard incl. Bjørnøya). Data from Fauchald et al. (2015). (Source: www.Barentsportal.com) Among more than 30 seabird species breeding and wintering in the Barents Sea region, there are seven Red-listed species. Major threats likely limiting population development of the Red-listed seabird species are: (i) - fisheries (competition for the resources and by-catch in gillnets); (ii) - environmental deterioration (pollution, habitat destruction and disturbance); (iii) - climate change.12

Norwegian Sea - The total number of seabirds breeding in the Norwegian parts of the Norwegian Sea was recently estimated at 1 270 000 pairs, of which 870 000 pairs of 20 species were breeding along the mainland coast and 400 000 pairs of 15 species were on Jan Mayen. Most populations have decreased steeply over the last decade (mean trend −5.8% year−1 in 2005–2015), and many have decreased almost constantly since monitoring started three to five decades ago (see e.g. Figure 10). No single factor explains all these trends; however, long-term breeding failures for species feeding in pelagic waters such as Atlantic puffin Fratercula arctica, black-legged kittiwake Rissa tridactyla, common guillemot Uria aalge, and Northern fulmar Fulmarus glacialis indicate that much of the problem along the mainland coast is related to drastic changes in the availability of 0-group fish (especially herring), and also linked to variations in ocean climate (ICES 2019b).

12 http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/index.php/en/status-2020/308-biotic-ecosystem-components-data- from-2019/marine-mammals-and-sea-birds-2018/1021-marine-mammals-and-sea-birds Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Figure 10 Development in the breeding populations of black-legged kittiwake, common guillemot, and Atlantic puffin in the Norwegian part of the Norwegian Sea in the period 1980–2013. (Source: ICES 2019b) iv. On board management of ETPs A specially designed on-board software programme (PK Bort 2.0) is in place since 2019 across a number of vessels participating in the MSC certification programme in the Barents Sea, including this fishery under assessment. According to the client (Client information January 2021), the programme is designed to both address habitat impact and help with habitat mapping, as well as detailed non-target species bycatch recording, including ETP species. When the catch is hauled on board, it is sorted and graded, as well as sorted by non-target species and benthic organisms. Commercial species, including non-target, are weighed and recorded and processed where relevant (according to relevant regulations). The unwanted species are recorded in terms of species and numbers of individuals, and then discarded where appropriate. Benthos is weighed where appropriate, and recorded to species level, ID manuals for birds, mammals and benthos, designed by PINRO and WWF Murmansk, are available on board to help with identification.

Any elasmobranchs bycaught, including skates and rays, tend to be held back by the grid on the holding tank. The identification and registration of elasmobranchs takes place on the deck followed by speedy release to sea via a slipway. Any birds caught as by-catch are also recorded in numbers of individuals. ETP species are marked as such in the guides and the software. The recording is done using the software, whereby each record is also linked to the vessel and location. The non-target catch is divided into categories, each given a certain number of points as part of scoring:

Баллы / Points: 0 – нет прилова / no bycatch 1 points- 1-10 kg –мало / few 2 points - 10-100 kg– умеренно / moderately 3 points - 100-300 kg– много / lots of 4 points - более 300 кg (more than 300kg) – очень много / lots of

The programme automatically selects the required score value, based on species, ETP status, weight. It triggers for example the move-on rule, which is based on the number of points in the score – the score also reflects the sensitivity of the relevant species; thus, each species has a different sensitivity score from the outset. The programme automatically gives points when a certain number of pre-programmed criteria is met, and thus a certain score value reached. The database also records what happens to the bycatch in each case, e.g. whether it is discarded. The system was implemented in 2019 and is calibrated for all the relevant species involved. The initial weight thresholds of 60kg for corals and 800kg

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe for sponges applies. All Russian MSC certified fisheries have committed to move on by 2nm if and when reaching such thresholds. Such action is not routinely recorded as part of day-to-day fishing activity.

As detailed in the Norebo Code of Conduct for Sustainable Fishery; In order to deal with VMEs and ETP species Norebo will:

1. In cooperation with fishery scientists (VNIRO and other relevant scientific organizations) develop and implement improved registration scheme for bycatch of megabenthos (VME indicators) on the fishing vessels as a part of existing Independent Scientific Observers Scheme. Norebo is committed to develop a management system to be able to confirm its compliance with the Norebo’s Policy on Sustainable Fishery.

In order to obtain reliable and independent information on activities of its suppliers it is necessary to collect the following information: a) types of used fishing gears, their parameters including ground line equipment, minimum mesh size and availability of any auxiliary equipment; b) catch composition by areas and fishing seasons; c) full utilization of catches; d) discards of marine living resources permitted to be fished; e) bycatches and utilization of species prohibited to fish, ETP species; f) bycatches of bottom (benthic) organisms including those belonging to VME indicators such as cold- water corals and sponges; g) compliance of information recorded in the fishing logbook to the actual fishing activities; h) compliance of information on bycatch of non-target and none-marketable species including VME indicators according to the implemented registration protocols; i) fishing activity of the vessels and possible overlap with mapped VME areas; j) fishing activity of the vessels to identify If the fishery was performed within the existing bottom fishing areas.

These observations shall be performed in each area of fishing activities (Economic Zone of Norway, Exclusive Economic Zone of the Russian Federation, maritime area around Spitsbergen and high seas) in each quarter of the year. 2. In cooperation with fishery scientists (VNIRO, other relevant scientific organizations and environmental NGOs) perform training of the crew members on the fishing vessels to collect data on megabenthos (VME indicators). The training programmes can be developed in cooperation with educational institutions, fishery research institutions and environmental NGOs. (Norebo CoC).

The following species were identified as ETP species interacting in this fishery under assessment. Table 20. Interactions of Norebo vessels with ETP species during 2016- 2019 2019 No of Common name Scientific name individuals Northern Fulmar Fulmarus glacialis 2019 117 Blue Ling Molva dypterygia 2018 Previous Spurdog Squalus acanthias assessment Common or blue Dipturus batis) Previous skate assessment

Northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis): EN: The European population is estimated at 3,380,000- 3,500,000 pairs, which equates to 6,760,000-7,000,000 mature individuals. The population in the EU27 is estimated at 533,000 pairs, which equates to 1,070,000 mature individuals. Since declines began in the mid-1980s (c. one generation) the population size in Europe is estimated to have declined by more Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe than 40%. Although there is uncertainty in the projected magnitude of the decline owing to the long generation length of the species, the population size in Europe is estimated to be decreasing by 50- 79% during 1985-2077 (three generations). In the EU27 the population size is estimated and projected to decrease by 30-49% in the same period.

Blue Ling (Molva dypterygia) Blue ling is occasionally caught by the UoC in very small quantities (<0.002% of total catch; between 0 and 11 tonnes/yr). Blue ling has a distribution from the Azores to Spitsbergen, and the Barents Sea is an important centre of population. It has low resilience and very high vulnerability. It is found at 350- 500m on muddy bottoms. The ICES advice for 2020 to 2023 is: ICES advises that when the precautionary approach is applied, there should be zero catches in each of the years from 2020 to 2023. Closed areas to protect spawning should be maintained. Status This species suffered stock collapse in the 90s and has not recovered. A steady decline in landings suggest serious depletion in Subarea II and this species is listed as endangered on the Norwegian red list. Trends in landings suggest depletion in Subarea 2. Landings have also declined strongly in Subarea 12 from 2002 onwards. Landings from other areas are minor, but there is some evidence of a persistent decline in Subarea 4. ICES assesses that the spawning stock size is below possible MSY Btrigger, Bpa, and Blim reference points. No reference points for fishing pressure have been defined for this stock. The landings data are considered to reflect the abundance of the species in subareas 1 and 2 and divisions 3.a and 4.a. From this and the lack of catches in surveys it is inferred that the stock in subareas 1 and 2 is depleted. Recent trends in landings may also be influenced by a decline in effort.

This stock is classified as Category 2 in the NEAFC categorization of deep-sea species/stocks which implies that NEAFC requires measures stipulating that directed fisheries are not authorised and that bycatches should be minimised. While the stock area includes subareas 8 and 9, there is no record of catches of blue ling in all available survey time-series in these areas. Landings reported in the past from subareas 8 and 9 as blue ling (Molva dypterygia) were considered to be Spanish ling (Molva macropthalma), and have not been included in the assessment. ICES does not provide advice on the latter species. The stock is considered depleted. Recent exploitation is unknown but is regarded to be low because of ceased fisheries, management regulations, and closed spawning areas. There are no signs of stock rebuilding, hence the advice is for zero catches.

Spurdog (Squalus acanthias) A widely distributed benthopelagic species in cooler waters, and found down to a depth of 1500m, but more commonly occurs down to a depth of 300m (fishbase.org). It is a highly migratory species, used to be observed in large foraging schools with up to thousands of individuals, usually segregated by size and /or sex, with schools of large gravid females preferentially targeted by fisheries. Their latitudinal (north-south) and depth-related (nearshore-offshore) movements appear to be correlated with their preferred temperature. Tagging experiments showed that populations in the northern North Sea and northwest Scotland made winter migrations to off Norway and summer migrations to Scotland. Transoceanic migrations are rare. Longevity in the northern Atlantic is about 35-50 years but most live only 20-24 years, growth is slow. At sexual maturity, males are 60-70 cm long, females 75-90 cm. Gestation period is 2 years. This species feeds on a diversity of prey, ranging from comb jellyfish, squid, mackerel and herring to a wide array of benthic fishes, shrimps, crabs and even sea cucumbers. It is the only species of horned sharks that can inflict toxins with its tail. It detects weak electric fields generated by potential prey. It is utilized for human consumption, liver oil, vitamins, sandpaper, leather, fertilizer, etc. (Ebert et.al. 2010)).

ICES Working Group on Elasmobranch Fishes (WGEF) considers that there is a single NE Atlantic stock ranging from the Barents Sea to the Bay of Biscay (ICES 2018b). Spurdog has a long history of exploitation in the Northeast Atlantic. In 2018, ICES advised that “when the precautionary approach is applied, there should be no targeted fisheries on this stock in 2019 and 2020. Based on medium-term projections, annual catches at the recent assumed level (2468 tonnes) would allow the stock to increase at a rate close to that estimated with zero catches. Any possible provision for the landing of bycatch

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe should be part of a management plan, including close monitoring of the stock and fisheries” (ICES, 2018b).

In all EU regulated areas there is a zero TAC for spurdog. In 2007, Norway introduced a general ban on target fisheries for spurdog in the Norwegian economic zone and in international waters of ICES subareas 1–14, with the exception of a limited fishery for small coastal vessels. This was followed in 2011 by a ban of all directed fisheries, although there is still a bycatch allowance (with strict percentage limits). Live specimens can be released, whereas dead specimens must be landed. This also applies to recreational fisheries. Low mortality has been reported for spurdog caught by trawl when tow duration was <1 h, with overall mortality of about 6% (ICES 2018b).

All skates, rays and sharks have to be released back into the water as quickly as possible. Ellis et al. (2017) provided a review of discard survival studies. Skates taken in coastal fisheries using trawls, longlines, gillnets and tangle nets generally show low at-vessel mortality (Ellis et al. 2018), though it should be noted that the inshore fleet generally have limited soak times and haul durations. Studies for beam trawlers indicate that just over 70% of skates may survive (Depestele et al., 2014).

Blue skate (Dipturus batis) This is a demersal skate species, living to a depth of 1000m along the Norwegian coast, and with distribution range barely extending into the Barents Sea according to the map provided on fishbase.org. They can grow up to 2.8m. The species feeds on all kinds of bottom animals (clams, worms, snails, crustaceans etc) including other skates, and large individuals prefer fish. The species is oviparous, laying up to 40 egg capsules in sandy or muddy flats. The young tend to follow large objects such as their mother. Maximum recorded age is 51 years (McEachran and Dunn 1998). Demersal elasmobranchs are regularly assessed in the Barents Sea as well as the adjoining Norwegian Sea as part of ICES Working Group on Elasmobranchs (ICES 2018b), where Blue skate is considered as part of the common skate Dipturus batis complex. Fishery independent demersal surveys in the Barents Sea region are conducted by both Norway and Russia, and in addition two joint Russian– Norwegian surveys are conducted in the Barents Sea (ICES 2018b; IMR-PINRO 2020), These studies describe length data, distribution and habitat utilisation of the skates, and CPUE data as part of past Russian surveys. The Barents Sea Ecosystem survey in 2018 (IMR-PINRO joint report series 2 2019) indicated that D. batis is rarely if at all encountered, reflecting the natural distribution of the species as being further to the South.

7.3.6 Habitats The MSC Principles and Criteria require that fisheries do not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function. When assessing the status of habitats and the impacts of fishing, teams are required to consider the full area managed by the local, regional, national, or international governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates (the “managed area” for short) (SA3.13.5, MSC FCRv2.0). The MSC also specifies that the team shall use all available information (e.g., bioregional information) to determine the range and distribution of the habitat under consideration, and whether this distribution is entirely within the ‘managed area’ or extends beyond the ‘managed area’ (SA3.13.5.1, MSC FCRv2.0).

The fishery takes place in the waters of the Barents and Norwegian Sea using bottom trawl gear.

For this assessment, the following habitats are being assessed (based on the information in section 7.3.6a and 7.3.6b):

Table 21 Habitats encountered by UoA 1, 2 and 3 - Norwegian and Barents Sea

Sedimentary substrate of gravelly sand, coarser Commonly Habitats No sediments and gravelly encountered pebbles of flat to low relief

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

hard bottom and soft bottom coral gardens, cold Lophelia - water VME No coral reefs, seapen fields, Ostur sponge aggregations

The habitat under consideration in this assessment as outlined in Table 21 is described in the section a below. The MSC FCR v2.01 requires habitats interacting with the fishery to be defined as ‘commonly- encountered’, ‘VME’ or ‘minor’, with definitions as given in Table 22.

Table 22 Habitat definitions as per the MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements v2.01. FCR Definition reference SA3.13.3.1 A commonly encountered habitat shall be defined as a habitat that regularly comes into contact with a gear used by the UoA, considering the spatial (geographical) overlap of fishing effort with the habitat’s range within the management area(s) covered by the governance body(s) relevant to the UoA. SA3.13.3.2 A Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem (VME) shall be defined as is done in paragraph 42 subparagraphs (i)-(v) of the FAO Guidelines (definition provided in GSA3.13.3.2). This definition shall be applied both inside and outside EEZs and irrespective of depth. GSA3.13.3.2 VMEs have one or more of the following characteristics, as defined in paragraph 42 of the FAO Guidelines: Uniqueness or rarity – an area or ecosystem that is unique or that contains rare species whose loss could not be compensated for by similar areas or ecosystems Functional significance of the habitat – discrete areas or habitats that are necessary for survival, function, spawning/ reproduction, or recovery of fish stocks; for particular life-history stages (e.g., nursery grounds, rearing areas); or for ETP species Fragility – an ecosystem that is highly susceptible to degradation by anthropogenic activities Life-history traits of component species that make recovery difficult – ecosystems that are characterised by populations or assemblages of species that are slow growing, are slow maturing, have low or unpredictable recruitment, and/or are long lived Structural complexity – an ecosystem that is characterised by complex physical structures created by significant concentrations of biotic and abiotic features N/a Minor habitats are those that do not meet the above definitions.

a. Commonly encountered habitat by the vessel of the fishery under assessment

Barents Sea – The Barents Sea area is about 1 600 000 km2 (Carmack et al. 2006). This estimation includes the surface of the different islands in the area (i.e., Svalbard, Franz Joseph Land and the Novaya Zemlya archipelagos and other small islands), which account for more than 81 200 km2 (Terziev 1990).

First investigations on Barents Sea benthic species were made more than 200 years ago (Jakobsen T., Ozhigin V., 2011). Since then, both PINRO and IMR have undertaken research in the area through different means. Both institutions have a history of collaboration programs over the years. Since 2003, both institutions participate in an annual Joint Russian-Norwegian ecosystem survey using five research vessels and bottom trawlers. These surveys serve to gather information regarding the abundance of different fish species but also information on hydrographic conditions, endangered species or planktonic or benthic species. Information on the area can be found in the figures and maps below (MAREANO programme; Joint Russian Norwegian Ecosystem Assessment – Barents Portal; Spiridinov et al 2011;

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Larsen et al 2003; ICES WGIBAR 2017). The area is dominated by soft sediments such as sandy mud or also by muddy sands, with occasional patches of gravels. There are no hard sediments in the area.

Figure 11 Seabed sediments of the Barents Sea. Source: Lepland Aivo, Rybalko Aleksandr & Lepland Aave 2014: Seabed Sediments of the Barents Sea. Scale 1:3 000 000. Geological Survey of Norway (Trondheim) and SEVMORGEO (St. Petersburg).

Norwegian Sea- The substrates within the coastal Norwegian Sea have been mapped by the MAREANO project. This mapping is confined mostly to the Norwegian continental shelf and slope. The majority of the shelf consists of fine muds and sandy muds, with coarser sediments on the shelf slope (Figure 12). MAREANO has located several vulnerable habitat locations, including coral and sponge communities. There is little information from the deep-water areas.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Figure 12 Major substrates in the Norwegian Sea ecoregion (compiled by EMODNET seabed habitats; www.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu).

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Figure 13 General Biotopes in the Norwegian Sea http://mareano.no/kart/mareano_en.html?language=en&selectedLayers=484,471,431,631,647# maps/4773

Table 23. Substratum, geomorphology and biota descriptors for commonly encountered and minor habitats the fleet under assessment. Gear Type Habitat Type Descriptor Description gravel, sand, shells Substratum and rock Flat Geomorphology Low Relief Trawls Commonly encountered Small erect / Biota encrusting or burrowing gravel, sand, shells Substratum and rock

Geomorphology Flat

Minor Small erect / Biota encrusting or burrowing

b. VMEs and protected areas

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

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

• The history of fishing and when the VME was identified is critical to establishing what the ‘unimpacted level’ is; if a VME was already impacted by any fishery/UoA prior to its identification as a VME, and fishing impacts occurred prior to 2006, then the ‘unimpacted level’ is considered to be the status at the point of designation13.

Following on from guidance produced by FAO , there has been increasing activity on the parts of governments and RFMOs to define and manage “vulnerable marine ecosystems”. These are typically interpreted as significant aggregations of benthic organisms that create benthic habitats of importance in their own right and as habitat for other organisms. These areas may show high structural diversity, biodiversity and productivity and may in turn be important for the long-term health of commercial fish and shellfish stocks. In its advice to the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) and Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO), ICES list seven VME habitat types for the Northeast Atlantic and the taxa and species that are most likely to be found in these habitats (ICES, 2013). Criteria for a VME indicator are based on traits related to functional significance, fragility, and the life-history traits of component species that show slow recovery to disturbance. For each group, it is the dense aggregations (beds/fields) that are considered to be VME in order to establish functional significance. Indicators include for example various species of crinoids, erect bryozoans, large sea squirts, sponges and corals.

VME habitat types include: 1. Cold water coral reef: Lophelia pertusa reef Solenosmilia variabilis reef

13 Note: The year 2006 was chosen because it is the date of the UNGA Resolution 61/105 Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

2. Coral garden: a) Hard-bottom coral garden: - Hard-bottom gorgonian and black coral gardens - Colonial scleractinians on rocky outcrops (incl. L.pertusa) - Non-reefal scleractinian aggregations b) Soft bottom coral gardens 3. Deep sea sponge aggregations 4. Seapen fields 5. Tube dwelling anemone patches 6. Mud and sand emergent fauna 7. Bryozoan patches

Both NEAFC and the EU have requested that ICES provides any new information regarding the impact of fisheries on other components of the ecosystem including small cetaceans and other marine mammals, seabirds, and habitats. This should include any new information on the location of habitats sensitive to particular fishing activities. This information has been provided in new ICES advice (ICES, 202014 and ICES, 202015). FAO also offers guidance as to the meaning of “significant adverse effects” on VMEs: They are those that compromise ecosystem integrity (i.e. ecosystem structure or function) in a manner that:

• impairs the ability of affected populations to replace themselves, • degrades the long-term natural productivity of habitats, or • causes, on more than a temporary basis, significant loss of species richness, habitat or community types

OSPAR (to which Norway is party, but not (as yet) Russia) also lists threatened and/or declining species and habitats (OSPAR agreement 2008-6) in sub-areas I&II and of relevance to these fisheries, including for example Coral gardens, Deep sea sponge aggregations, Lophelia pertusa reefs Modiolus modiolus beds, Seapen and burrowing megafauna communities. While some protection is now in place for the less common and more delicate VMEs such as corals (and biogenic reefs more generally), protection remains limited for more widespread but ecologically important habitats. It is notable that ICES (ICES VME Special Advice 201316) has developed a list of sponge species which are habitat-forming and can be considered indicators of sponge VMEs in the North Atlantic. These are species that form the sponge grounds and host a variety of associated smaller sponge species that contribute to the biodiversity of the habitat.

i. VMEs relevant to this assessment The following VMEs are found within the area fished by the client fleet in the Barents and Norwegian Seas. Although there are other important benthic species and communities (such as crinoids, basket stars and sea cucumbers), these do not usually form dense aggregations and do not therefore meet the FAO criteria for VME.

Barents Sea Areas of high biodiversity value/vulnerability continue to be identified (Jørgensen et al 2019; Buhl- Mortensen et al 2019; PINRO 2018 - sponge and coral surveys; ICES WGIBAR 2017;) as part of ongoing collaborative work between PINRO and IMR (IMR/PINRO 2019). A baseline survey (2011) of epibenthos using bottom-trawl surveys found that the Barents Sea has at least 354 benthic taxa. Depth, temperature, salinity, and number of ice days determine four main megafaunal regions. The southwestern region is dominated by filter-feeders (sponges) in the inflow area of warm Atlantic water while the deeper trenches have detritivorous fauna (echinoderms). On the banks/slopes in the southeast and west regions, predators (sea stars, anemones. and snow crabs) prevail together with filtrating species (sea cucumber and bivalves) within a mosaic of banks and slopes.

14 ICES, 2020. New information regarding vulnerable habitats in the NEAFC Regulatory Area: http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2020/2020/vme.neafc.1.pdf 15 ICES, 2020f. New information regarding the impact of fisheries on other components of the ecosystem: http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2020/2020/vme.eu.pdf 16http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2013/Special%20requests/NEAFC_VME_%20indic ator_%20species_%20and_elements.pdf Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Plankton-feeding brittle stars are common in the northwestern and northeastern regions, with an increasing snow crab population in the northeast.

Increasing snow and red king crab populations and potentially expanding trawling activity (e.g. for scallops and demersal fish) are the main impacts to the benthic community. Species including Geodia sponges in the southwestern, basket stars Gorgonocephalus spp. in the northern areas, sea pen Umbellula encrinus on the shelf facing the Arctic Ocean, and sea cucumber Cucumaria frondosa in shallow southern areas are particularly vulnerable to being impacted by trawling activities. A moderate increase in net primary production has occurred since 1997, most likely caused by a response to changes in climate that include increases in the area and duration of open water each year.

Figure 14 Barentsportal map showing the broad scale distribution of Barents Sea biotopes (Source: Dolan et al. 2015)

The biotope map (Figure 14) build on surveys of habitat types in the Barents Sea; it illustrates in visual detail that there are aggregations of large, non-mobile, long-living habitat-forming species, in particular large deep sea sponges (Geodia spp & Stelletta spp, Tethya citrina, Thenea muricata), mussel beds (Modiolus modiolus) and some reef species such as Zooanthidae and Drifa glomerata. Such deepsea communities serve as breeding, spawning and nursery areas for many fish species, and provide vital habitat for a variety of species (Anisimova et al 2010).

The IMR/PINRO ecosystem survey conducted in 2018 (IMR/PINRO 2019) recorded a total of 574 invertebrate taxa (404 identified to species level). The most diverse groups in the scientific survey trawl catches in 2018 were Mollusca (132 taxa), Arthropoda (98 taxa) and Cnidaria (81 taxa) (Figure 15).

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Figure 15 The number of main taxa per megabenthic groups (%) in the Barents Sea, August- October 2017(left) and 2018 (right). (Source IMR/PINRO 2019)

The survey also analysed the data with respect to species density, thus showing that greatest taxonomic diversity was observed around of the Spitsbergen archipelago (Figure 16). In general, a reduction of taxonomic diversity occurred in an easterly direction, whereby the lowest values on some stations (less 10 taxa/trawl) were recorded in the area of Kola Peninsula (IMR/PINRO 2019).

Figure 16 The number of megabenthic taxa per trawl-catch in the Barents Sea, August-October 2017- 2018. (Source: IMR/PINRO 2019)

The IMR/PINRO survey analysis showed that the northern central part of the Barents Sea is dominated by echinoderms (predominantly brittle stars) and the south western part by sponges. The maximum bycatch of megabenthos in the southwestern part of the Barents Sea occurred at a depth of 331 m and was dominated by two species of Geodia sponges (G. barretti and G. macandrewii) (IMR/PINRO 2019). Overall, detailed surveys by Jørgensen et al. 2019 on the distribution of large benthos groups show that Porifera (mainly the Geodia group) dominate biomass in the west, while Echinodermata (mainly brittle stars) dominate in the east. In the Northeast, Cnidaria (soft corals, such as the sea pen Umbellula encrinus, and sea anemones) dominates along with Echinodermata, while Crustacea dominates along with the Echinodermata in the Southeast (Figure 17).

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Figure 17 The main benthos group distribution (in biomass). The data are the integrated mean for the period 2009-2014 (Source: Jørgensen et al 2019)

Benthic communities that may be encountered by the vessels of the fishery under assessment, as derived primarily from Jakobsen and Ozhigen (2011), Denisenko and Zgurovsky (2013), Buhl- Mortensen et al. (2019), and various publications related to the joint PINRO/IMR ecosystem surveys (eg IMR/PINRO 2019), appear to be soft bottom species (Echinoid including crinoid communities, and sponges for example). It may well be that along the western edge of the Barents Sea, extrapolating from the detailed surveys (the MAREANO programme https://www.mareano.no/en) to the South along that edge, where the fishery also operates, hard bottom communities may be encountered, including gorgonids and scleractinids, basket star and soft coral communities.

The distribution of large benthos groups shows that Porifera (mainly the Geodia group) dominate biomass in the west, while Echinodermata (mainly brittle stars) dominate in the east. In the Northeast, Cnidaria (soft corals, such as the sea pen Umbellula encrinus, and sea anemones) dominates along with Echinodermata, while Crustacea dominates along with the Echinodermata in the Southeast (Figure 17Figure 17Figure 17) (IMR/PINRO 2019).

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Figure 18. Bottom-contacting otter-trawl tow tracks in the Barents Sea, overlain with the ICES VME index (based on all records for the area) and the likelihood of encountering a VME within each grid cell (ranging from low to high) [Source: ICES 202017]

Norwegian Sea - The MAREANO program is a comprehensive research program which aims to map the Norwegian EEZ seafloor. The program was first launched in 2005 and since then has increased the area covered year by year. Much information about vulnerable habitat types can be found on its website, however, so far, the program has focused on mapping the seabed along the coast of the Norwegian Mainland. The identification of certain vulnerable habitats such as coral reefs in the mainland coastline has led to the designation of new marine protected areas in the Norwegian coastal zone.

17 ICES, 2020e. New information regarding vulnerable habitats in the NEAFC Regulatory Area: http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2020/2020/vme.neafc.1.pdf

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Figure 19. Area covered by the MAREANO program. Red area shows MAREANO survey stations. Source: www.mareano.no

Figure 20 Vulnerable biotopes as identified by the MAREANO program. Source www.mareano.no Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Figure 21 Distribution of coral reefs, mostly but not only Lophelia pertusa, on the continental shelf of the Norwegian Sea. All fishing is prohibited within the protected areas (red rectangles) (MAREANO, 2020).

Protected coral reefs areas are within the red boxes, and detailed locations of identified coral areas can be found along the coast as indicated on the maps (MAREANO, 2020) (Figure 21Figure 21) are detailed location maps of corals found along the Norwegian North Sea. The red rectangles are protected coral areas. Coral reefs grow slowly and can survive for thousands of years. The oldest coral reefs in Norway are around 9,000 years old. A wide variety of species find food and shelter amongst the branches of the corals, although these species are generally also found on other types of hard bottom not made of coral skeletons (MAREANO, no date18).

Since 1997 IMR has been monitoring and mapping coral reef areas, the surveys of the reefs have been used to establish conservation areas for coral reefs, using both fisheries and conservation legislation. In the northeast Atlantic Lophelia reeds are most likely to be found on the upper slope of offshore banks and near the continental shelf break at depth depths 200–400 m, at temperatures of 4–8º C (Bruntse & Tendel, 2001). An individual reef (bioherm) studied during the Faroese BIOFAR project (a parallel project to MAREANO) was measured by sonar equipment to be c. 10m high and 110m wide (Bruntse & Tendel, 2001). Reef areas are also recognised as good long-line fishing areas (Husebø et al., 2002). Remotely operated vehicle (ROV) studies in Norwegian waters have shown a preponderance of saithe and redfish around such reefs (Mortensen et al., 1995).

Hardbottom coral garden. These aggregations (mainly sea fans) occur on hard substrates exposed to strong currents. Their distribution has been mapped in the Norwegian EEZ (excluding Svalbard) as part of Mareano. They occur at the upper edge of the continental slope to the West of Tromsø and the Lofotens.

Softbottom coral gardens. “Soft coral” species belonging to the Alcyonacea are relatively common on silty and mixed bottom substrates throughout the Barents Sea, including Gersemia fruticosa, G. rubiformis, Drifa glomerata and Duva florida. While most of these species need hard bottom or rock on which to attach, Gersemia is able to anchor itself in relatively soft sediments and establish significant colonies. These species are relatively common and widely dispersed, but dense aggregations appear to be unusual. However, an extensive area of softbottom coral garden has been mapped on the upper

18 https://mareano.no/en/topics/habitats/vulnerable-biotope-maps Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe part of the continental slope to the northwest of Finmark (roughly 70o00’ to 70o30’N; 14o45 to 16o17E). The Mareano project mapped areas in the SW Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea (Figure 20).

Seapen fields. Aggregations of Umbellula are relatively common throughout both Barents and Norwegian Seas, occurring in the central and lower parts of the continental slope. Umbellula incrinis is found in dense aggregations on soft, muddy substrates in the north-eastern part of the Barents Sea near the St. Anna Trough. The long stalks (up to 1m) mean that these organisms are vulnerable to trawling and are regularly found as bycatch in this area. The Mareano project mapped areas in the SW Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea (Figure 20).

Ostur sponge aggregations. Aggregations of sponges, mainly Geodia, Thenea, Tetilla, Phakellia, Rhadiella, and Polymastia are characteristic of substantial areas of the Barents Sea shelf as determined in surveys early in the 20th century. These sponges form mass settlements in areas with active sea bottom hydrodynamics, notably on deepwater banks and slopes. The richest communities of sponges are found along the edge of the Barents Sea shelf and at the upper parts of the continental slope. Larger settlements of Geodia sponges are found in the most south-western parts of the shelf and the Tromsø Bank (Tromsøflaket) where the Norwegian current encounters the Barents Sea shelf. A rich fauna of hydroids and bryozoans is usually found in association with these sponges (Figure 20).

Table 24 VMEs relevant to the assessment Risk of Legislation Habitat Present in area impact Barents and Norwegian Sea: These aggregations Very low OSPAR (mainly sea fans) occur on hard substrates risk across R2010/09, exposed to strong currents. Their distribution has Barents Norwegian been mapped in the Norwegian EEZ (excluding and Regulation J- Coral Svalbard) as part of MAREANO. They occur at the Norwegian 151-2014, gardens upper edge of the continental slope to the West of Sea NEAFC

Tromsø and the Loføten Islands. The fishery under recommendation assessment does not fish in the area mapped by 19/2014 MAREANO, but these species may well occur around Svalbard, where the fishery operates. OSPAR R2010/08, Cold water Barents and Norwegian Sea: occurs in the south- Very low Norwegian coral reef western part of the Barents Sea off the coast of risk across Regulation J- (Lophelia Norway. There are several marine protected areas Barents 187-2008 pertusa, to the SW of the Loføten Islands and along the and Solenosmilia Norwegian coast designated specifically to protect Norwegian variabilis); these features (Figure 19). Sea

Barents and Norwegian Sea: Aggregations of OSPAR Umbellula are relatively common throughout both There is R2010/11 Barents and Norwegian Seas, occurring in the potential central and lower parts of the continental slope. for Sea-pen and Umbellula incrinis is found in dense aggregations impacts to burrowing on soft muddy substrates in the north-eastern part occur in megafauna of the Barents Sea near the St. Anna Trough. The the communities long stalks (up to 1m) mean that these organisms Norwegian are vulnerable to trawling and are regularly found and as bycatch in this area. The MAREANO project Barents mapped areas in the SW Barents Sea and Sea. Norwegian Sea.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Figure 22 Distribution of coral reef and hard bottom coral garden in SW Barents and Norwegian Seas (Source: Mareano, http://www.mareano.no/kart/mareano.html#maps/3252)

The fishery under assessment fishes for cod, haddock and saithe using demersal trawl. These species are predominantly demersal, feed mainly on other benthic fish (cod, haddock, pogge, sand-eels, herring, capelin), but also take cephalopods, large crustaceans and other bottom-living animals. The ecology of the species informs where they live and where they are being fished. The feeding habits and preferences of cod offer a clue as to the type of habitat impacted by trawls targeting this species. They are found mostly on rocky, pebbly, sandy or gravelly bottoms, and are only seldom found on muddy bottoms. This explains the distribution of the fishing fleet – typically fairly dynamic areas along the upper parts of the continental slope, and around the edges of the major banks within the Barents Sea.

The client fleet normally fishes on silty slopes, marine valley and bank, sometimes on rocky slopes, although the latter are usually avoided as they can damage or even lose fishing gear. Fishing may take place at depths between 100m and 800m, though by far the majority of activity takes place at depths between 200m and 450m.

VMS data provided by the client shows that their fleet operates in several biotypes – along the edge of the plateau around Bear Island; on the slopes of the plateau to the East of Svalbaard, in the channel between Svalbaard and Bear Island, and along the continental slope to the SW of Svalbaard and northwest of the Norwegian Coast.

Russia has been party to the process of developing VME advice and the NEAFC recommendation, but application of the rules and protocols has not been formalized in Russian regulations.

In order to deal with VMEs and ETP species Norebo will:

Norebo is committed to develop a management system to be able to confirm its compliance with the Norebo’s Policy on Sustainable Fishery.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

In order to obtain reliable and independent information on activities of its suppliers it is necessary to collect the following information:

(a) types of used fishing gears, their parameters including ground line equipment, minimum mesh size and availability of any auxiliary equipment; b) catch composition by areas and fishing seasons; c) full utilization of catches; d) discards of marine living resources permitted to be fished; e) bycatches and utilization of species prohibited to fish, ETP species; f) bycatches of bottom (benthic) organisms including those belonging to VME indicators such as cold- water corals and sponges; g) compliance of information recorded in the fishing logbook to the actual fishing activities; h) compliance of information on bycatch of non-target and none-marketable species including VME indicators according to the implemented registration protocols; (i) fishing activity of the vessels and possible overlap with mapped VME areas; j) fishing activity of the vessels to identify If the fishery was performed within the existing bottom fishing areas

2. In cooperation with fishery scientists (VNIRO, other relevant scientific organizations and environmental NGOs) perform training of the crew members on the fishing vessels to collect data on megabenthos (VME indicators). The training programmes can be developed in cooperation with educational institutions, fishery research institutions and environmental NGOs.

3. Conduct cod, haddock and saithe fishery within the existing bottom fishing areas in the Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea defined on the basis of information concerning bottom fishing activities in the period 1995 to 2016 or a shorter period depending on the availability of the data. The expansion of the fishery into new fishing areas, defined as areas where no regular bottom fishing occurred in the above period, can be undertaken in case sufficient knowledge on existence of VME in such areas is available and there is no risk of significant adverse impacts on such VMEs. The existing bottom fishing areas can be annually updated subject to available scientific advice.

4. In cooperation with fishery scientists (VNIRO, IMR and other relevant scientific organizations) map VME areas using all available and reliable data sources including the ICES and MAREANO within the existing bottom fishing areas.

5. The cod, haddock and saithe fishery in the existing bottom fishing areas shall be undertaken outside the mapped VME areas in accordance with the scientific advice and internal rules for reporting encounters with VME indicators.

If an encounter is discovered in connection with the hauling of a trawl gear, the fishing vessel shall cease fishing and move out of an area defined as a two (2) nautical mile wide band (polygon) on both sides of the track of the trawl haul during which an encounter occurred. If an encounter is discovered in connection with other bottom fishing gears the fishing vessel shall cease fishing and move away at least two (2) nautical miles from the position that the evidence suggests is closest to the exact encounter location. The skipper shall use his or her best judgment based on all available sources of information. The skipper shall report the incident, including the track or position, without delay to the corresponding national or international authorities and the shipowner according to the reporting protocols.19

From January 2019, images of species and pop-out name selections were incorporated into the e- logbook. Position information can also be recorded which will be used for mapping non-target catch. The Joint Russian-Norwegian Scientific Research Program on Living Marine Resources for 2019 includes continued investigations of vulnerable benthic habitats and species in the Barents Sea.

19 Norebo Policy on Sustainable Fishery Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Fishing areas specified in daily reports were verified using VMS. The trawl footprint in 2018 was largely similar to 2017, but with more activity plotted close to the protected coastal zone off Russia (off the coast broadly north of Murmansk) in 2018. There were no violations of closed areas.

The audit team received a map identifying six discrete areas under consideration for closure to bottom trawl fishing to protect vulnerable habitats (Figure 23). These areas were identified following a mapping process conducted by members of the Coordination Council for Development of Sustainable Fishery in the North Atlantic (an association of Russian MSC clients in the Barents Sea), in cooperation with WWF- Russia and Russian scientists. Bottom trawling is already excluded from one of these areas (which is inside territorial waters). The Council plans to progress an agreement with fishing companies to avoid these areas.20

Figure 23 Areas under consideration for voluntary closure to bottom trawl fishing.

20 Year 3 surveillance audit Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Legend Porifera Hydrozoa Anthozoa Arthropoda Mollusca Cephalopoda Echinodermata Annelida Sipuncula Brachiopoda Bryozoa Ascidiacea Marine mammals Pinnipeds Sea birds Sea fish

Figure 24 . Bycatch of non-target species (all species) 2019

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Legend Porifera Hydrozoa Anthozoa Arthropoda Mollusca Cephalopoda Echinodermata Annelida Sipuncula Brachiopoda Bryozoa Ascidiacea Marine mammals Pinnipeds Sea birds Sea fish

Figure 25. Bycatch of non-target species (benthic invertebrates)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Legend Porifera Hydrozoa Anthozoa Arthropoda Mollusca Cephalopoda Echinodermata Annelida Sipuncula Brachiopoda Bryozoa Ascidiacea Marine mammals Pinnipeds Sea birds Sea fish

Figure 26 Bycatch of non-target species (echinoderms)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Legend Porifera Hydrozoa Anthozoa Arthropoda Mollusca Cephalopoda Echinodermata Annelida Sipuncula Brachiopoda Bryozoa Ascidiacea Marine mammals Pinnipeds Sea birds Sea fish

Figure 27. Bycatch of non-target species (Arthropods)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Legend Porifera Hydrozoa Anthozoa Arthropoda Mollusca Cephalopoda Echinodermata Annelida Sipuncula Brachiopoda Bryozoa Ascidiacea Marine mammals Pinnipeds Sea birds Sea fish

Figure 28. Bycatch of non-target species (fish)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Legend Porifera Hydrozoa Anthozoa Arthropoda Mollusca Cephalopoda Echinodermata Annelida Sipuncula Brachiopoda Bryozoa Ascidiacea Marine mammals Pinnipeds Sea birds Sea fish

Figure 29. Bycatch of non-target species (Sea birds)

ii. Protected Areas

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Barents and Norwegian Seas: A recently implemented Regulation introduced by the Norway Department of Fisheries has introduced a number of closed areas around Svalbard (Regulation J-61-201921 para.5, and press release22), including areas with identified soft corals, sea lilies and sponge and sea pen aggregations (Figure 30). Two of these areas, nos. 9 and 10, are closed for scientific purposes. In addition, the new regulation defines areas where there is currently no fishing (green shaded areas 1-4) for which any proposed new fishery (including the use of gears that have not been used for many years) must first submit an application and then gain approval to obtain a fishing permit. This regulation applies to all Norwegian waters including the Svalbard Fisheries Protection Zone (FPZ), and any such proposed new fishery will not be permitted if there are known areas of VME species.

Figure 30 Newly closed areas (red) under regulation J-61-2019 (Source: https://kart.fiskeridir.no/fiskeinord)

Under the ‘Biodiversity Assessment of the Barents Sea’ (Larson et al., 2003), experts nominated areas of high conservation value for plankton, benthos, fish, seabirds and marine mammals, and provided maps of priority areas for biodiversity conservation. In the Norwegian sector, this work was taken forward under the Barents Sea Integrated Management Plan23, using criteria including productivity, number of species, endangered or vulnerable habitats, ETP species. Consequently, several areas were selected as closed areas designed mainly to protect cold-water corals and fish nursery areas.

The NEAFC recommendation on the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems in the NEAFC Regulatory Area (which encompasses most of the Barents and all the Norwegian Sea (NEAFC 2014)) is specifically designed to “prevent significant adverse impacts on VMEs”. Article 4 of the recommendation identifies “existing bottom fishing areas” in NEAFC regulated international waters. Article 5 defines a series of area closures for the protection of deep sea VMEs. These are mainly seamounts and banks in international waters of the NE Atlantic. Articles 6 and 7 require that any

21 https://www.fiskeridir.no/Yrkesfiske/Regelverk-og-reguleringer/J-meldinger/Gjeldende-J-meldinger/J-61-2019 22 https://www.fiskeridir.no/Yrkesfiske/Nyheter/2019/0319/Betre-vern-for-saarbare-artar-i-Barentshavet 23http://www.imr.no/nyhetsarkiv/2010/april/det_faglige_grunnlaget_for_oppdateringen_av_forvaltningsplanen_for_barentshavet_lofoten/e n Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

“exploratory fishing” outside these areas will require thorough assessment and rigorous protocols to ensure that appropriate information is collected and VMEs are not damaged. Article 8 sets down protocols for responding to any encounter with VMEs (defined as >30kg of live coral and/or >400kg of live sponge) – specifically to report the encounter and move at least 2nm from the relevant trawl track. Information should be collated and preferably mapped. Although this recommendation is not obligatory within national jurisdictions, Norway has largely implemented it within its own regulations. 41 sponge species and 9 species of colonial Anthozoan polyps, which are classified as VME indicator species according to NAFO and NEAFC, occur in the Barents Sea (Jørgensen et al., 2015). The majority of Anthozoan polyp species from the NAFO and NEAFC lists of VME indicator species were sporadically found within the Barents Sea shelf in small quantities. The exception is seapens (Umbellula incrinus) that develop dense settlements in the north-eastern Barents Sea on the western slope of the St. Anna Trough. The fishery under assessment does not fish in that area. As yet, there are no protected areas set aside based on an aggregation of VME indicator species of sponges or anthozoans, for example, although in recent years an increasing amount of information is becoming available on the distribution and density of Porifera and anthozoa aggregations (Jørgensen et al., 2015, 2019), and in particular in relation to the distribution of fishing intensity (Buhl-Mortensen et al., 2019).

Effects of bottom trawling on benthos

Barents and Norwegian seas: There is good understanding of the potential impacts of bottom trawling on the benthos and habitats. Figure 31 shows the intensity of fishing in the Barents Sea in 2017, based on Russian and Norwegian VMS data, which helps visualise the distribution of the different types of fisheries/ gears.

Figure 31 Location of Russian and foreign fishing activity from commercial fleets and fishing vessels used for research purposes in 2017 as reported (VMS) to Russian authorities. These are VMS data linked with logbook data (source: PINRO Fishery statistics database): http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/index.php/en/status-2019/272-human-activity-data-from- 2018/fisheries-and-other-harvesting-2018/957-anthropogenic-impact-fishing-activity).

Following on from the bottom trawl distribution data in Figure 31, it was recently demonstrated that there has been considerable fishing effort reduction in the Barents Sea (Figure 32, Figure 33). The data presented combine official Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe reported data (as extracted from the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) FishStat database) and reconstructed estimates of unreported data (including major discards). The "Reported catch" line overlaid on the catch graph represent all catches deemed reported (including foreign) and allocated to this spatial entity. The overall trend shows a decline in bottom trawl fishing, compared to the higher fishing intensity of the 1970s.

Figure 32. Catches by gear over time in the Barents Sea (Source: ‘Sea around us’ (http://www.seaaroundus.org/data/#/lme/20?chart=catch-chart&dimension=gear&measure=tonnage&limit=10 site accessed 9 February 2021)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Figure 33 ICES subareas 1 and 2. Fishing effort (1000 kW hours-at-sea) in 2014–2018 by gear type. For vessels over 15 m in length only. Data are missing for the Russian fleet, and for the Norwegian fleet in 2018 (Source: ICES BS Fisheries overview Nov 2020)

ICES (Ecosystem overview Dec 2019) presented a visual summary of abrasion of the seabed by mobile bottom- contacting fishing gears, in order to describe the extent, magnitude, and effects of fishing on benthic habitats in the western-central Barents Sea (data are lacking from the eastern Barents Sea). The demersal gears include bottom otter trawls, bottom seines, dredges and beam trawls. Gear-use is concentrated along the coast of the Norwegian mainland and on the banks in the central and western Barents Sea, with lower activity in deeper areas (Figure 34). The fishing intensity west of Svalbard has increased in the period from 2011 to 2017.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Figure 34 Surface and subsurface abrasion pressure expressed as the swept-area ratio from VMS data from 2014-2017 in the Barents Sea ICES ecoregion. Russian fishing effort is not included (ICES, 2019).

An overview of a range of trawl benthic impact studies is presented in the FAO fisheries technical paper 472 (Løkkeborg 2005). A quantitative estimation (Denisenko et al 1991) of the intensity and impact of bottom trawl operations on benthos in different parts of the Barents Sea showed that the degree of impact depended on two main factors: the predominance of organisms with a specific life strategy (defined by sizes and life-span) and the degree of overlapping of trawling tracks during the fishing season. According to Denisenko (2007), 75-80% of total biomass of benthic communities in the Barents Sea is formed by 15-20 species. Indications of degradation (decrease of biomass and reduction of area) were observed in areas of intensive bottom fisheries, including for many habitat-forming taxa, such as (but not limited to): large sponges (mostly of Geodia and Thenea muricata genus), mussel (Astarte crenata and Tridonta borealis), sea urchins of Strongylocentrotus genus. A general pattern is observed with a shift toward more opportunistic, short-lived detritus eating organisms. In particular, settlements of bottom filter-feeding organism in the western part of the Barents Sea were worst damaged.

When considering managing the impact of fisheries on habitats, it is important to have an understanding of the rate of recovery of habitat species if left in an undisturbed state. Denisenkov’s (2007, 1991) detailed analysis of long-term dynamics of bottom communities in the Barents Sea (referred to above) showed that significant increases in benthic biomass were observed during periods of reduced fishing intensity during the Second World War. Subsequently, following the peak in fishing intensity in the post war years and the 1960s and 70s, recovery of areas and bio-resources of the most common species, large taxa and trophic groups of zoobenthos was again observed.

A study by PINRO (2012) showed that on sedimentary bottoms, impacts are likely to be more limited and recovery more rapid. Intensive trawling (10 repetitive passages) can cause significant changes to sediment density and other properties. Main impacted species were echinoderms – shellfish appeared to recover rapidly, and general recovery was seen after 1 year (PINRO 2012). A more recent study (Buhl-Mortensen et al 2015) has been conducted as part of the “MAREANO” mapping programme, which showed that density and diversity of megafauna was significantly lower in areas with high fishing intensity; and even low trawling frequency appeared to have a negative effect. Of 134 taxa, 100 showed a negative trend with increased fishing intensity. Nine of these revealed a significant (p < 0.05) response including five sponge species. A few taxa such as large scavenging gastropods responded positively to increase fishing intensity. The wider effects of these changes on other species is hard to gauge, but it is notable that redfish (Sebastes spp) which are often found amongst boulders and sponges showed a strong negative relation to fishing intensity, while the opposite was observed for cod.

Rate of recovery is dependent on several issues, including frequency of disturbance (natural and anthropogenic), productivity, substrate type and species. Hiddink et al (2006) modelled benthic recovery rates following trawling events, and showed recovery rates typically in the range of 2.5 to 6 years with the fastest recovery being observed in mud habitats (Figure 35). In the Barents Sea, most of the habitats may fall within the more dynamic and sedimentary range (hence quicker recovery), however some of the species composition and the substrate types on the shelf edge may show far slower recovery characteristics. Reef forming, cold water coral species on hard substrates have the slowest recovery rate.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Figure 35 Modelled benthic community recovery rates following single trawling event (research undertaken in the North Sea). (Source: Hiddink et al 2006)

Many of the benthos species of the Barents Sea have a relatively short life cycle (average around 4 years – Denisenko and Zgurovsky 2013) and therefore reproduce themselves rapidly. There is also a substantial area of habitat mosaic whose components may serve as a ‘seed’ source for impacted areas. It may therefore be assumed that many of the benthic communities, and especially those on relatively dynamic sediment bottoms, will recover most of their characteristics relatively quickly. VME and other habitats associated with hard bottoms will take much longer. Denisenko and Zgurovsky (2013) consider recovery in some detail. They point out that benthic communities in the Barents Sea are rich (>2,800 species; average 60 species/0.1m2), that some of the coral structures are thousands of years old, and some sponges live for hundreds of years. Full recovery (in terms of complete restoration of age structures and species composition) is likely to take decades. Nonetheless, there are examples of rapid recovery of sponge communities. While these may not be the same as the original habitat in terms of age, size structure and species composition, it is arguable that they are nonetheless functioning, diverse and healthy habitats delivering a wide range of ecosystem services.

During the round table discussions on “Sustainable use of biological resources of the seas of Russia: Problems and Prospects” organized by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) of Russia with support of the Karat Association (27-28 May 2013 in Murmansk), it was suggested that the duration of community recovery is determined by the average life expectancy of the most long-lived species in the community. On this basis, a community cannot be considered fully recovered prior to the time that the longest-living member completes its entire life cycle. A map (Figure 36) was developed (Lubin 2013) based on this assumption which suggests that recovery in most parts of the Barents Sea would take place within 5 years, but recovery would be up to 10 years or more in the areas where VMEs tend to occur (such as sponge aggregations on the edge of the continental slope).

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Figure 36 Map of the minimum recovery time (years) in the Barents Sea. (Source: Lubin 2013)

For the purposes of MSC certification, the key question relates to the meaning of “serious or irreversible harm”. MSC guidance suggests that serious (or irreversible) harm refers to change that fundamentally alters the capacity of the component to maintain its function (e.g. reducing ecosystem services; loss of resilience; regime shift; gross changes in composition of dependent species) or to recover from the impact (within timescales of natural ecological processes - normally one or two decades).

It can be concluded that trawling has had significant impacts on benthic fauna in the Barents and Norwegian Seas, including impacts on total biomass, communities and species – though some of these impacts are difficult to separate from natural spatial and temporal variations. Trawling activity for more than a century in some areas, has led to modified benthic habitats in areas of the Barents Sea, comprised mainly of species that are less sensitive to trawling (because of size, shape or habit), there is as yet no clear evidence of the wider repercussions on the structure and functioning of benthic habitats or on the provision of ecosystem services, (Denisenko and Zgurovsky, 2013).

A recent study by Buhl-Mortensen et al (2019) evaluated the risk of vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) in Arctic and sub-Arctic waters to bottom trawling. The study was based on an exhaustive compilation of data on the distribution of VME indicator species, including published and unpublished data, and new data gathered during the project from areas where information is sparse. A technique of predictive modelling of suitable habitats for VMEs was employed, Environmental Niche Models (ENMs) are increasingly recognised as an effective way to obtain knowledge on the likely distribution of VMEs and other deep-sea ecosystems (Buhl-Mortensen et al 2019). Eleven VMEs were identified, based on management goals for coral and sponge communities, of these soft and hard bottom sponge aggregations, hard bottom gorgonians, sublittoral sea pen communities, and acyonarian corals (i.e. soft corals) are predicted to cover > 20% of the study area shallower than 1000 meters. The compilation of trawling activity in the study area showed that fisheries mainly occur in shallower than 1000m and that 50 - 60% of the seafloor is not targeted. However, 30% of the seafloor has experienced intermediate to very high fishing effort. In general, it was shown that VMEs show a larger overlap with fishing when the risk analysis was based on areas with an optimal habitat suitability. Using this conservative threshold to model the distribution of VMEs the results indicated that most VMEs have experienced an intermediate to high level of fishing in less than 40% of their predicted distribution area in the whole study area (Buhl-Mortensen et al 2019). However, it was also stated, that in parts of the study area the information on the seafloor environment is very poor and the prediction of the occurrence of VMEs is not possible with any certainty.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

c. Habitat impact management i. Gear design Standard demersal otter trawl is used. All specifications of the fishing gear are agreed between Russia and Norway in the JRNFC. The trawl gear has a sorting system (including a sorting grid) that allow small and undersized fish escape from the gear. The minimal mesh size in the trawl cod end (bag) is 130 mm. The minimal space between bars in the sorting grid is 55 mm as a general rule and 50 mm when operating in some special areas in Norwegian EEZ. The fishery with bottom trawl gear potentially can interact with seabed and benthic communities. However, the fishery is usually performed in the same fishing grounds every year, which limits the impact to some limited in space areas. In cooperation with WWF Russia and Greenpeace Norebo has implemented several measures to limit operation of the vessels in the areas potentially inhabited by vulnerable benthic organisms that may be part of vulnerable habitats. New Agreement on the Measures for Protection of Vulnerable Habitats in the Barents Sea is an additional initiative to protect vulnerable habitats in the Barents Sea in cooperation with scientific organizations and environmental NGOs. Another project aimed at minimizing the impact of the bottom trawl gear provided for modernization of the trawl gear by using pelagic trawl doors and modified ground line. The calculations advised that overall impact can be reduced by 80% as the contact area of the trawl gear and the seabed can be reduced by 80%. This project is still under realization as the trials of a full-size model are needed to prove the efficiency of the modified gear. (Client info January 2021)

ii. Specialized software Each vessel of the Client group has special computer software (Bort 2.0) to register bycatch of all non-target species (the software is developed by a third-party and regularly updated). Data is regularly sent to the Chief Sustainability Officer and annually analyzed by an independent third-party.

According to the client (check at site visit), the programme is designed to both address habitat impact and help with habitat mapping, as well as detailed non-target species bycatch recording. When the catch is hauled on board, it is sorted and graded, as well as sorted by non-target species and benthic organisms. Skates are identified and discarded immediately. Commercial species, including non-target, are weighed and recorded. The unwanted species are recorded in terms of species and numbers, and then discarded. Benthos is weighed where appropriate, and recorded to species level, ID manuals for birds, mammals and benthos, designed by PINRO and WWF Murmansk, are available on board to help with identification. Any birds caught are also recorded in numbers of individuals. ETP species are marked as such in the guides and the software. The recording is done using the software, whereby each record is also linked to the vessel and location. The non-target catch is divided into categories, each given a certain number of points as part of scoring:

With regards to habitat, this software helps in the development and detail of the distribution of benthic organisms, thus aiding the mapping of habitat/ distribution maps. The data is checked and verified and collated monthly to map out. This information in fishery-internal, to assist with the management of the fishery regarding vessel locations. The data can be shared with PINRO on request, but PINRO does not work specifically with the data. The data is not official, nor officially accessible to all, at this stage it is client-fishery specific. The data and resulting maps are discussed at the fishery coordination council, and the decision not to fish in certain areas where registered ‘objects’ are concentrated based on the evaluation of the data, is voluntary. The development and implementation of PK Bort 2.0 software has made it

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe possible to do away with paper records of ‘MSC-log’. The software is more accurate and ongoing, and the data is stored by LLC Scientific and Production Company (an independent body), and thus data falsification is not possible.

There are no designated observers on the vessels yet, but this issue is being worked out with PINRO.

In case of accidental catch of large amounts of benthic organisms (e.g. sponges) the masters of the vessels make the decision to change the position of fishing. Such a move is also activated / considered when such information is brought to the attention of the master by other fishing vessels in the group. In addition, by-catch of non-target objects, especially in large quantities, is undesirable for fishermen themselves, as this creates problems with sorting of the catch. Therefore, the masters of trawl vessels are interested in “clean” fishing and try to avoid areas where concentration of these benthic organisms is detected. The system currently being implemented and refined and is calibrated for all the relevant species involved. Until then the weight thresholds of 60kg for corals and 800kg for sponges applies. All Russian MSC certified fisheries have committed to move on by 2nm if and when reaching such thresholds. Such action is not routinely recorded as part of the day-to-day fishing activity

iii. Gear loss management The vessel owners shall have procedures in place for the management and recording of lost or “end of life” or recovered (third party) fishing gears to be in compliance with internationally recognised protocols and national laws. (Norebo Policy on Sustainable Fishery).

7.3.7 Ecosystem The ecosystems assessed in this audit are the Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea ecoregions.

Barents -There is ongoing detailed research into the Barents Sea ecosystem conducted by Russian and Norwegian scientists, as part of the joint research and marine surveys conducted by these countries24, and the latest report, 2020, can be found on-line (IMR-PINRO, 2020), as well as regular on-line updates. ICES Ecosystem overviews produce regular updates of the Barents Sea as well as the ICES WG on integrated assessment of the Barents Sea (WGIBAR, 2020c), and the Working Group on Arctic Fisheries regularly updates fisheries species related information on the Barents Sea with reference to the ecosystem25.

The Barents Sea ecoregion is shown in Figure 33 (in yellow).

24 http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/index.php/en/; Joint Russian–Norwegian Ecosystem Assessment, www.barentsportal.com. ; Joint Norwegian–Russian environmental status reports for the Barents Sea, www.barentsportal.com 25 http://ices.dk/community/groups/Pages/AFWG.aspx Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Figure 37 Barents Sea ecoregion (in yellow) Source: ICES 2019 Barents Sea Ecosystem fisheries overviews.

Since the 1980s, the Barents Sea has gone from a situation with high fishing pressure, cold conditions and low demersal fish stock levels, to the current situation with high levels of demersal fish stocks, and warm conditions.

Key conclusions reached by the WORKING GROUP ON THE INTEGRATED ASSESSMENTS OF THE BARENTS SEA (WGIBAR)26: The Barents Sea has become colder since 2015–2016, and the cooling continued from 2018 to 2019. However, the air and water temperatures are still typical of warm years. Mesozooplankton biomass in the Barents Sea in autumn 2019 was approximately the same as in recent years, and krill biomass has shown an in-creasing trend in recent decades. Temperatures in 2020-21 are expected to de-cline slightly but will remain relatively high; the plankton are anticipated to therefore provide good feeding conditions for planktivorous consumers.

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

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

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

26 http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/IEASG/2020/WGIBAR%20report%202020.pdf Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe of plastic and other litter in the sea is also relatively low. Levels of the anthropogenic radionuclides Cs-137, Sr-90 and Pu-239,240 in seawater, sediments, fish and seaweed are currently low.

Commercially exploited species (fish, invertebrates, mammals) are part of the marine foodweb and interact in various ways, including through predation and competition. The main top predators in the ecosystem are cod, harp seal, and minke whale. They all feed on young cod as well as on capelin, herring, and the krill and amphipod prey of these species (Figure 38). Since fishing and hunting mortality rates have been reduced on most species over the last two decades, natural mortality, including cannibalism, has the potential to change; this influences the abundance and yield of other stocks. The abundance of some mammal species has increased in parts of the ecoregion, although more slowly than in fish stocks (ICES Nov 2019 – Barents Sea ecosystem fisheries overview27).

Commercial fisheries have the largest human impact on the fish stocks in the Barents Sea, and thereby on the functioning of the whole ecosystem. It is the human activity with the largest spatial extent, as fishing takes place in most of the Barents Sea except farthest north. There is a multinational fishery operating in the Barents Sea using different fishing gears and targeting several species (Figure 32). The largest commercially exploited fish stocks (capelin, cod, and haddock) are now harvested at fishing mortalities close to those in the management plan and have full reproductive capacity. Some of the smaller stocks (golden redfish Sebastes marinus and coastal cod in Norway) are overfished. Other species subject to targeted fisheries include Greenland halibut, halibut Hippoglossus hippoglossus, beaked redfish Sebastes mentella, deep-water shrimps, red king crabs, and snow crabs.

27 http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2019/2019/FisheriesOverview_BarentsSea_2019.pdf Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Figure 38 Interactions between commercial species and their prey in the Barents Sea foodweb. The arrows indicate central predator prey relationships, with the arrows pointing from predator to prey (Source: ICES Nov 2019, Barents Sea fisheries overview).

Norwegian Sea - The Norwegian Sea, the Greenland Sea, and the Iceland Sea comprise the Nordic seas, which are separated from the rest of the North Atlantic by the Greenland–Scotland Ridge. The Norwegian Sea (NwS) connects with the Northeast Atlantic Ocean to the southwest, the Icelandic Waters ecoregion and Greenland Sea to the west along the edge to the shallower Iceland Sea between the Faroe Islands, and northwards to Jan Mayen. To the south it borders to the shallower North Sea along the 62˚N parallel between Norway and the Faroe Islands, and to the northeast with the shallower Barents Sea (Figure 39).

Figure 39 The Norwegian Sea ecoregion, showing EEZs and depth contours.

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

The decrease in the zooplankton biomass index observed during the last decade for the whole Norwegian Sea has stopped. The index increased again from 2010 to 2014 but had a drop in 2015. Since the mid-2000s, the mackerel Scomber scombrus stock has increased both its geographic distribution during summer feeding and its stock size.

The Norwegian spring-spawning (NSS) herring Clupea harengus stock has not produced large year classes after the relatively productive period of 1998–2004, causing decreasing SSB since 2009 to around Bpa in 2016 (5 million tonnes).

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

The blue whiting Micromesistius poutassou biomass reached a maximum level in the mid-2000s, declining thereafter until around 2010. Since then, blue whiting has shown an upward trend with production of strong year classes. Populations of seabirds breeding (and therefore feeding) in the ecoregion have declined greatly since 1980.

Figure 40 Representation of fishing activity in the Norwegian Sea by (a) the Norwegian fleets (larger than 15 m) in 2014 with pelagic trawls (red dots), bottom trawls (blue dots), gillnets (light green), longlines (green), and seines (orange) (Source Directorate of Fisheries https://www.fiskeridir.no/)

A multinational fishery currently operates in the NwS using different fishing gears and targeting several species. The annual catch in the ecoregion varies between 700 000 tonnes to almost 1 million tonnes (2012) from the stocks of NSS herring, mackerel, blue whiting, NEA saithe Pollachius virens, redfish Sebastes sp., and silver smelt Argentina silus. Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

The fishing pressure on the largest commercially exploited fish stocks (NSS herring, blue whiting, and mackerel) have varied since the 1980s, for a number of reasons (Figure 41). They are now harvested at fishing mortalities close to those in the management plans and have full reproductive capacity. While the golden redfish S. norvegicus stock is at a historical low point, the beaked redfish S. mentella stock has recovered from a low SSB and fishing quotas (until 2017) are set at 30 000 tonnes annually. The small coastal cod Gadus morhua stock is overfished. The fisheries management plan sets the upper limits for landings in the region. Other stocks are commercially harvested (Greenland halibut Reinhardtius hippoglossoides, halibut Hippoglossus hippoglossus, deep-water shrimps Pandalus borealis, the copepod Calanus finmarchicus, and minke whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata).

Figure 41. Time-series of average of relative fishing mortality (F to FMSY ratio) for Northeast Atlantic mackerel (Mac-nea), Norwegian spring-spawning herring (her.27.1-24a514a), and blue whiting (whb.27.1), based on ICES 2018 assessments. (ICES, 219d)

Regulations established in 2011 have restricted the use of bottom trawls in areas with coral reefs and at depths exceeding 1 000 m. Some bycatch of seabirds and marine mammals is known to occur, but numbers have not been quantified. Only minke whales are exploited in the NwS.

A Norwegian hunt for minke whales is conducted in the Norwegian Sea, Barents Sea, North Sea, and the Jan Mayen area. Quotas are set in accordance with IWC’s Revised management procedure, and the total annual catch has ranged between 450 and 750 animals in all waters. Survey population estimates are provided every six years and have shown the population to be stable over the past five survey cycles.

A small trial commercial fishery (< 1000 tonnes annually) for Calanus finmarchicus has been developed along the Norwegian coast for more than a decade. Norway is currently considering to upscale this fishery for offshore parts of the NwS.

7.3.8 Scoring elements

Component Scoring elements Designation Data-deficient

e.g. P1, Primary, e.g. species or stock (SA Secondary, ETP, Habitats, Main or Minor Yes / No 3.1.1.1) Ecosystems Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Primary Greenland Halibut Minor No

Primary Deepwater Redfish Minor No

Primary Golden Redfish Minor No

Spotted Wolfish Minor No Secondary

Northern Wolfish Minor No Secondary

Atlantic Wolfish Minor No Secondary

Long Rough Dab Minor No Secondary

Plaice Minor No Secondary

Secondary Greenland shark Minor No

Secondary Spiny-tail skate Minor No

Secondary Rabbitfish Minor No

Secondary Atlantic halibut Minor No

Secondary Anglerfish Minor No

Secondary Lumpfish Minor No

Northern Fulmar ETP NA No

Common or blue skate NA No ETP (Dipturus batis) Spurdog (Squalus NA No ETP acanthias) Blue Ling (Molva dypterygia) NA No ETP

Sedimentary substrate of Commonly encountered No gravelly sand, coarser Habitats sediments and gravelly pebbles of flat to low relief hard bottom and soft bottom VME No coral gardens, cold Lophelia Habitats - water coral reefs, seapen fields, Ostur sponge aggregations

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

7.3.9 Principle 2 Performance Indicator scores and rationales

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Main primary species stock status Main primary species are Main primary species are There is a high degree of likely to be above the PRI. highly likely to be above the certainty that main primary PRI. species are above the PRI OR and are fluctuating around a OR level consistent with MSY. If the species is below the PRI, the UoA has measures in If the species is below the PRI, a Guide place that are expected to there is either evidence of post ensure that the UoA does not recovery or a demonstrably hinder recovery and effective strategy in place rebuilding. between all MSC UoAs which categorise this species as main, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

Main primary species are normally those comprising over 5% of the catch unless they are of particular vulnerability or high value.

All Primary species are caught at less than 2% of the overall catch in the fishery under assessment, based on records of the on-board log (see Section 7.3.2). As there are no ‘main’ Primary species, SIa is not scored.

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

Guide OR

b post If below the PRI, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of minor primary species. Yes – Greenland halibut Met? Yes – Beaked Redfish No – Golden Redfish Rationale

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

The Primary minor species identified are: Beaked redfish (Sebastes mentella), Golden redfish (Sebastes norvegicus) and Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides).

The following evidence indicates SG 100 is met:

Species Assessment Blim MSY Advisory Stock status ICES Advice Unit Category Year/ Section ICES Area I & II Analytical Full June 2020/ Greenland halibut assessment reproductive ghl.27.1-2 Reinhardtius (Gadget capacity hippoglossoides model)

I&II Y Y Analytical Full June 2020/ Beaked redfish assessment reproductive reb.27.1-2 Sebastes mentella capacity I&II Y Y Analytical Reduced June 2020/ Golden redfish assessment reproductive reg.27.1-2 Sebastes (Gadget capacity norvegicus model)

SG100 is met for Beaked Redfish and Greenland halibut

SG 100 is not met for Golden Redfish because there is little evidence from the ICES assessments published that the species is likely to be above PRI, nor is it clear from the catch information available to date whether the UoA is hindering recovery.

References

ICES 2020d. http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2020/2020/ghl.27.1-2.pdf

ICES. 2020. Beaked redfish (Sebastes mentella) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2020. ICES Advice 2020, reb.27.1-2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5826

ICES. 2020b. Golden redfish (Sebastes norvegicus) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2020. ICES Advice 2020, reg.27.1-2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5827. Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage

Draft scoring range ≥80 Information sufficient to score PI Information gap indicator

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

Condition number (if relevant)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

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

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

Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

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

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

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

There are no ‘main’ Primary species, SG80 is met automatically.

The following evidence indicates SG 100 is met: SG100 requires that there is a strategy in place to manage main and minor Primary species. ‘Primary species’ are species of commercial value with management tools controlling exploitation. The harvesting of these species is regulated by the Fisheries Regulations for the Northern Fisheries Basin, as well as by the JNRFC rules for fishery, and also reviewed by ICES.

The strategy is comprised of a number of tools and measures, regularly reviewed, including: a requirement for accurate information on landings of bycaught species (via logbook, landings notes and on-board checks by inspectors and scientists), fishing season, technical measures for gear (mesh size of cod end, 130mm; position cameras to evaluate net fill and position), bycatch reduction measures such as sorting grid in net. Detailed bycatch data was provided (2015- 2019). Discarding is not permitted, so all species caught are included in that catch composition data.

Greenland halibut: There is no management plan, but a precautionary TAC is set by the Joint Norwegian–Russian Fisheries Commission (JNRFC). Stock size is above Bpa.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Beaked Redfish, Golden Redfish: For beaked redfish long-term management plan options have been proposed by Norway and Russia and evaluated by ICES (ICES, 2018c). In the absence of an agreed management plan, ICES advice is based on the MSY approach. In the absence of a defined FMSY the advice is based on F = 0.06. This is the highest fishing mortality of those tested during the MSE evaluations (ICES, 2018c) that was found to be precautionary. A value of F=0.08 was also tested and found not to be precautionary. There is no international agreement on the sharing of TAC among countries and between national and international waters. However, there are several measures in place which contribute to maintain the stock at its current healthy levels. These include quota restrictions. Discards are prohibited. The redfish stock status and landings are closely monitored, and these measures are expected to be amended if they cease to be effective

Management strategy evaluation The measures are considered There is some objective Testing supports high likely to work, based on basis for confidence that the confidence that the partial Guide plausible argument (e.g., measures/partial strategy will strategy/strategy will work, b general experience, theory or work, based on some based on information directly post comparison with similar information directly about the about the fishery and/or fisheries/species). fishery and/or species species involved. involved. Yes - Beaked Redfish Met? Yes Yes No - Golden Redfish No - Greenland halibut Rationale

According to the catch profile provided by the client (Section 407.2.2), the level of bycatch of each primary species as a proportion of the overall catch is less than 2% (per species concerned).

Information on bycatch routinely collected by the fleet, including that collected by scientific officers and inspectors on board, coupled with analysis by PINRO, and ongoing surveys of the stock status of the species involved (through the ICES advice process for example) provide an objective basis for confidence that the strategy is working. Furthermore, the discard ban and degree of its enforcement, adds to confidence about the nature of the bycatch. SG60 and SG80 is met.

Beaked redfish: The NEA stock has been at a high level for more than a decade. The current status of the stock is that SSB is well above BMSY (or surrogates) and fishing mortality is below the precautionary level. SG 60 is met.

The strategy has been in place for about two decades and the outcome, in term of status of the stock, suggests that the strategy is working. Furthermore, the strategy has been subject to numerous analyses, particularly focusing on the HCR while also other elements has been considered. SG 80 is met.

There is an established HCR which is based on an annual stock assessment and independent scientific advice (ICES) based on existing reference points. The management decision making is well informed and consideration is given to a range of issues including stock dynamics, assessment process including uncertainties, and implementation error. The performance of the harvest strategy is evaluated as required (e.g. when changes are made to the HCR) to confirm that it remains precautionary and is achieving management objectives. The stock was benchmarked in 2018. The choice of a scaling coefficient for the Norwegian–Russian ecosystem survey is a source of potential bias of up to 50%, but the advice is robust to this uncertainty. Long-term management plan options have been proposed by Norway and Russia and evaluated by ICES (ICES, 2018b). In the absence of an agreed management plan, ICES advice is based on the MSY approach. In the absence of a defined FMSY, the advice is based on F = 0.06. This is the highest fishing mortality of those tested during the MSE evaluations (ICES, 2018b) that was found to be precautionary. SG 100 is met.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Golden redfish: Testing implies some form of theoretical modelling or simulation of the data on the stock. The information available on Sebastes norvegicus stock in the Barents Sea is limited. SG 100 is not met.

Greenland halibut: Information is limited in the Barents Sea. In the absence of a harvest control rule, maximum sustainable yield (MSY) reference points, and precautionary fishing mortality reference points, the advice is based on precautionary considerations. With no fishery the stock biomass (B45+) is forecast to decline by 6% over five years due to the absence of strong year classes recruiting to the fishery. The same advice given for 2018 and 2019 is the basis of the advice for 2020. If the catch remains constant at 23 000 tonnes per year the stock is expected to decline by 20% over five years, while still remaining above Bpa. SG 100 is not met.

Management strategy implementation There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that the measures/partial strategy the partial strategy/strategy is Guide is being implemented being implemented c successfully. successfully and is post achieving its overall objective as set out in scoring issue (a). No – Golden Redfish Met? Yes No – Greenland Halibut Yes – Beaked Redfish Rationale

There is no explicit strategy for primary species only, but for managing all bycatch (i.e. commercial/ retained species as defined by the fishery and relevant fishery regulations). There are measures that constitute a strategy aimed at generally reducing bycatch (as well as undersized/ juvenile fish): bycatch TACs, limited mesh size, bycatch move-on rules and limited fishing areas, and compliance is good, i.e. implementation is successful. There is information on the stock status of the bycaught species; Primary species in the bycatch are within biological limits (for Reinhardtius hippoglossoides and S.mentella), as regularly evaluated through stock specific ICES workshops and assessments; log reports (2015- 2019) indicate that bycatch quantities per Primary species are small, and discarding is banned. SG80 is met However, the above cannot be applied to all Primary species. It is not clear whether the amount of bycatch is hindering or not the recovery of Golden Redfish (S.norvegicus). Although the amount of Golden Redfish caught by this fishery under assessment is small compared to the overall catches (as bycatch, there is no targeted fishery, TAC is 0), the strategy as described by ICES 2018/2020 of zero TAC and areal closure does not appear to have reduced F. SG100 is not met.

For Redfish ICES (2020c) classifies the stock as having full reproductive capacity and being harvested according to the precautionary approach.

Since the early 90s, the beaked redfish spawning stock biomass (SSB) has been well above BLIM , (the point where recruitment would be impaired and estimated as the change point regression), as well as above BPA (The lowest SSB estimate having >90% probability of remaining above BLIM).

Latest estimate of NEA redfish SSB (see below ‘Stock Status & Reference Points’), with the lowest range of confidence intervals (95%) being in 2021 948,178 t, well above BLIM (315,000 t). Thus, current SSB is above BLIM with a high degree of certainty (95th %ile). SG 80 is met.

ICES (2020) shows that landings of Beaked Redfish generally follow the TAC which follows ICES advice, and F has been maintained well below FPA since for the time series. SG 100 is met.

For Greenland Halibut ICES (2020d) classifies the stock as having full reproductive capacity and being harvested according to the precautionary approach. Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Since the early 90s, the Greenland Halibut spawning stock biomass (SSB) has been well above BLIM, (the point where recruitment would be impaired and estimated as the change point regression), as well as above BPA (The lowest SSB estimate having >90% probability of remaining above BLIM).

ICES (2020) shows that landings of Greenland Halibut have generally been above the TAC which tends to be set above the ICES advice also. The harvest rate has been increasing since the mid-2000s. SG 100 is not met.

Shark finning

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

Rationale

No sharks have been recorded in the bycatch as Primary species.

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

Rationale

This scoring issue is not applicable because there is no unwanted catch of main primary species. (For MSC’s definition of ‘unwanted catch’ see MSC Fisheries Standard GSA3.1.6).

References

As for PI 2.1.1; client information and catch profiles ICES. 2018c. Workshop on the evaluation of harvest control rules for Sebastes mentella in ICES areas 1 and 2 (WKREBMSE). June –August 2018, by correspondence. ICES CM 2018/ACOM:52, IN PRESS.

Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG) 18–24 April 2018 http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2018/AFWG/00- AFWG%202018%20Report.pdf#search=cod%20Barents%20sea ICES. 2018. Interim Report of the Working Group on the Integrated Assessments of the Barents Sea (WGIBAR). WGIBAR 2018 REPORT 9-12 March 2018. Tromsø, Norway. ICES CM 2018/IEASG:04. 210 pp. IMR-PINRO Joint report Series 2, 2019. Survey report from the joint Norwegian/Russian ecosystem survey in the Barents Sea and adjacent waters, August-October 2018. Eds: Gro I. van der Meeren, Dmitry Prozorkevich Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage

Draft scoring range ≥80

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Information sufficient to score PI Information gap indicator

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

Condition number (if relevant)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main primary species Qualitative information is Some quantitative information Quantitative information is adequate to estimate the is available and is adequate available and is adequate to impact of the UoA on the main to assess the impact of the assess with a high degree of primary species with respect UoA on the main primary certainty the impact of the to status. species with respect to status. UoA on main primary species with respect to status. a Guide OR OR

post If RBF is used to score PI If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: 2.1.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is Some quantitative information adequate to estimate is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility productivity and susceptibility attributes for main primary attributes for main primary species. species. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

There are no main primary species in this fishery, so this SI is not scored.

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

Rationale

ICES stock assessments for stocks of primary species in the Northeast Arctic are used as the basis for advice on management measures. This advice informs both long-term management plans and decisions on annual TACs for the species concerned. Together with landing statistics and research survey data, the ICES advice can be used to evaluate whether the strategy is achieving its objective in terms of exploitation level and stock biomass/reproductive success with a high degree of certainty in most cases.

Guidepost is not met because of the limited understanding of the population status of all minor primary species, even if there is good information about the quantities of all species retained in this fishery.

c Information adequacy for management strategy

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to support measures to manage support a partial strategy to support a strategy to manage Guide main primary species. manage main primary all primary species, and species. evaluate with a high degree post of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Yes – Beaked Redfish Met? Yes Yes No- Golden Redfish No – Greenland halibut Rationale

There are no main Primary species in this fishery, SG80 is met by default.

Information for all Primary species is sufficient to support stock assessment, estimate biomass and adjust the TAC accordingly. This is the standard harvest strategy and is implemented for each primary species. Because the stock status of all primary species (regardless as to whether main / minor) is evaluated each year (see ICES evaluations and assessments), the harvest strategy for each species is under regular re-evaluation, determining whether the objectives are being achieved in each case. Catch profile data is available for this fishery for 2015-2019, and thus allows an evaluation of the strategy.

SG 100 is met for beaked redfish (S.mentella), as the information is adequate to support a management strategy and evaluate whether the strategy is achieving its objectives with a high degree of certainty.

Both Golden Redfish and Greenland halibut are assessed using standard Age-length structured Gadget models. Golden Redfish is difficult to distinguish from the Sebastes mentella stock in the same area, particularly for juvenile specimens. Given that the S. mentella stock is at a much higher biomass level, this raises the possibility that some or all of those identified as juvenile S. norvegicus in the survey data, and as larger individuals in the catch, may be misidentified S. mentella. This implies a high level of uncertainty concerning the size of the most recent sign of good recruitment (the 2008 and 2009 year classes), and some uncertainty around the size of the 2003 year class as these fish are similar sizes to the S. mentella. For Greenland halibut no reference points for fishing pressure have been defined for this stock. Stock size is above Bpa.

Therefore, it cannot be stated with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective, SG100 is not met

References

As for PI 2.1.1 and PI 2.1.2

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

Draft scoring range ≥80 Information sufficient to score PI Information gap indicator

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

Condition number (if relevant)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit and does PI 2.2.1 not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Main secondary species stock status Main secondary species are Main secondary species are There is a high degree of likely to be above biologically highly likely to be above certainty that main secondary based limits. biologically based limits. species are above biologically based limits. OR OR

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

Rationale

There are no ‘main Secondary species, scoring issue a) not applicable according to the MSC Interpretations Page: https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/P2-species-outcome-PIs-scoringwhen-no-main-or-no-minor-or-both-PI-2- 1-1-1527262009344 (Note – if there were any main species, RBF would be triggered, and this PI would be scored using PSA) Minor secondary species stock status Minor secondary species are highly likely to be above biologically based limits. b Guide OR

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

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Met? No

Rationale

The very nature of the classification into Secondary species indicates that these species are not managed, and in many cases do not have the necessary analytical assessment to determine the biologically based limits. There is little evidence available which shows that these species are highly likely to be above biologically based limits.

Each Secondary minor species is an element and is assessed against Scoring Issue b), as they are all ‘minor’. If it does not meet SG100, it is treated as though it still meets SG80 (which is blank), which is met by virtue of being a minor species. • Atlantic halibut Hippoglossus hippoglossus: no stock information appears to be available for the Barents Sea/ NE Atlantic. SG100 not met

• Anglerfish Lophius piscatorius: No stock information appears to be available in the Barents Sea for these species. SG100 is not met

• Northern Wolfish (Anarhichas denticulatus), Atlantic Wolfish Anarhichas lupus; Spotted wolffish Anarhichas minor,: There is no ICES assessment for Northern wolffish (nor for the other two wolffish species found in the Barents Sea). Biomass trends are available, up to 2017 with more recent distribution patterns provided by the IMR/PINRO ecosystem survey 2019. SG100 not met

• Long Rough Dab Hippoglossoides platessoides: no stock information appears to be available for the Barents Sea/ NE Atlantic. SG100 not met

• Plaice Pleuronectes platessa: no stock information appears to be available for the Barents Sea/ NE Atlantic. SG100 not met

• Greenland shark (Somniosus microcephalus): Although the species is widely distributed in the colder waters across the Northern Atlantic no detailed stock/ population information appears to be available for the Barents Sea (ICES WGEF 2018). SG100 is not met.

• Spiny-tail skate Bathyraja spinicauda: no stock information appears to be available for the Barents Sea/ NE Atlantic. SG100 not met

• Rabbitfish Chimaera monstrosa: no stock information appears to be available for the Barents Sea/ NE Atlantic. SG100 not met

• Lumpfish Cyclopterus lumpus. No stock information appears to be available in the Barents Sea for these species. SG100 is not met

In summary, the status of Secondary minor species is not certain. The only evidence is the low level of landings. This is not sufficient to demonstrate whether minor secondary species are above any biologically based limits. No ecological risk assessment has been undertaken. The quantities caught are comparatively small.

Paragraph 7.7.6.5 (MSC CR v2.0) requires that the Risk-Based Framework (RBF) should be used to evaluate scoring elements that are data-deficient. The secondary species identified should therefore be scored using the RBF. However, PF4.1.4 states that “The team may elect to conduct a PSA on “main” species only when evaluating PI 2.1.1 or 2.2.1”, and this is the approach taken in this assessment as all secondary species caught were designated as minor secondary species. PF 5.3.2 is therefore applied and the scores for this PI are capped at 80.

References

ICES. 2018. Report of the Working Group on Elasmobranch Fishes (WGEF), 19–28 June 2018, Lisbon, Portugal. ICES CM 2018/ACOM:16. 1306 pp (i.e. ICES WGEF 2018) ; fishbase.se; client catch composition data; ICES. 2018. Interim Report of the

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Working Group on the Integrated Assessments of the Barents Sea (WGIBAR). WGIBAR 2018 REPORT 9-12 March 2018. Tromsø, Norway. ICES CM 2018/IEASG:04. 210 pp.

IMR-PINRO Joint report Series 2, 2019. Survey report from the joint Norwegian/Russian ecosystem survey in the Barents Sea and adjacent waters, August-October 2018. Eds: Gro I. van der Meeren, Dmitry Prozorkevich Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage

Draft scoring range ≥80 Information sufficient to score PI Information gap indicator

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

Condition number (if relevant)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain PI 2.2.2 or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Management strategy in place There are measures in place, There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place for if necessary, which are place, if necessary, for the the UoA for managing main expected to maintain or not UoA that is expected to and minor secondary species. hinder rebuilding of main maintain or not hinder a Guide secondary species at/to levels rebuilding of main secondary post which are highly likely to be species at/to levels which are above biologically based limits highly likely to be above or to ensure that the UoA does biologically based limits or to not hinder their recovery. ensure that the UoA does not hinder their recovery. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

In the context of this performance indicator (Source: MSC FCR v2.01; Table SA8): • “Measures” are actions or tools in place that either explicitly manage impacts on the component or indirectly contribute to management of the component under assessment having been designed to manage impacts elsewhere. • A “partial strategy” represents a cohesive arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome and an awareness of the need to change the measures should they cease to be effective. It may not have been designed to manage the impact on that component specifically. • A “strategy” represents a cohesive and strategic arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome, and which should be designed to manage impact on that component specifically. A strategy needs to be appropriate to the scale, intensity and cultural context of the fishery and should contain mechanisms for the modification fishing practices in the light of the identification of unacceptable impacts.

There are no ‘main’ Secondary species. SG80 is automatically met.

The strategy is set out in the Norwegian Marine Resources Act, in the protocol for the JRNFC and in the Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea management plans, which explicitly require an ecosystem approach to marine environmental management. The strategy is comprised of a number of tools and measures, regularly reviewed, including: a requirement for accurate information on landings of bycaught species, where they are of commercial value such as the Northern wolffish (via logbook, landings notes and on-board checks by inspectors and scientists), fishing season, technical measures for gear (mesh size of cod end, 130mm; position cameras to evaluate net fill and position), bycatch reduction measures such as the sorting grid. Marine mammal and seabird stock monitoring and abundance estimates are made by IMR and NINA and records of all biota are made during annual IMR– PINRO trawl surveys undertaken under the auspices of JRNFC. As for seabirds, there are permanent and seasonal closures of inshore waters in the vicinity of key seabird nesting sites. As regards sharks and rays, the study on their status is part of both IMR and ICES research activities, who provides advice on the stock status of some of these species. Fishermen always avoid interactions of non-targeted species in order to save time and money. Besides, certain management measures are implemented in order to prevent interactions with out of scope species: such as all demersal trawlers being equipped with sorting grids for exclusion of bycatch and minimise the mortality of non-targeted species.

Entanglements with demersal trawlers could result either in casualty or in releasement, depending on the level of entanglement. However, a review of the impact of Norwegian offshore demersal trawl fisheries on marine mammals Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe was undertaken by ICES Study Group for Bycatch of Protected Species (SGBYC 2009) and concluded that larger offshore demersal trawl vessels “are regarded as having a relatively low risk for bycatches of marine mammals”.

The different measures implemented are considered as a partial strategy by the UoA for managing interactions with possible main secondary species. SG60 and SG80 are met by the UoAs.

Detailed bycatch data was provided of those species caught which are not of commercial value, as part of the recently introduced MSC-log software on board the vessels, where everything caught is recorded (and analysed in collaboration with PINRO). Specimen are released as soon as possible, in particular GL shark, skates and rays, to improve survivability. Discarding is not permitted in the Barents Sea. SG100 is met.

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

Rationale

The measures/partial strategy will work because logbooks, registered landing ports and effective monitoring, control and surveillance, and detailed catch composition data are implemented and available, as well as gear design (to reduce unwanted catches). These give an objective basis for confidence that the measures designed to minimise the level of retention of non-target species are effective. Available data shows secondary species bycatch is relatively small (Client information on detailed catch 2021). SG60 and SG80 is met.

‘Testing’ implies simulations and or modelling of data to inform the strategy, as well as a longer time series of logs, which is not yet available. SG100 not met. Management strategy implementation There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that the measures/partial strategy the partial strategy/strategy is c Guide is being implemented being implemented post successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Yes Yes

Rationale The combination of scientific inspections, logbook data recording all catches, periodic inspections at sea, and landings statistics all provide evidence that the partial strategies used to manage bycatch species are being implemented to date. SG80 is met.

Although the MSC-log recording detailed catch composition has been collecting data for two years only (2019, 2020), it provides clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully and is achieving its objective of managing Secondary species. The data collected is of high quality and used in benthos mapping too (client information January 2021). SG100 is met. d Shark finning

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

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

Rationale

Greenland shark was recorded in the catch composition as being accidentally bycaught. There is no tradition of shark finning in the Barents Sea fisheries. Shark finning is not allowed and would be noted by the scientific observer on board as well as the captain of the vessel. There is a high degree of certainty that shark finning is not taking place. SG 60, 80 and 100 is met.

Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of potential effectiveness and the potential effectiveness and the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative practicality of alternative practicality of alternative e Guide measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA- post related mortality of unwanted related mortality of unwanted related mortality of unwanted catch of main secondary catch of main secondary catch of all secondary species, species. species and they are and they are implemented, as implemented as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

There was no unwanted catch of main secondary species, SG80 is met automatically. (For MSC’s definition of ‘unwanted catch’ see MSC Fisheries Standard GSA 3.1.6). All catch is landed and recorded, including juveniles of the target species (and measures are in place that where more than 15% of catch per haul contains juveniles, the vessel moves on. The technical measures that are expected to achieve low bycatch rates are regularly reviewed in connection with stock assessment and management by JNRFC, for example, as and when this becomes necessary. Secondary species specimens are released as rapidly as possible after recording, in order to improve survivability. For now, the current measures are working. SG60 and SG80 is met. The assessment team was not made aware of biennial reviews of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA related mortality of unwanted catch of all secondary species. SG100 is not met.

References

Client information pack January 2021

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

Draft scoring range ≥80 More information sought Information gap indicator Evidence of MSC Log and move on rule

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

Condition number (if relevant)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is adequate to PI 2.2.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on main secondary species Qualitative information is Some quantitative information Quantitative information is adequate to estimate the is available and adequate to available and adequate to impact of the UoA on the main assess the impact of the UoA assess with a high degree of secondary species with on main secondary species certainty the impact of the respect to status. with respect to status. UoA on main secondary species with respect to status. OR OR a Guide post If RBF is used to score PI If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: 2.2.1 for the UoA:

Qualitative information is Some quantitative information adequate to estimate is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility productivity and susceptibility attributes for main secondary attributes for main secondary species. species. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

Detailed quantitative information is available on all Secondary species caught in this fishery to evaluate with a high degree of confidence that there are no main secondary species, so SG100 is met by default.

Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species Some quantitative information b Guide is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor post secondary species with respect to status. Met? No

Rationale

Detailed quantitative information is available on all Secondary species caught in this fishery, for 2016-2019. The stock status of these Secondary species is not known, although eventually the analysed bycatch information will feed into stock information at relevant assessment workshops.

The bycatch information provided consists of kg weight per trip, or numbers of individuals per trip, is recorded on dedicated PK Bort 2.0 (which is now an alternative to the paper MSC- logs) and then analysed for the fishing season (per year). However, for the moment only two years of such catch profile data is available and this information is inadequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on all Secondary minor species. SG100 is not met. c Information adequacy for management strategy

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to support measures to manage support a partial strategy to support a strategy to manage Guide main secondary species. manage main secondary all secondary species, and species. evaluate with a high degree post of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

There are no Secondary main species in this fishery, so SG80 is met by default.

The fishery is well documented through mandatory measures (logbook information, VMS information, survey data, and research reports from institutions such as PINRO and ICES), which is adequate to support the strategy. However, the biological information available for many of the species is such that a high degree of certainty whether the objective (good management) is achieved, cannot be assumed. SG100 is not met References

Client information January 2021; see also PI 2.2.1/2.2.2 Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage

Draft scoring range ≥80 Information sufficient to score PI Information gap indicator

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

Condition number (if relevant)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Effects of the UoA on population/stock within national or international limits, where applicable Where national and/or Where national and/or Where national and/or international requirements set international requirements set international requirements set a Guide limits for ETP species, the limits for ETP species, the limits for ETP species, there is effects of the UoA on the combined effects of the a high degree of certainty post population/ stock are known MSC UoAs on the population that the combined effects of and likely to be within these /stock are known and highly the MSC UoAs are within limits. likely to be within these limits. these limits. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

From the information available to the assessment team, i.e. catch composition, the following ETP species have been recorded in the catch from previous reassessment and 2018 catch composition: Blue skate (Dipturus batis) and Spurdog/ Spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias, Blue ling (Molva dypterygia)

Spiny dogfish/ spurdog has national requirement set limits and is therefore scored under SIa, whereas Blue skate has not and is therefore scored under SIb.

ICES advises that when the precautionary approach is applied, there should be no targeted fisheries on this stock in 2020 and 2021. Landing of bycatch should be part of a management plan, including close monitoring of the stock and fisheries. Based on medium-term projections, annual catches at the recent assumed level (2468 tonnes) would allow the stock to increase at a rate close to that estimated with zero catches; therefore, ICES considers that bycatch should not exceed that level (ICES Advice Spurdog NE Atlantic Oct 202028). In 2007, Norway introduced a general ban on target fisheries for spurdog in the Norwegian economic zone and in international waters of ICES subareas 1–14, with the exception of a limited fishery for small coastal vessels. This was followed in 2011 by a ban of all directed fisheries, although there is still a bycatch allowance (with strict percentage limits, regularly reviewed). Live specimens can be released, whereas dead specimens must be landed. This also applies to recreational fisheries (ICES WGEF 2018) For the fishery under assessment, the amount of Spurdog/ Spiny dogfish caught is recorded in numbers of individuals, and has been recorded for 2018 and 2019, using the specially designed PK Bort 2.0 software. The data provided by the fishery under assessment showed that 0 specimen were by-caught in 2018, 2019. Low mortality has been reported for spurdog caught by trawl when tow duration was <1 h, with overall mortality of about 6% (ICES WGEF 2018). Survival studies on elasmobranchs indicate that the rate of survival is high, provided on-board handling is speedy, and the cod-end weight did not damage the specimens (STECF 2014). It is standard practice on board the vessels of the fishery under assessment to release any by-caught elasmobranchs as speedily as possible. All fisheries in the Norwegian EEZ and Russian EEZ have to comply with the zero TAC rule, and this is enforced through the usual means of inspections (see Section 3.2.3). Considering the detailed reporting (using software Bort 2.0), and the low number of spurdog recorded as well as quick release handling on board when encountered, it can be said that the effect of the fishery on the species is known and highly likely to be within limits set by ICES. SG60 and SG80 is met. In order to achieve a high degree of certainty, the data set would need to cover several years. SG100 is not met.

Blue Ling (Molva dypterygia) ICES advises that when the precautionary approach is applied, there should be zero catches in each of the years from 2020 to 2023. Closed areas to protect spawning should be maintained.

28 https://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2020/2020/dgs.27.nea.pdf Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

This stock is classified as Category 2 in the NEAFC categorization of deep-sea species/stocks which implies that NEAFC requires measures stipulating that directed fisheries are not authorised and that bycatches should be minimised. Considering the detailed reporting (using software Bort 2.0), and the low number of blue ling recorded as well as quick release handling on board when encountered, it can be said that the effect of the fishery on the species is known and highly likely to be within limits set by ICES. SG60 and SG80 is met. In order to achieve a high degree of certainty, the data set would need to cover several years. SG100 is not met.

Blue skate (Dipturus batis) is assessed under SIb, as there are no national and/or international limits for this species.

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

Rationale

Landing obligation in Norwegian waters, implemented in 1987, would require vessels to land any dead animal, regardless it being ETP species or not. The electronic logbook system requires that not only commercial fishes are recorded but also ETP species, principally seabirds and marine mammals. A particular logbook ‘page’ cannot be closed until the ETP boxes are completed, even if it is with a zero. Skippers are also required to avoid all known coral reefs and report all catches of coral >30 kg and sponges >400 kg and move on ≥2 miles.

From the information available to the assessment team, i.e. catch composition, the following ETP species have been recorded in the catch:

Blue skate (Dipturus batis) and Spurdog/ Spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias,

Blue skate is assessed under this SI, as there are no national and/or international limits for this species.

Demersal elasmobranchs are regularly assessed in the Barents Sea as well as the adjoining Norwegian Sea as part of ICES Working Group on Elasmobranchs (ICES WGEF 2018), where Blue skate is considered as part of the blue skate Dipturus batis complex. Fishery independent demersal surveys in the Barents Sea region are conducted by both Norway and Russia, and in addition two joint Russian–Norwegian surveys are conducted in the Barents Sea (ICES WGEF 2019; IMR-PINRO 2020). These studies describe length data, distribution and habitat utilisation of the skates, as well as some CPUE data is available as part of past Russian surveys. The Barents Sea Ecosystem survey in 2018 (IMR-PINRO joint report series 2 2019) indicated that D.batis is rarely if at all encountered, reflecting the natural distribution of the species as being further to the South.

The fishery under assessment operates well to the north of the main areas of natural distribution of this species (see fishbase.de) and does not therefore pose a significant risk to this species.

According to the catch records ? kg of spurdog were caught by the fishery in 2017 & 2018. Some other unidentified skates and rays (of which some would be considered as secondary species, but others would be considered as ETP species) are reported in the same quantities.

The stock of spurdog is subject to ICES Advice. According to ICES 2020 advice (latest available) the stock is below HRMSY, and total biomass is below MSY BTRIGGER. ICES advises that when the precautionary approach is applied, there should be no targeted fisheries on this stock in 2021 and 2022. Landing of bycatch should be part of a management plan, including close monitoring of the stock and fisheries. Based on medium-term projections, annual catches at the recent assumed level (2468 tonnes) would allow the stock to increase at a rate close to that estimated with zero catches; therefore, ICES considers that bycatch should not exceed that level.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

There are specific measures prohibiting targeted fishing for spurdog, basking shark and porbeagle but if caught they should be landed (in practice, if still alive they are more likely to be released). The catch of these species should be recorded individually as they are easily identified by crew members. Fatal interactions can be obtained from landing records, and show that total quantities involved are very small, with landings been lower than 400 kg per year. Considering that the fishery caught zero specimens (as detailed in the catch records), that it operates outside the range of this species, and that the survival rate following quick release of the species is high, the direct effects of the UoA are highly likely to not hinder recovery of this ETP species. As regards unidentified skates and rays, catch by the different UoAs also show these interactions are sporadic. Given this low level of interactions and the high post releasement rate of these species (as described by Mandelman and Farrington (2007), direct effects are likely not to hinder the recovery of ETP species. SG 60 and SG80 is met

Uncertainties related to the identification of interacted skates and rays prevent this UoA from meeting the requirements at SG100, as with this uncertainty it is not possible to asseverate with a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the UoA on ETP species. SG100 is not met.

Marine mammals: Encounters are avoided, given the potential negative impact on fishing gears and operations. Encounters with cetaceans are normally associated with set nets and mid-water pelagic gear rather than deep trawls. Similarly, encounters with seals and similar species are unlikely in an offshore fishery of this kind. A review of the impact of offshore demersal trawl fisheries on marine mammals was undertaken by ICES Study Group for Bycatch of Protected Species (WGBYC 2014) and concluded that larger offshore demersal trawl vessels “are regarded as having a low risk for bycatches of marine mammals”. SG60 and SG80 is met for marine mammals.

Seabirds: Common name Scientific name 2019 Ivory gull Pagophila eburnea 3 Northern Gannet Morus bassanus 5 Crested Phalacrocorax Cormorant aristotelis 1 Northern Fulmar Fulmarus glacialis 117

The Northern Fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis) is listed on the Norwegian Red list as endangered, while the Northern Gannet and Crested cormorant are listed in the Russian Redbook. The fishery operates offshore, beyond 12nm, and thus encounters with seabirds are less likely. However, as detailed above here have been encounters with seabirds recorded. The ICES Ecosystem overview mentions that no one single factor explains the population trends in seabirds but the long-term breeding failures for species feeding in pelagic waters such as Atlantic puffin Fratercula arctica, black-legged kittiwake Rissa tridactyla, common guillemot Uria aalge, and Northern fulmar Fulmarus glacialis indicate that much of the problem along the mainland coast is related to drastic changes in the availability of 0-group fish (especially herring), and also linked to variations in ocean climate (ICES 2019). The small numbers of bids caught in the fishery are unlikely to hinder the recovery of ETP species. SG60 and SG80 is met for seabirds.

In order to give a high degree of confidence, the current recording of ETP interactions (see section 7.3.5) will need to be collected over several years, in order to demonstrate that there are no significant detrimental direct effects. SG100 is not met for marine mammals and seabirds.

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

Met? Yes No

Rationale

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Indirect effects may include removal of prey and pollution, as well as for example disturbance/ interference of feeding or breeding behaviour of ETP species.

The main determinants of whale and dolphin species abundance is zooplankton and capelin abundance in the Barents Sea, in this sense this fishery is unlikely to be of consequence. The fishery operates outside the 12nm zone in open water, therefore away from any onshore bird breeding colonies. It operates in deeper waters (200-500m, which reduces the likelihood of diving bird interactions. All vessels are fully MARPOL compliant, with detailed waste and oil handling protocols and evidence of records of garbage discharges supplied to the assessor. Pollution from the certified vessels is therefore not likely to impact on ETP species.

In summary, it is highly unlikely that indirect effects create unacceptable impacts. SG80 is met.

There are currently no observers on board the vessels, thus observations are reliant on the fishers’ recording observations – which are not independently verified. The master of the vessel is responsible for the provision and reliability of the data submitted. The master of the vessel can record the data himself or appoint a responsible person (client information Jan 2021). The lack of time series data on bycatch/ ETP bycatch does not allow a high degree of confidence. SG100 is not met.

References

Mandelman and Farrington (2007)

ICES. 2019. Norwegian Sea Ecoregion – Ecosystem overview. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2019. ICES Advice 2019, Section 12.1, https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5748. ICES. 2014. Report of the Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (WGBYC), 4–7 February 2014, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2014/ACOM:28. 96 pp STECF, 2014; Client catch data; References as used in Section 7.3.5 of this report ICES WGEF 2018; 2019 IMR-PINRO 2020. D. Protozorkevich, G.I. van der Meeren (eds) 2020.Survey report from the joint Norwegian/ Russian ecosystem survey in the Barents Sea and adjacent waters August-October 2019. IMR/PINRO Joint Report Series, 1-2020, 93pp. IMR/PINRO Joint Report Series, No. 2/2019 Prokhorova T., Johannesen E., Dolgov A. and Wienerroither R. 2019. Zoogeographic groups. In: Survey report from the joint Norwegian/Russian ecosystem survey in the Barents Sea and adjacent waters, August- October 2018 (eds by van der Meeren, G.I and Prozorkevich D.).

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

Draft scoring range ≥80 Information sufficient to score PI Information gap indicator

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

Condition number (if relevant)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Management strategy in place (national and international requirements) There are measures in place There is a strategy in place for There is a comprehensive that minimise the UoA-related managing the UoA’s impact on strategy in place for mortality of ETP species, and ETP species, including managing the UoA’s impact on a Guide are expected to be highly measures to minimise ETP species, including likely to achieve national and mortality, which is designed to measures to minimise post international requirements for be highly likely to achieve mortality, which is designed to the protection of ETP species. national and international achieve above national and requirements for the international requirements for protection of ETP species. the protection of ETP species. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Note: Either Scoring Issue a or b is scored here. This SI need not be scored if there are no requirements for protection or rebuilding provided through national ETP legislation or international agreements.

Note that the 'requirements for protection and rebuilding' can be any national or international requirements for protection and rebuilding, such as requirements not to target, safe handling practices, codes of conduct etc.; they are not the same as the ‘limits’ in 2.3.1 scoring issue a. On this basis, this scoring issue applies here.

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

- “Measures” are actions or tools in place that either explicitly manage impacts on the component or indirectly contribute to management of the component under assessment having been designed to manage impacts elsewhere. - A “partial strategy” represents a cohesive arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome and an awareness of the need to change the measures should they cease to be effective. It may not have been designed to manage the impact on that component specifically. - A “strategy” represents a cohesive and strategic arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome, and which should be designed to manage impact on that component specifically. A strategy needs to be appropriate to the scale, intensity and cultural context of the fishery and should contain mechanisms for the modification fishing practices in the light of the identification of unacceptable impacts.

There is a ban on targeted fishery for Spurdog and blue skate. The fishery under assessment is complying with Norwegian regulations (refer to MCS section) which state to immediate release spurdog and blue skate if caught alive. There is a bycatch allowance (with strict percentage limits). Live specimens must be released immediately, whereas dead specimens must be landed (ICES WGEF 2018). Low mortality has been reported for spurdog caught by trawl when tow duration was <1 h, with overall mortality of about 6% (ICES WGEF 2018). Survival studies on elasmobranchs indicate that the rate of survival is high, provided on-board handling is speedy, and the cod-end weight did not damage the specimens (STECF 2014). It is standard practice on board the vessels of the fishery under assessment to release any by-caught elasmobranchs as speedily as possible. Considering the low number of specimens recorded in the bycatch and the strategy in place it is highly likely that the UoA’s impact is managed so as to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of elasmobranchs. SG60 and SG80are met.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

A comprehensive strategy would assume feedback responses to management measures, but as the actual population status of the species is currently uncertain, such feedback is not yet possible to evaluate. This will be discussed at the site visit for now on a precautionary basis, the SI has been scored as SG100 not met.

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

Rationale

Scoring issue need not be scored if requirements for protection or rebuilding are provided through national ETP legislation or international agreements. This alternative was not scored, as PI2.3.2a was scored.

Management strategy evaluation The measures are There is an objective basis The strategy/comprehensive considered likely to work, for confidence that the strategy is mainly based on based on plausible argument measures/strategy will work, information directly about the c Guide (e.g.,general experience, based on information directly fishery and/or species post theory or comparison with about the fishery and/or the involved, and a quantitative similar fisheries/species). species involved. analysis supports high confidence that the strategy will work. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

There is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work based on information directly about the fishery and the species involved, as PK Bort 2.0 software logs are used on board (as an upgrade from paper MSC logs as formerly used, and detailed species identification guides are available on board, species caught are recorded in detail to either weight or numbers of individuals. The guides and forms have been designed in conjunction with other agencies (PINRO/ WWF Russia). The information is available and shared with relevant institutions (PINRO), and a time series of the data is being established. Any bycaught specimen are released speedily if alive.

Norwegian Regulation J-250-2013 applies to all gear types and obliges to the releasement of spurdogs, porbeagles, silky sharks and basking sharks if entangled. Research undertaken by Madelman and Farrington (2007) shows that shark species have a high survival rate if released soon. Coastal states’ agencies (IMR, NINA, PINRO) monitor the status of fish, seabird and marine mammal populations and pay close regard to the potential for adverse interactions of these populations with fisheries. Where specific problems are identified, they are modelled and subject to quantitative analysis although more generally emphasis is given to broader ecosystem modelling. IMR conducts on-site research which serves to provide estimations on the effectiveness of mitigation measures. Information from catch statistics show that interactions with ETP species are low. The minimal interactions of the gear with ETP species serve as an objective basis for confidence that the different measures implemented work effectively in preventing any hindering to ETP species SG 60 and SG80 is met.

The information available to date is too short a time series (one year only, 2019) in order to inform a comprehensive strategy. SG100 is not met.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

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

Rationale

Completed PK Bort 2.0 data logs for 2019 are available, with detailed records (species/ weight/ numbers of individuals); identification guides are available as well as guidance on how to use these. Training workshops to use these MSC-logs have been conducted. Systems are being implemented on board in order to reduce and/or avoid interaction with ETPs (e.g. on-board handling and quick release into the water). The electronic recording system PK Bort 2.0, which records interactions with ETP and benthos species, has been implemented on the Norebo vessels since 2019. This system is also being implemented on the other Russian vessels of certified fisheries (see description of this in Section 7.3.5iv). All these measures provide evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully, SG80 is met.

As the amount of bycatch is so small in this fishery, there are no bycatch specific studies which would provide ‘clear evidence’ – however, the collation of catch composition information over several years would provide such clear evidence eventually. SG100 is not met.

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

Rationale

The measures put in place to minimise mortality of ETP species include standard gear design and configuration measures for the reduction of bycatch (sorting panel, mesh size), as well as bars across the hopper when the catch is sorted in order to quickly release any bycaught elasmobranchs. Since the beginning of the 2019 season detailed records are collected and analysed on ETP species bycaught, and identification information is readily available on board as part of the recording process, with people having been trained to identify the species (Client information January 2021), which will provide a clearer quantitative picture as to the actual scale of ETP interaction, and thus provide the necessary information for any future minimisation of mortality measures. At this stage the fishery is recording its actual impact in terms of real data, which may or may not need to lead to additional measures. Data to date shows that interaction with ETP species is limited, based on one year of detailed quantitative data. For future reviews to take place such data needs to be available over a number of fishing seasons. This is a new and ongoing process on board the vessels and part of day-to-day fisheries management. As indicated under SIb) Russia is part of the research on the bycatch of ETP species as collated and coordinated through ICES working groups, whereby collaborative work is conducted, and information exchanged with PINRO and IMR and ICES. There has been substantial discussion and research especially in relation to bycatch (Grekov and Pavlenko 2011; ICES WGBYC 2019) and catch and survivability of elasmobranch species (see also STECF 2014). Such collaborative work allows regular review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of ETP species and they are implemented as appropriate. SG60 and SG80 are met.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

The assessment team is not aware that there will be specific biennial reviews of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA related mortality of ETP species. SG100 is not met. References

Grekov and Pavlenko 2011. A comparison of longline and trawl fishing practices and suggestions for encouraging the sustainable management of fisheries in the Barents Sea, — Moscow-Murmansk, World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF), 50p. https://wwfint.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/blockengl.pdf MSC-logs data provided by client for 2019; ICES WGBYC 2019 - ICES. 2019. Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (WGBYC). ICES Scientific Reports. 1:51. 163 pp. http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.5563 http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/HAPISG/2019/ICES%20WGBYC%20Report%20 2019.pdf STECF 2014; ICES WGEF 2018; Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage

Draft scoring range ≥80 Information sufficient to score PI Information gap indicator

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

Condition number (if relevant)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA 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 Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Qualitative information is Some quantitative information Quantitative information is adequate to estimate the is adequate to assess the available to assess with a high UoA related mortality on ETP UoA related mortality and degree of certainty the species. impact and to determine magnitude of UoA-related whether the UoA may be a impacts, mortalities and OR threat to protection and injuries and the recovery of the ETP species. consequences for the a Guide If RBF is used to score PI status of ETP species. 2.3.1 for the UoA: OR post Qualitative information is adequate to estimate If RBF is used to score PI productivity and 2.3.1 for the UoA: susceptibility attributes for Some quantitative information ETP species. is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species. Met? Yes No No

Rationale There are trained specialists on board who record all catches of commercial species, and over the past year (2019 fishing season) systematic and detailed recording has been implemented of those species which are released back into the sea (as per regulations), including ETP species such as elasmobranchs. The information is quantitative and is available in the form of detailed electronic monitoring of the location and position of the fishery (verified by VMS). Analysis of the data for 2019 showed few interactions of the fishery with ETPs (0 x spurdog; 0 x Blue skate; 117 x Fulmar). There were no interactions with marine mammals, such interactions have to be registered when individuals are caught in the trawl. All ETP records available for 2019 were analysed and mapped out by the specialist co-ordinator as part of the management of this fishery and an independent contractor working with the recording software. Maps were made available to the assessment team. The quantitative information is of a high standard in terms of identification and VMS cross-referencing and checked for accuracy by both trained staff and independent software managers and to be adequate to assess the UoA related mortality and impact. SG60 and part of SG80 is met. However, the quantitative data at this stage only covers one year of fishing, and therefore it is not possible to determine whether the UoA may be a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species. SG80 is not met.

In order to assess with a high degree of certainty the magnitude of UoA related impacts, mortalities and injuries on ETPs, the data collection and analysis will need to have been running for several fishing seasons. SG100 is not met Information adequacy for management strategy Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to b support measures to manage measure trends and support a support a comprehensive Guide the impacts on ETP species. strategy to manage impacts strategy to manage impacts, post on ETP species. minimise mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives. Met? Yes No No

Rationale

The PINRO / IMR Reports on the State of the Barents Sea ecosystem offer an overview of the ETP species which occur in the Barents Sea including their spatial and temporal distribution and ecology. Information and trends on the Barents Sea is regularly updated on the Barents portal website, where up to the minute research and studies are published. Cronin et al. (2011) used VMS and fast acquisition GPS to compare the distribution of ﬁsheries and seals in Irish waters on the same spatial and temporal scales to quantify overlap. VMS data allows for precise analysis of spatial distribution of fishing effort allowing for potential interactions with sea mammals, and to a lesser degree seabirds as the fishery operates further offshore than seabirds tend to occur, to be assessed or predicted. The electronic on-board recording application of non-commercial bycatch including ETP species provides enough detail in terms of species, location (VMS) of encounter as each fishing trip is a new record, and amount (numbers of individuals or weight – whichever is appropriate) to measure trends and support a strategy. (see Section 7.3.5iv– it applies to both habitat and ETP information and management). This data collection is being implemented across several Barents Sea fisheries and is done in conjunction with PINRO and WWF Murmansk, who will use the data thus gathered as part of marine management. Detailed, on-board identification guides aid in the data collection; The system has undergone extensive testing and feedback from the fishers. SG60 is met. However, as this system has only recently been introduced (2019 fishing season) the information is not yet adequate to measure trends to support a strategy to manage impacts on ETP species. SG80 is not met. A comprehensive strategy and a high degree of certainty needs several fishing seasons of data and systems evaluation, which is not yet available. SG100 is not met.

References

MSC-logs data provided by client for 2019; ICES WGBYC 2019 - ICES. 2019. Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (WGBYC). ICES Scientific Reports. 1:51. 163 pp. http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.5563 http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/HAPISG/2019/ICES%20WGBYC%20Report%20 2019.pdf STECF 2014; Grekov and Pavlenko 2011; ICES WGEF 2018; Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage

Draft scoring range 60-79 More information sought If more information is sought, include a description Information gap indicator of what the information gap is and what is information is sought

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

Condition number (if relevant)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Commonly encountered habitat status The UoA is unlikely to reduce The UoA is highly unlikely to There is evidence that the structure and function of the reduce structure and function UoA is highly unlikely to a Guide commonly encountered of the commonly encountered reduce structure and function habitats to a point where there habitats to a point where there of the commonly encountered post would be serious or would be serious or habitats to a point where there irreversible harm. irreversible harm. would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The commonly encountered habitats follow the ecological requirements of the Principle 1 species of this fishery (cod haddock saithe), and is sedimentary substrate of gravelly sand, coarser sediments and gravelly pebbles of flat to low relief (see Figures provided in Background Section 7.3.6a showing map of fishery location and map of underlying benthos).

These are also areas which have been trawled for many years (more than a century), these are traditional fishing locations initially for cod, then followed by other demersal species as the markets developed. Benthic communities have changed/adapted in response to the pressure of trawling (Denisenko et al., 2013). There is no evidence of any significant loss of function in terms of productivity, nutrient cycling or fisheries productivity, and the evidence suggests that most of these habitats would return to a “pre-trawl” state within something between 4 and 20 years. However, some very old biogenic reefs could take longer to recover and indeed may never fully rebuild given the dynamic and changing nature of the marine systems of the Barents Sea (Denisenko et al., 2013).

Demersal trawl gear design has become lighter, in order to reduce impact on the benthos, and research is ongoing to improve the trawl gear design and configuration as well as fishing techniques to benefit underlying benthos. VMS positions (provided by Client as part habitat mapping) provide detail as to where fishing occurs, the ecological needs of the Principle 1 species restrict fishing to those areas, and sediment maps are available for the fishing areas concerned, giving improved background information on the benthos. VMS positions (provided by Client as part of the MSC-log catch composition mapping) provide detail as to where fishing occurs, the ecological needs of the Principle 1 species restrict fishing to those areas, and sediment maps are available for the fishing areas concerned, giving improved background information on the benthos.

The background section of this report outlines the research conducted over the years in order to assess the impact of trawling on the benthos. There is good understanding of the potential impacts of bottom trawling on the benthos and habitats, and the length of time it would take to recover if fishing ceased. From the information and research available it can be concluded that the UoAs are highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the commonly encountered habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. SG60 and SG80 is met.

Evidence that the UoAs are highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the commonly encountered habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm would need to consist of fishery specific studies, relating to the area the fishery operates in, rather than extrapolating from research and studies conducted elsewhere. SG100 is not met.

b VME habitat status

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

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

Rationale

The background section 7.3.6b.i outlines the kind of VMEs likely to be found in the areas where fishing takes place. There has been detailed mapping along the coast of Norway (MAREANO programme), but not to such detail further North along the Western edge of the Barents Shelf. However, it is possible to extrapolate from the MAREANO maps for that area, given that the sedimentary structure of the Barents Sea is known in increasing detail (see background Section 7.3.6b for details on studies and maps). Furthermore, Buhl-Mortensen et al., 2019 has been using predictive modelling for suitable habitats for VMEs which has resulted in at least theoretical extension of those areas.

Vessel position information (as derived from the maps for 2019) showed that the fishery operates within limited areas, limited by the kind of habitat favoured by the Principle 1 species, which is finer sedimentary substrate of gravelly sand and gravelly pebbles, i.e. low relief with simpler surface structure. Data on the activity of the fleet (vessel positions) and the distribution of VME indicator species (as mapped in Section 7.3.5) suggests that the fleet may encounter soft bottom sponge communities and soft bottom coral gardens and seapen fields. The fishery avoids hard, three-dimensional substrate to avoid damage to the fishing gear, for example, or clogging up the catch with benthic organisms which would damage the fish.

Section7.3.6c provides an overview of relevant studies on the impact of trawl gear on benthos. In addition, Figure 33 and Figure 34 show that there is an overall trend of a decline in bottom trawl fishing, compared to the higher fishing intensity of the 1970s. Rate of recovery of trawled areas is dependent on several issues, including frequency of disturbance (natural and anthropogenic), productivity, substrate type and species. Hiddink et al (2006) modelled benthic recovery rates following trawling events, and showed recovery rates typically in the range of 2.5 to 6 years with the fastest recovery being observed in mud habitats. In the Barents Sea, most of the habitats where this fishery under assessment operates (in direct relation to the ecological habitat requirements of the target species) the fished areas may fall within the more dynamic and sedimentary range (hence quicker recovery). Some of the species composition and the substrate types on the shelf edge may show far slower recovery characteristics. Many of the benthos species of the Barents Sea have a relatively short life cycle (average around 4 years – Denisenko and Zgurovsky 2013) and therefore reproduce themselves rapidly. There is also a substantial area of habitat mosaic whose components may serve as a ‘seed’ source for impacted areas. It may therefore be assumed that many of the benthic communities, and especially those on relatively dynamic sediment bottoms, will recover most of their characteristics relatively quickly. Habitats associated with hard bottoms will take longer (Denisenko and Zgurovsky 2013). During the round table discussions on “Sustainable use of biological resources of the seas of Russia: Problems and Prospects” organized by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) of Russia with support of the Karat Association (27-28 May 2013 in Murmansk), it was suggested that the duration of community recovery is determined by the average life expectancy of the most long-lived species in the community. On this basis, a community cannot be considered fully recovered prior to the time that the longest-living member completes its entire life cycle. A map was developed (Lubin 2013) based on this assumption which suggests that recovery in most parts of the Barents Sea would take place within 5 years, but recovery would be up to 10 years or more in the areas where VMEs tend to occur (such as sponge aggregations on the edge of the continental slope).

The following VMEs, as defined in the ICES advice to NEAFC and NAFO are found within or near the area fished by the client fleet in the Barents and Norwegian Seas. Although there are other important benthic species and communities (such as crinoids, basket stars and sea cucumbers), these do not usually form dense aggregations and do not therefore meet the FAO criteria for VME:

Softbottom coral gardens: “Soft coral” species belonging to the Alcyonacea are relatively common on silty and mixed bottom substrates throughout the Barents Sea, including Gersemia fruticosa, G. rubiformis, Drifa glomerate and Duva florida. While most of these species need hard bottom or rock on which to attach, Gersemia is able to anchor itself in Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe relatively soft sediments and establish significant colonies. These species are relatively common and widely dispersed. Mapping has not yet been conducted further North, towards Svalbaard, and based on the sediment maps, it seems likely that such species aggregations could occur there.

Seapen fields: Aggregations of Umbellula are relatively common throughout both Barents and Norwegian Seas, occurring in the central and lower parts of the continental slope. Umbellula incrinis is found in dense aggregations on soft, muddy substrates in the north-eastern part of the Barents Sea near the St. Anna Trough. The long stalks (up to 1m) mean that these organisms are vulnerable to trawling and are regularly found as bycatch in this area.

Ostur sponge aggregations: Aggregations of sponges, mainly Geodia, Thenea, Tetilla, Phakellia, Rhadiella, and Polymastia are characteristic of substantial areas of the Barents Sea shelf as determined in surveys early in the 20th century. These sponges form mass settlements in areas with active sea bottom hydrodynamics, notably on deep-water banks and slopes. The richest communities of sponges are found along the edge of the Barents Sea shelf and at the upper parts of the continental slope. Larger settlements of Geodia sponges are found in the most south-western parts of the shelf and the Tromsø Bank (Tromsøflaket) where the Norwegian current encounters the Barents Sea shelf. A rich fauna of hydroids and bryozoans is usually found in association with these sponges.

Cold water coral reef (Lophelia pertusa, Solenosmilia variabilis); occurs in the south-western part of the Barents Sea off the coast of Norway, as shown by detailed mapping surveys in those areas (MAREANO). There are currently no known colonies North of the Varanger peninsula. The fishery under assessment does not fish in this area. No detailed surveys, MAREANO-style, has been conducted further north, to the SW of Svalbaard.

Hardbottom coral gardens: These aggregations (mainly sea fans) occur on hard substrates exposed to strong currents. Their distribution has been mapped in the Norwegian EEZ (excluding Svalbaard) as part of MAREANO. They occur at the upper edge of the continental slope to the West of Tromsø and the Lofotens. The fishery under assessment does not fish in the area mapped by MAREANO, but these species may well occur around Svalbaard, near where the fishery operates. However, the Principle 1 species do not tend to occur over such hard bottom areas.

Hardbottom coral gardens and cold-water corals the fishery is unlikely to fish on hard bottom grounds (target species lives in fine sediment areas). Furthermore, the gear would be damaged if run over 3D ground with hard rocky outcrops (which are likely areas for these elements to thrive on). Therefore, the fishery under assessment is unlikely to fish in these areas, and thus highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of these elements, as they would not be encountered.

Soft bottom coral gardens, seapen fields, Ostur sponge aggregations: Considering the soft sediment distribution as shown in the distribution map in Section, it is likely that these VMEs occur in the area where the fishery operates. According to these maps, there are potential indicator species of these VMEs found in those areas, and ongoing habitat mapping studies are increasing the knowledge base with regards to density, for example. Benthos data collection by fisheries operating in these areas are contributing to the information base. Little detail as to the distribution of these VME elements is available, although there are ongoing studies in place. The fishery operates in traditional fishing areas, it does not conduct exploratory fishing outside these areas, thus trawling has been conducted regularly over the same grounds over many years. It is therefore unlikely for the fishery to encounter these VMEs in those areas. In addition, “soft coral” (Alcyonacea) species and seapens are relatively common throughout the Barents Sea (such that recolonization should be relatively rapid through seeding), and the encounter and reporting protocols, coupled with evolving mapping and avoidance agreements should ensure that serious and irreversible damage is unlikely. MSC guidance states that serious (or irreversible) harm refers to change that fundamentally alters the capacity of the component to maintain its function (e.g. reducing ecosystem services; loss of resilience; regime shift; gross changes in composition of dependent species) or to recover from the impact (within timescales of natural ecological processes - normally one or two decades). As explained above such irreversibility for the relevant VMEs listed here does not apply

Based on the invertebrate bycatch reports provided to the CAB, the bycatch of benthic species remains relatively limited. In 2019, Norebo vessels reported benthic bycatch as detailed in Table 25 . To be updated with data for 2020.The fishery under assessment is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of these elements, though further evidence is needed, and for now only SG60 is met.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Table 25

Total catch Common name Scientific name/ group Individuals Weight (kg) Echinoderm Echinodermata 23 200.3 Starfish Asteroidea 734 1750 Brittle stars Ophiuroidea 16 5 Gorgonocephalus 15 5 Sea cucumbers Holothuroidea 2 330 Orange-footed sea Cucumaria frondosa 138 1510 cucumber Crinoidea Crinoidea 1

Sea urchins Echinoidea 32 195

Mollusca 49 96.7 Gastropoda 17 80 Bivalvia 17 35 Iceland scallop Chalmys islandica 142 Hydrozoa 30 Sponges Porifera 361 2451

There is not sufficient evidence to identify actual VMEs (i.e. concentrations of indicator species), therefore lacking the evidence that the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the VMEs. The encounter data and mapping are relatively new and ongoing and a set of analysis covering several fishing seasons is not yet available. The maps that are available for 2019 will provide a helpful baseline of the necessary detail to allow this SG to be scored in the future after several seasons. SG100 not met.

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

Met? No

Rationale

The minor habitats are those that are not commonly encountered by the gear (i.e. those not considered under SI(a)), such as particular combinations of sediments, outcrops and gullies, etc. There is no specific evidence that this gear (trawl gear) is highly unlikely to reduce the structure and function of minor habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. SG100 is not met.

References

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Client information; Client data of the fishery for 2019 with analysis and maps; Also see refs in PI 2.3.1 and PI 2.3.2 Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage

Draft scoring range 60-79 Information sufficient to score PI Information gap indicator More info on benthic mapping

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

Condition number (if relevant)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.4.2 serious or irreversible harm to the habitats

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Management strategy in place There are measures in place, There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place for a Guide if necessary, that are place, if necessary, that is managing the impact of all MSC expected to achieve the expected to achieve the UoAs/non-MSC fisheries on post Habitat Outcome 80 level of Habitat Outcome 80 level of habitats. performance. performance or above. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

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

NEAFC (2014) recommendation on the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems in the NEAFC Regulatory Area has been translated into national regulations within the Norwegian and Svalbard Zones, though as yet it lacks formal expression under the Russian jurisdiction. This includes a listing of VME habitats likely to occur within the NEAFC jurisdiction, some specific VME areas to be protected/ avoided, protocols relating to encounters with VME (reporting and move on rule) and rigorous assessment and control of fishing in “new” areas. The client fleet implements these new recommendations, regulations and protocols within Norwegian waters as well as in Russian waters.

Protocols are in place on the fishing vessels of the fishery under assessment, to protect/ avoid VME areas; these include recording of benthos bycatch on specific software PK Bort 2.0, and a move-on rule is in place, which is triggered when a certain amount and type of benthos is brought up in the net – the vessel master decides to move out of the way (by at least 2nm; see also NEAFC recommendation in Section 7.3.6b, as well as Section 7.3.6b.i). The trigger values had been established during the development phase of the software, in collaboration with scientists and WWF-Murmansk. It is consequently more sensitive than the move-on values recommended by NEAFC and previously implemented of 60kg of corals and 800kg of sponges. The programme automatically selects the required score value, based on species, ETP status, weight. It triggers for example the move-on rule, which is based on the number of points in the score – the score also reflects the sensitivity of the relevant species; thus, each species has a different sensitivity score from the outset. The programme automatically gives points when a certain number of pre-programmed criteria is met, and thus a certain score value reached. The system is currently being implemented and refined and is calibrated for all the relevant species involved. Until then the weight thresholds of 60kg for corals and 800kg for sponges applies. In Russian waters, closed areas - both seasonal and permanent - are a regularly applied fisheries management tool, although the focus for the majority of these closures is to protect spawning and nursery areas of certain commercial species. As yet there are no officially designated areas to protect vulnerable habitats. The protected areas in the map provided in Section 7.3.6b are primarily situated around land masses (see also:

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/index.php/en/maps/106-environmental-management/551-protected- areas).

2019, after discussions of the research on the distribution of vulnerable biotopes in the Barents Sea (report by S. Denisenko) and after the working meeting with members of the Coordination Council and relevant experts from PINRO, Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences (ZIN) and the Shirshov Institute of Oceanology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IO RAS), WWF prepared proposals for special areas and regulatory measures for the cod and haddock trawl fishery (and therefore also applicable to this fishery under assessment). At the meeting maps of these special areas as well as the coordinates of their borders, and data on limit catches in different areas. In July 2020 the members of the Coordination Council met and agreed on these proposals and the Agreement came into force in August 2020. These voluntary closed areas are adhered to by the relevant fishing companies involved in this project (as represented by the Coordination Council). These measures amount to a partial strategy, as the information collected from the PK Bort 2.0 logs is analysed as part of habitat mapping work for benthic organisms such as sponges and soft corals currently being undertaken in the Barents Sea (PINRO 2018; WGIBAR 2017 – describing IMR-PINRO collaborative survey work; IMR/PINRO 2019). Based on the above, SG60 is met: there are measures in place, that may constitute a partial strategy, and SG80 might be met, though this cannot be determined prior to the site visit.

Although these measures are rolled out across several Russian fisheries as part of the co-ordinated efforts to protect the marine environment of the Barents Sea (Client information January 2021), this roll-out is in its infancy, data and consequent distribution maps are available for 2019 only. It is not clear whether this strategy applies to all fisheries in the relevant areas. SG 100 is not met.

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

Rationale

The extensive and increasingly more sophisticated mapping initiatives are likely to work to help protect vulnerable habitats by providing the necessary information as to their extent and location. The mapping work is supported and supplemented by the detailed logging of benthic organisms brought up with hauls. Furthermore, the fleet-specific move- on rule is likely to work as the incentive is to improve the target catch rather than snag or damage the gear or indeed impair the quality of the catch through bycatch of quantities of unwanted benthic organisms such as sponges.

Regularly VMS data inform where the fishery operates and whether it is exploring new areas, for example. The information to date shows that the fishery is sticking to traditionally fished grounds. SG60 and SG80 is met.

Time series of data for testing and modelling of strategy is not available. SG 100 is not met. Management strategy implementation There is some quantitative There is clear quantitative c evidence that the evidence that the partial Guide measures/partial strategy is strategy/strategy is being post being implemented implemented successfully and successfully. is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a).

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Met? Yes No

Rationale

For commonly encountered and minor habitats, information on gear types and gear use is collected routinely, and VMS and logbook data on activity are available, together covering all fleets. Detailed benthos/by-catch MSC-logs are available, which show where and when benthic organisms have been found in the haul, identified as close as possible to genus if not species level, identification manuals are on board each vessel, a trained specialist records benthos- interactions to species level. Reports are available to show ongoing mapping surveys in the Barents Sea to increasingly finer detail (PINRO 2018; WGIBAR 2017; IMR/PINRO 2019; Buhl-Mortensen et al 2019).

There is some quantitative evidence that the measures are being implemented successfully, in that effort is limited by individual TACs, and the vessels of the fishery under assessment fishing in a restricted area only, at a certain depth (based on VMS tracks). For VME habitats, the partial strategy (identifying habitats, designating MPAs, and establishing management plans and monitoring activity to protect and, when practicable, restore habitats) is being implemented for most VMEs. Observer reports and self-reporting give quantitative information on non-fish bycatch, in weight and type (taxonomic order). SG80 is met.

There is limited information available on the status of commonly encountered and minor habitats, region wide. A time series of such logged benthos data together with the data-derived maps is also not yet officially available in order to provide the clear quantitative evidence needed to show that the strategy is achieving its objective. SG100 is not met.

Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs There is qualitative evidence There is some quantitative There is clear quantitative d that the UoA complies with its evidence that the UoA evidence that the UoA management requirements to complies with both its complies with both its Guide protect VMEs. management requirements management requirements and

post and with protection measures with protection measures afforded to VMEs by other afforded to VMEs by other MSC MSC UoAs/non-MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, fisheries, where relevant. where relevant. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale VMS data and on board logs provide evidence where the fishery operates and whether the move-on rule has been triggered, for example. Detailed MSC-logs are available which record all encounters with benthic organisms, and there are detailed ID guides on board. The software which helps record and categorize benthic organisms is being rolled out across several vessels on different fisheries in the Barents Sea (all either MSC certified or undergoing assessment). Apart from the closed areas shown in Section 7.3.6b, there do not appear to be any VME-based closed areas in the Barents Sea (see also ICES Special Request Advice Sept 2019). The VME closed areas along the Norwegian coast (for reef protection, see Section 7.3.6b) are outside the area fished by the fishery under assessment (Client information 2021). However, the fishery itself avoids areas with higher densities of benthic organisms. Detailed MSC-reports from PK Bort 2.0 logs are available which record all encounters with benthic organisms, and there are detailed ID guides on board (Client information Oct 2019). The regular Joint Norwegian-Russian benthic programme on the Barents Sea Ecosystem provides periodic overviews of the overall status of benthic habitats, of which the fishery is aware and acts accordingly with regards to protected area management (Client information 2019). The software which helps record and categorize benthic organisms is being rolled out across several vessels on different fisheries in the Barents Sea (all either MSC certified or undergoing assessment). SG60 and SG80 is met.

Whilst there is full VMS coverage of all vessels under assessment, mapping of habitats is ongoing and habitat management measures are in place (e.g. move on rule). The establishment of voluntary closed areas has been completed. There’s not yet clear quantitative evidence that the UoA complies with both its management requirements and with protection measures afforded to VMEs. SG 100 is not met This does not yet provide clear quantitative evidence

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe that the UoA complies with both its management requirements and with protection measures afforded to VMEs. SG 100 is not met.

References

Client information Jan 2021; PINRO 2018; Buhl-Mortensen et al 2019; Jørgensen et al 2019; IMR/PINRO 2019; ICES WGIBAR 2017; ICES Special Request Advice Sept 2019 https://wwf.ru/en/resources/news/barents/morskie-lesa-barentseva-morya-zashchityat-rossiyskie-rybaki-/

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

Draft scoring range ≥80 More information sought The establishment of voluntary closed areas in the Barents Sea in order to protect benthic areas from th Information gap indicator demersal fisheries has recently been agreed on (14 July 2020 and coming into effect on 1st August 2020).At the site visit could the fishery provide updates on this issue, including relevant meeting records, progress reports and relevant surveys.

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

Condition number (if relevant)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA and the PI 2.4.3 effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Information quality The types and distribution of The nature, distribution and The distribution of all habitats the main habitats are broadly vulnerability of the main is known over their range, with understood. habitats in the UoA area are particular attention to the known at a level of detail occurrence of vulnerable OR relevant to the scale and habitats. intensity of the UoA. If CSA is used to score PI a Guide 2.4.1 for the UoA: OR post Qualitative information is adequate to estimate the If CSA is used to score PI types and distribution of the 2.4.1 for the UoA: main habitats. Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

There is broad information as regards the distribution of habitat types in the Barents Sea, as his has been collected through the MAREANO Program and the OSPAR Commission (www.ospar.org). Both institutions websites display maps with information on the type of substrate, the seafloor topography, the biota present in the area, the location of vulnerable habitat types and the physical variables in the area. Detailed sediment maps are available and continue to be updated through ongoing surveys (barentsportal.com). There are ongoing and regular habitat surveys which improve on the detail of the main habitat distribution (PINRO 2018; WGIBAR 2017; IMR/PINRO 2019; Buhl-Mortensen et al 2019). Details are given in the background section of this report (Section 7.3.6). The level of detail is relevant to the scale and intensity of the UoAs. SG 60 and SG80 is met

The distribution of all habitats, with particular attention to the occurrence of vulnerable habitats, is not yet known over the entire range of the fishery, although the ongoing studies and surveys are providing increasing details and data. SG100 is not met.

Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Information is adequate to Information is adequate to The physical impacts of the broadly understand the nature allow for identification of the gear on all habitats have been of the main impacts of gear main impacts of the UoA on quantified fully. b use on the main habitats, the main habitats, and there is Guide including spatial overlap of reliable information on the habitat with fishing gear. spatial extent of interaction post and on the timing and location OR of use of the fishing gear.

If CSA is used to score PI OR 2.4.1 for the UoA: Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Qualitative information is If CSA is used to score PI adequate to estimate the 2.4.1 for the UoA: consequence and spatial Some quantitative information attributes of the main habitats. is available and is adequate to estimate the consequence and spatial attributes of the main habitats. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The nature, distribution and vulnerability of benthic habitats of the Barents and Norwegian Seas, are well known and researched by international standards. This information is summarised in various marine atlases, the Mareano mapping programme (2011) the reports by Joint Russian Norwegian Ecosystem Assessment; the review by Jakobsen and Ozhigin (2011); through scientific studies undertaken by PINRO, and publications by WWF (see Section 7.3.67.3.6). There are a number of studies on the impact of trawl gear on the main habitat. There is a body of studies researching into the impact of trawl gear on benthos (eg Hiddink et al., 2006; Denisenko 1991, 2007; Løkkeborg 2005; PINRO 2012; Buhl-Mortensen et al., 2015, 2019) This work is increasingly supplemented with data coming directly from the fishery under assessment, as well as other Barents Sea MSC certified fisheries, in the form of MSC log-book data collected using specifically designed software, supported by the scientists on vessels and inspectors, in collaboration with PINRO and WWF Murmansk. VMS provides information on the distribution and fishing intensity of the fleet over time. The MSC-form gives position and time of each data-point logged, allowing the generation of distribution maps. The fishery under assessment provided such analysed data for the 2018 and 2019 fishing season. There is detailed research into gear design and configuration to reduce benthos impact (see Section 7.3.6). SG60 and SG80 is met.

Detailed habitat maps are not yet available for the entire area the fishery operates in, nor the wider Barents Sea (in order to evaluate proportional impact). Current detailed benthos-in-bycatch recording on board is a recent introduction, and thus a time series of data and appropriate analysis has yet to be established to assist with impact quantification. SG100 is not met.

Monitoring Adequate information Changes in all habitat c Guide continues to be collected to distributions over time are post detect any increase in risk to measured. the main habitats. Met? Yes No

Rationale

The spatio-temporal monitoring of fishing effort in the Barents Sea is comprehensive and continuing. Combined with IMR/PINRO benthic survey work and the mapping of the seabed allowing improved detail, as well as data collection of benthos encounters by individual vessels, allows the detection of any increase in risk to the main habitats. As part of ongoing habitat mapping projects, in relation to measuring the effect of changing environmental parameters (climate change affecting currents and water temperature) changes in benthos distributions and composition over time are measured – see ongoing work by Jørgensen et al 2019 (live updated webpage on Barents portal: http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/index.php/en/biotic-components/182-benthos-and-shellfish-2017/772- benthos-and-shellfish This is ongoing collaborative work between IMR and PINRO scientists, and regular updates of research results can be found on barentsportal.com. The footprint of the fishery is continually mapped via VMS; this is the key element which would indicate an increased risk to habitat – e.g. if a vessel operated outside the usual footprint of the fishery, or made an incursion into a closed area. Sufficient data continues to be collected for risks to be detected, and action is taken (if needed). SG80 is met

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

However, this is a recent project, and considering that the knowledge on the distribution of all habitats in not yet complete, and that the fishery under assessment has only recently implemented a detailed system of recording benthos in the bycatch to contribute towards habitat mapping work by PINRO. The time series is too short to measure habitat distribution over time. SG100 is not met. References

Hiddink et al 2006; PINRO 2012, 2018; Lkkeborg 2005; Denisenko 2007, 1991; Buhl-Mortensen 2015, 2019; WGIBAR 2017;

Jørgensen et al 2019 http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/index.php/en/biotic-components/182-benthos-and- shellfish-2017/772-benthos-and-shellfish

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

Draft scoring range ≥80 More information sought The fishery under assessment is currently implementing software to record benthos by-catch at each haul to species level. This software also includes non-benthic species, of ETP and Secondary species relevance. This is a more comprehensive alternative to paper-based MSC-logs on benthos/ ETP encounters Information gap indicator which were used until end of 2018 Information required on the continued implementation of this recording project, associated collation and analysis of data, and co-operation with PINRO scientists (e.g. does the data contribute to habitat mapping and consequently habitat management?) How the captain and crew are trained to recognise material and if this is validated on a regular basis?

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

Condition number (if relevant)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem PI 2.5.1 structure and function

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Ecosystem status The UoA is unlikely to disrupt The UoA is highly unlikely to There is evidence that the the key elements underlying disrupt the key elements UoA is highly unlikely to Guide ecosystem structure and underlying ecosystem disrupt the key elements a function to a point where there structure and function to a underlying ecosystem post would be a serious or point where there would be a structure and function to a irreversible harm. serious or irreversible harm. point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

Two ICES working groups provide annual assessments of the state of the Barents Sea Ecosystem (Arctic Fisheries Working group; WG for Regional Ecosystem Description). A new working group on integrated assessment in the Barents Sea (WGIBAR) has recently been established (ICES 2014) and provides ongoing updates on current research (ICES WGIBAR 2019). An ICES working group on ecological valuing of the Barents Sea published a report recently, looking at the various ecosystem components and interactions (ICES WGBAR 2019). The information on the Barents Sea is supplemented by on-going data collected under the Joint Norwegian-Russian Environmental Status Report for the Barents Sea (which issues annual Barents Sea ecosystem status report, trends, and highlights expected future situation, and can be accessed on barentsportal.com, where regular updates show up-to-date research projects) and work is undertaken as part of implementing the Integrated Management Plan for the Barents Sea-Loføten area (IMR/PINRO 2019). All these assessments suggest that broadly speaking, the Barents Sea Ecosystem is relatively healthy, and that current fishing activities are not significantly disrupting ecosystem structure and function. There has been a decline in seabird populations (similar to that throughout the NE Atlantic), but the reasons for this are unclear (local food shortage; increased predation; historic bycatch in drift net and long-line fisheries, climate change) and are therefore not solely attributed to current fishing activity (WGIBAR 2017; 2019). The high stocks of key species at different trophic levels (cod/ haddock and capelin) suggest that the fish related elements of the ecosystem are broadly speaking in good shape (WGIBAR 2017). Significant changes are however taking place, probably related to climate change causing oceanographic shifts (WGIBAR 2019). These surveys and assessments are also supported by several ecosystem modelling studies related specifically to the Barents Sea, which have explored for example the trophic relations between fish species, and links between capelin, cod, seabirds, marine mammals. These include Ecopath type studies by Blanchard et al 2002; EcoCod (which seeks to estimate cod MSY taking into account a range of ecosystem factors), Gadget (multispecies interactions between cod, herring, capelin, minke whale, krill) in the Barents Sea; Biofrost (multispecies model for Barents Sea – addressing primarily cod / capelin dynamics); STOCOBAR (Stock of cod in the Barents Sea). Broader ecosystem models include NORWECOM.E2E, which includes plankton and fish, and is under development and semi-operational, and both PINRO and IMR have developed hydrodynamic models that complement these mainly biologically based models. Based on this context, the UoA is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. SG60 and SG80 is met.

Cod followed by Haddock and Saithe would by far be the largest components of the catch (other species taken are trivial by comparison in relation to Arctic biomass or total extractions). Maintaining cod, haddock and saithe SSB at sustainable levels, achievable through harvest control rules such as TACs, is therefore a key aspect of maintaining these stocks and ecosystem at a healthy level. Monitoring SSB (total and by component), compliance with the harvest control rule, and an enforced quota regime should therefore deliver most of the management requirements for preventing future collapse; thereby preventing any effects this may have on the wider ecosystem. ICES currently classifies the cod stock

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe as a whole as having full reproductive capacity and as being harvested sustainably, with recent estimates of SSB being well above the BLIM (2019) of 220,000 t and largely above the SSBMP upper trigger of 460,000 tonnes. As for marine mammals, some of which prey on cod, haddock, saithe, etc but which are not obligate predators of any one of them, the clearest evidence that the fishery for saithe is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function is provided by the long-term historic overview. Despite the extreme variation in abundance of several of the major fish stocks over the past 50 – 70 years (which includes current stock and haddock stocks being c. twice all previous recorded levels) there has never been any substantiated indication of any significant adverse effect on ecosystem structure or function (as might be indicated by a universal collapse of bird or mammal populations or plague blooms of jellyfish). According to ICES (2019f) using VMS and logbook data it has been estimated that mobile bottom trawling techniques used by commercial fisheries in the 12 m+ vessel category have been deployed over approximately 91 010 km2 of the Barents Sea in 2018, corresponding to ca. 4.3% of the ecoregion’s spatial extent. This figure excludes Russian fishing effort. The pressure is mainly concentrated close to the coastline and in the central Barents Sea. In the Norwegian sea bottom trawls are regulated along the Norwegian continental slope through closed areas to avoid extended damage on fragile and vulnerable benthic communities and reef-building organisms reducing the impact of the UoA on the habitat. The fishery is therefore considered highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. SG100 is met.

References

ICES 2014; WGIBAR 2017, 2019; IMR/PINRO 2019; Blanchard et al 2002

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

Draft scoring range ≥80 Information sufficient to score PI Information gap indicator

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

Condition number (if relevant)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Management strategy in place There are measures in place, There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy that if necessary which take into place, if necessary, which consists of a plan, in place account the potential takes into account available which contains measures to a Guide impacts of the UoA on key information and is expected address all main impacts of elements of the ecosystem. to restrain impacts of the the UoA on the ecosystem, post UoA on the ecosystem so as and at least some of these to achieve the Ecosystem measures are in place. Outcome 80 level of performance. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale There is a range of more specific measures and initiatives in place to address management of individual ecosystem elements.

• Measures described in P1 to ensure that the fishery does not pose a risk to target species stock, and its relationship within the foodweb in the Barents Sea Ecosystem (eg harvest control rules).

• A range of technical measures and protocols to minimise bycatch of other fish species (described and evaluated under Primary and Secondary species as well as ETP - 2.1, 2.2, 2.3) that may play an important role in ecosystem structure and function

• Closed areas to protect the juveniles of a variety of fish species.

• Closed areas to protect the most valuable/vulnerable benthic habitats in the Norwegian zone and NEAFC

• Protocols and gear development initiatives to reduce benthic impacts.

This fishery appears to have limited interaction with marine mammals and seabirds, and specific measures are not considered necessary, although any interactions are recorded on a specific PK Bort 2.0.

The mix of planning initiatives, Russian-Norwegian research cooperation initiatives, ecosystem monitoring and assessments, seabed mapping, fishing effort distribution monitoring, ICES advice, JNRFC collaboration on stocks management and research and the range of individual measures designed to protect different elements of the ecosystem, taken together may be regarded as comprising a partial strategy. SG60 and SG80 is met.

This will be further developed through ongoing activities such as that of the Working Group on the Integrated Assessments of the Norwegian Sea (WGINOR). However, while there is an overarching ecosystem management plan for the Barents Sea, several of the initiatives relating to benthic impacts have only recently been implemented and cannot yet be considered to be part of a strategic plan. SG100 is not met.

Management strategy evaluation b The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high Guide considered likely to work, basis for confidence that the confidence that the partial post based on plausible argument measures/ partial strategy will strategy/ strategy will work, (e.g., general experience, work, based on some based on information directly

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

theory or comparison with information directly about the about the UoA and/or similar UoAs/ ecosystems). UoA and/or the ecosystem ecosystem involved. involved. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The measures described above address key elements of the ecosystem, and take into account the steadily improving information resources, and the various mapping initiatives. These measures are already significantly restraining impacts on fish and benthic communities, while impacts on seabirds and marine mammals are considered to be relatively minor and possibly positive (through increased food availability). SG60 is met

A fundamental part of the partial strategy is the PINRO/IMR ecosystem research cruises, which result in annual status reports which specifically focus on ecosystem trends, threats and projections, and that this then directly contributes to the work of ICES in producing advice for target species, and determining catch levels. The cod, haddock and saithe stock are at biomass levels above MSY BTRIGGER. The integrated ecosystem approach-based management plan and strategies for the Barents Sea and Lofoten areas, as well as for the Norwegian Sea, which take into account direct information about the ecosystems involved through ICES advice, scientific advice from IMR, PINRO and the scientific community and which uses historical and current information collected under the framework of the Joint-Norwegian- Russian Fisheries Commission, are reviewed every 4 years which allows for modifications to the management plans where further effectiveness is required.

Given the broad knowledge on the Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea ecosystems, the continued monitoring by different research institutions, the generally healthy status of both ecosystems and of the heathy situation of saithe stocks, there is some objective basis for confidence that the measures and partial strategy implemented will work (and are working already). SG80 is met.

However, as noted under issue a), the lack of an overarching ecosystem management plan within the Barents sea and the limited understanding of the wider effects of changes in benthic communities and benthic community functioning means this cannot be scored at SG100.

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

Rationale

There is evidence of MSC-logs recording bycatch to species level on ETPs and benthos, there is evidence of area closures (and VMS tracking to confirm compliance), there is evidence of research cruises and resulting status reports, and there is evidence of ecosystem elements being given key consideration at fisheries management level – both in the form of ICES advice and in the deliberations of the JNRFC. Evidence relating to successful implementation at the fleet level includes: • VMS data relating to the spatial intensity of fishing effort, and compliance with closed area restrictions; • Catch records • Vessel inspections Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

• PINRO scientists on board • Review and analysis of fishing activity, species caught, and habitats affected - by PINRO and the inspectorates. This constitutes clear evidence; SG80 and SG 100 is met. References

Client information (January 2021); as in PI 2.5.1

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

Draft scoring range ≥80 Information sufficient to score PI Information gap indicator

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

Condition number (if relevant)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Information quality

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

Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

The fisheries are located in an information-rich area, with data including stock assessments or equivalent for most species, including all the main primary and secondary species (see 2.1.1 and 2.2.1). Information is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem, like the trophic structure of the Norwegian and Barents Sea ecosystems (such as prey, predators and competitors; community composition, productivity patterns and characteristics of biodiversity). Through ICES working groups, such as the Working Group on integrated assessment of the Barents Sea WGIBAR, Working Group on Arctic Fisheries and the Working Group on the Ecosystem Effects of Fishing Activities (ICES WGECO) ecosystem evaluation, also in light of the ecosystem approach, takes place. Modelling of fishing impacts (e.g. the BENTHIS project) is also carried out. Furthermore, evaluations of interactions between stocks and fisheries (e.g. ICES Barents Sea Ecosystem -Fisheries Overview), mapping of benthos (see PI2.4.1 and PI2.4.3) and ongoing work under the ecosystem management plans, development of ecosystem-based marine spatial plans as discussed in PI2.5.1 and PI2.5.2. contributes to the knowledge base on the Norwegian and Barents Sea ecosystems. Information is therefore adequate, and the key elements of the ecosystem are broadly understood. SG60 and SG80 is met.

Investigation of UoA impacts Main impacts of the UoA on Main impacts of the UoA on Main interactions between the these key ecosystem these key ecosystem UoA and these ecosystem b Guide elements can be inferred from elements can be inferred from elements can be inferred from post existing information, but have existing information, and existing information, and have not been investigated in some have been been investigated in detail. detail. investigated in detail. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

There is detailed information on catches of Principle 1, retained species as well as other bycatch (non-commercial finfish, benthic organisms etc) collated and analysed by relevant fisheries research institutions (e.g. PINRO, JNRFC, ICES). This provides information about the impact of the assessed fishery on the populations of non-target species involved and would provide evidence of impact if any key ecosystem species were affected. The main impacts of the UoA on bottom habitats and trophic structures can also be inferred from the existing information, including location (VMS), mapping, and gear-habitat interaction studies. Many interactions between fisheries and key ecosystem elements have been investigated in detail, especially trophic interactions with key predator - prey relationships, and with bottom substrates (ICES WGECO, BENTHIS project). In particular, there is a high level of spatial and temporal information on this fishery and the gear used. SG60 and SG80 is met.

Although there is increasing spatial and temporal information on most forms of fishing and captures, it cannot be said that all the main interactions have been investigated in detail. SG 100 is not met.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Understanding of component functions The main functions of the The impacts of the UoA on P1 components (i.e., P1 target target species, primary, c Guide species, primary, secondary secondary and ETP species and ETP species and and Habitats are identified and post Habitats) in the ecosystem are the main functions of these known. components in the ecosystem are understood. Met? Yes No

Rationale

There is a comprehensive understanding of the key elements of the ecosystems of the Barents Sea and the relationships between predators, prey and habitats are known (see regularly updated research on barentsportal, joint research between PINRO and IMR on the status of the Barents Sea – www.barentsportal.com). The biology and ecology of the Principle 1 species are well known (see fishbase.org) and are researched within the context of the ecosystem as part of the regularly updated stock assessments. The main functions of the relevant primary, secondary, and ETP species caught by the UoA as well as the habitats where fishing is taking place are also known. SG80 is met

The interactions and their impacts of the gear on the benthos have been investigated in some detail, especially on cold water corals, as well as fine sediment habitats, but the impacts on soft corals and sponges have yet to be studied in detail, in particular with regards to their distribution on occurrence as VMEs, not just VME indicators. SG100 is not met.

Information relevance Adequate information is Adequate information is available on the impacts of the available on the impacts of the d Guide UoA on these components to UoA on the components and post allow some of the main elements to allow the main consequences for the consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. ecosystem to be inferred. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

The long-established and long-term research programmes have built a database that ensures that the main functions of the components in the ecosystem are known. Different ecosystem models (mentioned under PI 2.5.1) provide a broad knowledge of the impacts that the fishery has on the targeted species and dependent predators. These simulation models have been developed using data collected over many years, including stomach content analysis and other investigations enable the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred and tested. Adequate information on the impacts - in terms of severity, duration and spatial location - of the UoA on the components is recorded through the use of logbooks, VMS tracking, monitoring of landings, and onboard observations. Information and recording on by-catch of secondary and ETP species continue to improve in detail and accuracy and is expected to improve further with the introduction of specifically designed software. The role of non-target catches and habitats in the wider Barents Sea ecosystem is known through scientific studies, which are routinely carried out and updated by IMR and PINRO. Based on this information some of the main consequences for the ecosystem can be inferred. SG80 is met.

A considerable number of studies have been carried out to investigate the main ecosystem drivers within the Barents Sea marine ecosystem, including studies on trophic interactions, the impact of climatic and other abiotic factors and ecosystem modelling (see main report, section 7.3.7 for details), and are regularly updated on barentsportal.com. As a result, there is an ever increasing understanding of the key elements of the Barents Sea marine ecosystems. UoA impacts on the components (non-target catches including ETP species and habitats) are known, and the resulting main consequences for the Barents Sea ecosystem can be inferred. SG100 is met.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

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

Rationale

There is a relatively comprehensive monitoring programme in place related to the Joint Norwegian-Russian Barents Sea Ecosystem assessment and the Norwegian Integrated Management Plan for the Barents Sea. A variety of other related initiatives monitor marine mammals and seabirds. PINRO and IMR collect comprehensive data related to the major commercial fisheries. Risks associated changing populations or relations between fisheries and various elements of the ecosystem will be picked up as part of the longer-term time series assessments. SG80 is met.

Although there are inevitably some gaps in our understanding, there is enough information available to support strategies to manage marine ecosystem impacts, especially if a precautionary approach were to be taken to avoid and/or reduce damage to benthic habitats. SG100 is met.

References

See PI2.5.1, PI 2.5.2, section 7.3.7 www.barentsportal.com fishbase.org

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

Draft scoring range ≥80 Information sufficient to score PI Information gap indicator

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

Condition number (if relevant)

7.4 P2 References Anisimova, N.A., Jørgensen, L.L., Lyubin, P.A. and Manushin, I.E. 2010. Mapping and monitoring of benthos in the Barents Sea and Svalbard waters: Results from the joint Russian - Norwegian benthic programme 2006-2008. IMR- PINRO Joint Report Series 1-2010. ISSN 1502-8828. 114 pp. Buhl-Mortensen L, K.E. Ellingsen, P. Buhl-Mortensen and K. Skaa (2015). Trawling impact on habitat-forming organisms in the Barents Sea: indication of resilience and implications for sustainable management. ICES Journal of Marine Science, doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsv200 Buhl-Mortensen et al 2019. Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VME) Coral and sponge VMEs in Arctic and sub-Arctic waters – Distribution and threats. http://dx.doi.org/10.6027/TN2019-519TemaNord 2019:519 ISSN 0908-6692 Bruntse, G. & Tendel, O.S., 2001. Lophelia pertusa and other cold water corals in the Faroe area. In Marine biological investigations andassemblages of benthic invertebrates from the Faroe Islands (Bruntse, G. & Tendel, O.S. eds) pp 22– 32. Kaldbak Marine Biological Laboratory, The Faroe Islands. www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/217806.pdf Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Carmack, E., Barber, D., Christensen, J., Macdonald, R., Rudels, B. and Sakshaug, E. 2006. Climate variability and physical forcing of the food webs and the carbon budget on panarctic shelves. Progress in Oceanography, 71 (2-4): 145-181. Depestele, J., Desender, M., Benoît, H. P., Polet, H., and Vincx, M. 2014. Short-term survival of discarded target fish and non-target invertebrate species in the “eurocutter” beam trawl fishery of the southern North Sea. Fisheries Research, 154: 82–92.7 Denisenko S.G & Zgurovsky K.A (Eds) . 2013. Impact of trawl fishery on benthic ecosystems of the Barents Sea and opportunities to reduce negative consequences - Murmansk. WWF. 2013. 55 pp. Ebert, D.A., W.T. White, K.J. Goldman, L.J.V. Compagno, T.S. Daly-Engel and R.D. Ward, 2010. Resurrection and redescription of Squalus suckleyi (Girard, 1854) from the North Pacific, with comments on the Squalus acanthias subgroup (Squaliformes: Squalidae). Zootaxa 2612:22-40. Ellis, J. R., Burt, G. J., Grilli, G., McCully Phillips, S. R., Catchpole, T. L., & Maxwell, D. L. (2018). At-vessel mortality of skates (Rajidae) taken in coastal fisheries and evidence of longer-term survival. Journal of fish biology, 92(6), 1702- 1719 Hiddink et al. (2017) Hiddink, J.G., Jennings, S., Sciberrasa, M., Szosteka, C.L., Hughes, K.M., Ellis, N., Rijnsdorp, A.D., McConnaughey, R.A., Mazord, T., Hilborn, R., Collie, J.S., Pitcher, C.R., Amoroso, R.O., Parma, A.M., Suuronen, P., M.J., K., 2017. Global analysis of depletion and recovery of seabed biota after bottom trawling disturbance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America Early Edition Online, 1–6. Husebø A, Nøttestad L, Fosså JH, Furevik DM, Jørgensen SB 2002. Distribution and abundance of fish in deep-sea coral habitats Hydrobiologia 471: 91–99, (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016549203368 ICES Advice 2009, Book 3, The Barents Sea and the Norwegian Sea ICES, 2013. General advice Assessment of the list of VME indicator species and elements: http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2013/Special%20requests/NEAFC_VME_%20indicator_ %20species_%20and_elements.pdf ICES 2016 (a) Norway/Russia request for evaluation of harvest control rules for Northeast Arctic cod and haddock and for Barents Sea capelin. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2016. ICES Advice 2016, Book 3, Section 3.4.1. 12 pp. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/Special_Requests/Norway- Russia_HCR_Northeast_Artic_cod_haddock_capelin.pdf ICES, 2016b. Report of the OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Marine Birds (JWGBIRD). ICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE, ICES CM 2016/ACOM:29, REF. ACOM,SCICOM, OSPAR, HELCOM. ICES WGIBAR 2017 Report of the Working Group on the Integrated Assessments of the Barents Sea. WGIBAR 2017 Report 16-18 March 2017. Murmansk, Russia. ICES CM 2017/SSGIEA:04. 186 pp. ICES, 2018. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea Ecoregions reg.27.1-2. Golden redfish (Sebastes norvegicus) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.4408 ICES 2018a Beaked redfish (Sebastes mentella) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic) Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Arctic Ocean, Barents Sea, Faroes, Greenland Sea, Published 28 September 2018 Icelandic Waters, and Norwegian Sea Ecoregions DOI: 10.17895/ices.pub.4538 reb.27.1-2 ICES. 2018b. Report of the Working Group on Elasmobranch Fishes (WGEF), 19–28 June 2018, Lisbon, Portugal. ICES CM 2018/ACOM:16. 1306 pp. ICES. 2018c. Workshop on the evaluation of harvest control rules for Sebastes mentella in ICES areas 1 and 2 (WKREBMSE). June –August 2018, by correspondence. ICES CM 2018/ACOM:52, IN PRESS.

ICES. 2019. Barents Sea Ecoregion – Ecosystem overview. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2019. ICES Advice 2019, Section 5.1, https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5747 . ICES. 2019b. Norwegian Sea Ecoregion – Ecosystem overview. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2019. ICES Advice 2019, Section 12.1, https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5748. ICES, 2019c. ICES. 2019. Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG). ICES Scientific Reports. 1:30. 934 pp. http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.5292 Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

ICES, 2019. Barents Sea Ecoregion – Fisheries overview. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2019. ICES Advice 2019, Section 5.2, http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2019/2019/FisheriesOverview_BarentsSea_2019.pdf ICES. 2020. Beaked redfish (Sebastes mentella) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2020. ICES Advice 2020, reb.27.1-2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5826 ICES. 2020b. Golden redfish (Sebastes norvegicus) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2020. ICES Advice 2020, reg.27.1-2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5827 ICES, 2020c. Working Group on the Integrated Assessments of the Barents Sea (WGIBAR). ICES Scientific Reports. 2:30. 206 pp. http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.5998 ICES 2020d http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2020/2020/ghl.27.1-2.pdf

ICES, 2020e. New information regarding vulnerable habitats in the NEAFC Regulatory Area: http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2020/2020/vme.neafc.1.pdf ICES, 2020f. New information regarding the impact of fisheries on other components of the ecosystem: http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2020/2020/vme.eu.pdf IMR-PINRO Joint report Series 2, 2019. Survey report from the joint Norwegian/Russian ecosystem survey in the Barents Sea and adjacent waters, August-October 2018. Eds: Gro I. van der Meeren, Dmitry Prozorkevich IMR-PINRO 2020 Survey report from the joint Norwegian/Russian ecosystem survey in the Barents Sea and adjacent waters, August-October 2019. IMR/PINRO Joint Report Series 1, 2020 https://www.hi.no/resources/publikasjoner/imrpinro/2010/imr-pinro_1-2010_til_web.pdf Jakobsen T. and Ozhigin V.K. (2011) The Barents Sea: Ecosystem, resources, management: Half a century of Russian- Norwegian cooperation. Tapir academic Press JOINT RUSSIAN – NORWEGIAN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PROGRAM ON LIVING MARINE RESOURCES IN 2019 https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/cb939423ea10498aac59dc3f7ac0dcd8/vedlegg-10-joint-russian-norwegian- scientific-research-programme-on-living-marine-resources-in-2019.pdf JNRFC, 2016 Documents retrieved from: www.jointfish.org Jørgensen, L. L., Ljubin, P., Skjoldal, H. R., Ingvaldsen, R. B., Anisimova, N., and Manushin, I. 2015. Distribution of benthic megafauna in the Barents Sea: baseline for an ecosystem approach to management. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 72: 595–613. Jørgensen at al 2019 – live website accessed at 22 Dec 2019; http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/index.php/en/biotic-components/182-benthos-and-shellfish-2017/772- benthos-and-shellfish Larsen, T. Nagoda, D. and Andersen, J.R. (Eds) 2003. A biodiversity assessment of the Barents Sea Ecoregion WWF https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264088202_The_Barents_Sea_ecoregion_Biodiversity_assessment Lubin 2013 (from Denisenko S.G. and Zgurovsky, K.A. 2013). Impact of trawl fishery on benthic ecosystems of the Barents Sea and opportunities to reduce negative consequences - Murmansk. WWF. 2013. 55 pp. Jorgensen Løkkeborg, S. 2005 Impacts of trawling and scallop dredging on benthic habitats and communities. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 472. Rome, FAO. 2005. 58p. Mandelman, J.W., and M.A. Farrington. 2007. The estimated short-term discard mortality of a trawled elasmobranch, the spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias). McEachran, J.D. and K.A. Dunn, 1998. Phylogenetic analysis of skates, a morphologically conservative clade of elasmobranchs (Chondrichthyes: Rajidae). Copeia 1998(2):271-290. Meenakumari, B., Bhagirathan, U. and Pravin, P. Impact of Bottom Trawling on Benthic Communities: A Review. Fishery Technology 2008, Vol. 45(1) pp: 1 – 22. Mortensen, P.B., Hovland, M., Brattegard, T. & Farestveit, R., 1995. Deep water bioherms of the Scleractinian coral Lophelia pertusa (L.) at 64° N on the Norwegian shelf: structure and associated megafauna. Sarsia 80: 145–158.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

NEAFC 2014. Recommendation 19: Protection of VMEs in NEAFC Regulatory Areas as Amended by Recommendation 09:2015; http://neafc.org/system/files/Annual-Meeting-2014-report-final.pdf Rijnsdorp, A.D., Bolam, S.G., Garcia, C., Hiddink, J.G., Hintzen, N.T., Denderen, van P.D., Kooten, T. van, 2018. Estimating sensitivity of seabed habitats to disturbance by bottom trawling based on the longevity of benthic fauna. Ecological Applications 28(5), 1302-1312. Scotland, M., 2016a. Northern North Sea proposal. Scottish Government, September 2016. 187 pp. Available online: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0050/00505824.pdf Sciberras et al. (2018) Sciberras, M., Hiddink, J.G., Jennings, S., Szostek, C.L., Hughes, K.M., Kneafsey, B., Clarke, L.J., Ellis, N., Rijnsdorp, A.D., McConnaughey, R.A., Hilborn, R., Collie, J.S., Pitcher, C.R., Amoroso, R.O., Parma, A.M., Suuronen, P., Kaiser, M.J., 2018. Response of benthic fauna to experimental bottom fishing: a global meta- analysis. Fish and Fisheries, V. 19, pp. 698–715 Spiridonov, V., Gavrilo, M., Nikolaeva, N., & Krasnova, E., 2011. Conclusion. Outlines of future marine spatial planning of the Russian Arctic. In V. Spiridonov, M. Gavrilo, N. Nikolaeva, & E. Krasnova (Eds.), Terziev, F.S. (Ed.). 1990. The Barents Sea. Hydrometeorology and Hydrochemistry of the Seas of the USSR. Vol. 1. No. 1. Meteorological and Hydrographic Conditions. Gydrometeoizdat Press, Leningrad. 280 pp. (In Russian). Atlas of the marine and coastal biodiversity of the Russian Arctic (pp. 54–56). Moscow: WWF Russia Publication

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

7.5 Principle 3 7.5.1 Principle 3 background

7.5.2 Principle 3 background

a. Jurisdiction The fishery operates in the Barents Sea, where jurisdiction is divided between Norway and Russia. The vessels operate in the Russian and the Norwegian Economic Zone, as well as the Fishery Protection Zone around Svalbard, where Norway exercises jurisdiction. A number of stocks in the Barents Sea are managed jointly by Norway and Russia in the Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission (JNRFC or the Commission). They are managed in their full area of distribution, rather than by zones. Cod and haddock have been managed jointly since the Commission was set up in 1975 and are shared 50/50 between the two countries. Saithe is managed unilaterally by Norway, but Russia has a quota agreed in quota exchange between the two countries.

a. Management set-up

The executive power in the Russian Federation is shared between the President and the Government, led by the Prime Minister. There are three main categories of federal bodies of governance: policy-making ministries (in Russian: ministerstva), implementing agencies (in Russian: agentstva) and services (in Russian: sluzhby), which often have a control function. The five most high-level ministries, among them the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Defence, as well as a number of important agencies and services, are directly subordinate to the President. The remaining are under the purview of the Government (which, for all practical purposes, is appointed by the President as well). Some agencies and services under the Government (i.e. not directly under the President) are subordinate to a specific ministry while others report directly to the Prime Minister. When the Soviet Union fell apart, the Soviet Ministry of Fisheries was turned into a Russian State Committee for Fisheries (a category that no longer exists), which after an extensive reform of Russia’s federal system of governance in 2004 was turned into today’s Federal Fisheries Agency (FFA – in Russian: Rosrybolovstvo). The FFA has interchangeably been an “independent” agency directly subordinate to the Prime Minister, and an agency subordinate to the Ministry of Agriculture – since 2012 it has been under the Ministry. In line with the overall guidance of the 2004 reform, the Ministry is responsible for the formulation of Russia’s fisheries policy, while the FFA oversees the daily management of fisheries, including the determination of specific fishing rules and the implementation of regulations set by the Ministry. Russia is a federative state consisting of 85 federal subjects (“regions”), some of which are ethnically defined, like republics and autonomous districts (in Russian: okruga) and some not, like counties (in Russian: oblasti) and territories (in Russian: krai). Between the federal and regional level, there are eight federal districts, which are primarily responsible for overseeing the implementation of federal legislation in the regions, and that regional laws and regulations are not in contradiction to federal legislation. The Northwestern Federal District covers 11 federal, among them Arkhangelsk Oblast, where the UoA fishery is based, and Murmansk Oblast, which is the ‘fishery capital’ of the Russian Northwest. Within the Russian Government, the Ministry of Agriculture interacts with other federal ministries, e.g. with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (in Russian: Minprirody) through its implementing Agency for Monitoring of Natural Resources (in Russian: Rosprirodnadzor), which carries out environmental impact assessments of fisheries regulations. The FFA has 18 territorial administrations (in Russian: upravlenia), most of which cover several federal subjects. The territorial administrations are responsible for licensing, monitoring of quota uptake, and the administration of closed areas, amongst other things. The UoA fishery is subject to the control of the Severomorsk Territorial Administration (formerly the Barents-White Sea Territorial Administration, BBTA; in Russian: BBTU). The traditional geographical entities in Soviet/Russian fisheries management are the ‘basins. Currently there are eight basins; one of them is the Northern Fisheries Basin, which includes Murmansk Oblast, Arkhangelsk Oblast, the Republic of Karelia and Nenets Autonomous Okrug. The basin level is no longer a central management level in Russia, but there are still advisory boards at basin level as well as general fishing rules that apply to the entire basin (see below).

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

In addition to the territorial administrations, which are an integral part of the FFA, the federal agency has a number of subordinate bodies of governance. One group is the rybvody (Russian acronym for fisheries administration), formally “basin administrations for fisheries and protection of biological aquatic resources”. There is one main office (Glavrybvod, literally main fisheries administration) in Moscow and 29 regional offices, including one in Murmansk Oblast, Murmanrybvod. The rybvods existed in Soviet times and had an important role in fisheries management as the Ministry of Fisheries’ main representations at the regional level, responsible, among other things, for licensing, quota control and enforcement in port and at sea. During the post-Soviet period, enforcement responsibilities have gradually been transferred to other bodies of governance (see the section on enforcement and compliance below), but the ribbons still exist and are now primarily involved in aquaculture, reproduction, and enhancement of fisheries. Other groups of organizations subordinate to the FFA are scientific institutes and educational institutions, such as universities and colleges. The main research institution is the Russian Federal Research Institute for Fisheries and Oceanography (VNIRO) with 28 regional branches, the so-called NIROs – NIRO is the Russian abbreviation for the words ‘Scientific Research Fisheries Oceanography’, used in the names of all the fisheries research institutes. The northern branch of VNIRO is called the Nikolai M. Knipovich Polar Research Institute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanography, usually referred to by its old acronym PINRO (where -INRO has replaced -NIRO in order to facilitate pronunciation). The NIROs/INRO were separate research institutes under the VNIRO umbrella until 2019, when they became integral parts of VNIRO. In addition, there are five ‘technical universities’ and nine subordinate colleges. Murmansk State Technical University used to belong in this group; it is no longer owned by the FFA, but is still under its professional supervision. Yet another group of institutions subordinate to the FFA is the federal and regional offices of the Center for Systems for Monitoring of Fisheries and Communication (Fisheries Monitoring Center). There are the technical hubs for all kinds of reporting from vessels, including electronic logbooks, and vessel monitoring systems (VMS). There are eight regional Monitoring Centers, including one Murmansk Oblast for the Northern Fishery Basin. Just like the federal level of governance, regional authorities in Russia have their own executive, legislative and judicial powers. The executive power is led by a Governor’s office with a subordinate ‘regional administration’ or ‘government’ (either designation can be used), which in turn consists of a number of departments (where there is a regional administration) or ministries (where there is a government). Murmansk Oblast a government of 18 ministries and five committees, including the Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture, which is not to be confused with the Federal Fisheries Agency’s regional office, the Severomorsk Territorial Administration (see above) – the former is subordinate to the (regional) Governor, the latter to the (federal) Minister of Agriculture. The role of the Governor’s office in the management of fisheries in the region is limited. Among its main responsibilities, in addition to providing support to the region’s fishing companies and fish processing plants, is the management of recreational fisheries and distribution of a small quota share to the indigenous people of the region, the Sámi. The Government of Arkhangelsk Oblast does not have a separate ministry for fisheries, but among the responsibilities of the Ministry of Agriculture is to provide support to the region’s fishing industry. The executive body at governmental level in Norway is the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries, while the practical regulation of fisheries is delegated to the Directorate of Fisheries. Enforcement at sea is taken care of by the Coast Guard, which is part of the Royal Norwegian Navy, but performs tasks on behalf of several ministries, including the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries. Scientific research is conducted by the Institute of Marine Research. Fisheries management authorities coordinate their regulatory work with that of other bodies of governance, for instance the Ministry of Climate and Environment and the Norwegian Environmental Agency, which are responsible for the implementation of the integrated management plans for different marine areas under Norwegian jurisdiction.

b. Laws and regulations

Norway and Russia set their own fishing rules in their respective economic zones, and for Norway in the Protection Zone around Svalbard as well. Since the mid-1990s, the two countries have worked actively to harmonize regulations in their respective zones. Both countries have well-established systems for fisheries management, evolved over more than a century and now codified in the Norwegian 2008 Marine Resources Act and the 2004 Russian Federal Fisheries Act, respectively, and supplementary legislation. The most important practical fishing rules are found in the Norwegian Regulation on the Execution of Marine Fisheries, which is updated annually, and the Russian Rules for Fishing in the Northern Fishery Basin of the Russian Federation, which were adopted in 2014 and last revised in 2017. These regulatory documents in both countries set rules, now largely harmonized between them, on closed areas, fishing gear (e.g. mesh size), by-catch and minimal allowable size of different species, among other things.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

The Federal Fisheries Act of the Russian Federation was signed in 2004 and underwent major revisions in 2007 and 2014. This is a framework law, and a number of supporting legal documents have been issued to implement the intensions behind the revisions. Specific regulations are given at the level of fishery basins. Current regulations for the Barents Sea in both Norway and Russia provide, among other things, rules for closed areas, fishing gear (e.g. mesh size), by-catch and minimal allowable size of different species. These measures by and large reflect decisions made at bilateral level with Norway in the JNRFC. A number of specific national fishery rules have been harmonised by the JNRFC since the mid-1990s, or jointly introduced by the two countries. These include the minimum mesh size of 130 mm, harmonised in 2009, and minimum fish size of 44 cm for cod and 40 cm for haddock, harmonised in 2010. Conversion factors were harmonised in 1997 and the procedures for closing and opening of fishing grounds in 1999 (with later updates). Mandatory use of selection grids was jointly introduced by the parties in 1997 and satellite tracking of all fishing vessels in 2001. Other important legislation at the federal level in Russia includes the Federal Act on the Protection of the Environment (10 January 2002), the Federal Act on the Exclusive Economic Zone of the Russian Federation (17 December 1998) and the Federal Act on the Continental Shelf of the Russian Federation (30 November 1995).

c. Objectives

The precautionary approach has been in practical use by the JNRFC since the late 1990s, when ICES’ precautionary reference points were adopted for the Barents Sea stocks. The harvest control rule established by the JNRFC in 2002 is explicitly founded on the precautionary approach. Likewise, the 2010 agreement between Norway and Russia on marine delimitation and cooperation in the Barents Sea explicitly states that fisheries management in the area shall be based on the precautionary approach. The 2008 Marine Resources Act requires that Norwegian fisheries management be guided by the precautionary approach, in line with international treaties and guidelines, and by an ecosystem approach that takes into account habitats and biodiversity. The same objectives are found in the most relevant policy documents, such as the integrated management plan for the Barents and Norwegian Seas. Russian fisheries law defines protection and rational use of aquatic biological resources as the main goal of the country’s fisheries management. ‘Protection and rational use’ was an established concept in Soviet legislation on the protection of the environment and exploitation of natural resources, and has remained so in the Russian Federation. ‘Rational use’ bears resemblance to the internationally recognized ideal of sustainability, insofar as the emphasis is on long-term and sustained use of the resource, supported by science for socio-economic purposes. The Federal Fisheries Act states that the protection of aquatic biological resources shall be given priority to their rational use. The precautionary approach is not mentioned explicitly, but the requirement to protect aquatic biological resources and take the best scientific knowledge into account equals the requirements of the precautionary approach, as laid out in the FAO Code of Conduct and its technical guidelines. The Russian Federation has signed and ratified a number of international agreements which adopt the precautionary approach, including the 1995 UN Straddling Stocks Agreement, and works actively in international organisations or arrangements which explicitly adhere to the precautionary approach to fisheries management, such as ICES and NEAFC. The provisions of international agreements entered into by the Russian Federation stood above those of national law according to the 1993 Russian Constitution, but that was changed when the Constitution was subjected to its first major revision in 2020.

d. Stakeholders and consultation processes

A number of bodies of governance, industry organisations and research institutions are involved in the management of Russian fisheries. The formal arena for interaction between the Russian fishing industry and the government are the advisory bodies, the so-called fishery councils, found at federal, basin and regional levels. At the federal level, the Public Fisheries Council was established in 2008 on the basis of the requirement in the Federal Public Chamber Act to have a public council for most federal bodies of governance. Basin-level and regional fishery councils have existed since Soviet times, and the 2004 Federal Fisheries Act makes them mandatory for all basins and regions located on their territory. The rules of procedures for ‘basin scientific and fishery councils’ in the Russian Federation were approved in 2008. They state that the councils shall advice on a wide range of fishery-related issues, including conduct of fisheries in the relevant region; control and surveillance; conservation; recovery and harvesting of aquatic biological resources; distribution of quotas and other issues of importance to ensure sustainable management of fisheries. Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Russia has an extensive system of fisheries research in oceanography, biology of marine organisms, resource assessment, fishing gear and processing technology, among other things. Research institutes subordinate to the FFA are highly integrated in the management process and also participate in the fishery councils at different levels. As follows from the above, the FFA is the implementing body for fishery policies under the Ministry of Agriculture. The Federal Border Service (since 2003 part of the Federal Security Service, the FSB) is responsible for enforcement at sea. The Barents and White Sea Territorial Administration of the Federal Fisheries Agency (the BBTA) was established in 2007 as the implementing body of the Federal Fisheries Agency in the Northern basin, located in Murmansk. In 2019, it was renamed Severomorsk Territorial Administration after the neighbouring naval base town. There is a strong Russian (and previously Soviet) tradition of stakeholder consultation in the management process. The fishery councils at different (referred to above) consist of representatives of the fishing industry, federal executive authorities, executive bodies of the Russian federal subjects (the regions), research institutions and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), including the indigenous people of the North, Siberia and the Far East. The current regulations of the Northern Basin Scientific and Fishery Council were given in 2002 and corresponding regulations for the Murmansk Territorial Fishery Council in 2005, stating, inter alia, that the council shall contribute to a harmonised fishery policy in the region, liaise between the fishing industry, fishery authorities, scientific institutions and NGOs. In addition, the Fishing Industry Union of the North (FIUN) has developed into an important lobbying organisation in the Northern fishery basin, with direct access to the highest levels of federal authorities. At a more general level, all new federal regulations in Russia have to go through public hearings; i.e. all draft proposals for new regulations have to be published at the website https://regulation.gov.ru, administered by the Ministry of Economic Development, where the public are given 15–30 days to provide their comments. Further, the FFA has a dedicated ‘Open Agency’ initiative which is comprehensively detailed on their website. In addition to the use of the Public Chamber and consultation bodies at lower level, this includes the use of internet conferences with citizens, reference groups to discuss policy initiatives, and a general objective to increase public access to information.

e. Enforcement and sanctions

The UoA fishery takes place in waters under both Norwegian and Russian jurisdiction, and the catch is landed in Norway and Russia. Hence, the enforcement systems of both must be assessed. In addition, a portion of catches is transshipped to transport vessels and brought to the Netherlands. These landings fall under the NEAFC port state control regime. All landings in Norway are registered by the Norwegian Fishermen’s Sales Organisation and checked towards catch information sent electronically to the Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries after each haul, as well as before entering the Norwegian Economic Zone (NEZ). The Norwegian Food Safety Authority checks all landings by foreign vessels in Norwegian ports, while the Directorate of Fisheries conducts physical inspections of at least 15 % of these landings. The Norwegian Coast Guard performs spot checks at sea (in the NEZ and the Protection Zone around Svalbard), including from helicopters during fishing activities and inspections at check points that foreign vessels have to pass when entering or leaving the NEZ and in connection with transshipments in Norwegian waters, which have to be reported in advance. Coast Guard inspectors board fishing vessels and control the catch from last haul (e.g. catch composition and fish size) and fishing gear (e.g. mesh size) on deck and the volume of fish in the holds. Using the established conversion factors for the relevant fish product, the inspectors calculate the volume of the fish in round weight and compare this with the catches reported to the Directorate through the logbooks. Both landing and at-sea control is conducted using a risk-based framework aimed at utilizing resources to optimize compliance at any given moment. In Russia, the FFA (in the northern basin: Severomorsk Territorial Administration, as the Agency’s regional branch) keeps track of how much fish each vessel and company (quotas are given to companies, not vessels in Russia) has fished at any moment, based on daily reports from each fishing vessels and accumulated reports each 15th day from all fishing companies, as well as VMS data. The Inspection Service of the Russian Border Guard, which is part of the Federal Security Service (FSB), conducts inspections at sea and in port. Fish caught in the REZ must be taken to Murmansk for customs clearance, but some of it is subsequently transshipped for export. The Border Guard conducts random inspections at sea during fishing, following the same procedures as the Norwegian Coast Guard, with inspection of documentation, fish from last haul, gear and catch in holds. It also conducts physical inspections of all transhipments at sea (weather conditions allowing) and at the control points that all foreign vessels – and Russian vessels having fished outside the REZ – have to go through when entering and leaving the REZ. When Russian vessels land in other European ports, they are subject to the NEAFC port state control scheme, which implies that the port state has to check with the flag state that the landed catch is counted towards a quota, inspect a fixed share of

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe the catch physically, and inform the flag state of the landed volumes. Both Norwegian and Russian inspectors have the authority to close an area with too much juvenile or bycatch (real-time closure). Enforcement bodies on both sides – the Coast Guard and the Directorate of Fisheries in Norway and the Severomorsk Territorial Administration of the FFA and the Border Guard in Russia – cooperate closely in the enforcement of fisheries regulations in the Barents Sea, including running exchange of inspection data and more analytical material related to compliance, as well as regular exchange of inspectors both at sea and in port. Inspection procedures have also been harmonised between the two countries. The Norwegian Coast Guard carried out 1139 inspections in waters under Norwegian jurisdiction in 2019 (see SI 3.2.3c below on infringement rates). The client has provided the assessment team with a list of at-sea inspections of all its vessels during 2019. The 17 vessels that were in operation in the Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe fishery that year were inspected 46 times by the Norwegian Coast Guard and 15 times by the FSB (as well as once by NEAFC inspectors and once by the Danish Fish Control), i.e. one average close to four times per year. This is considered a satisfactory level of at-sea inspection given that the inspections involve a full physical check of all fish products in the vessels’ holds at the time of inspection, data from which are compared with catch information submitted to the enforcement authorities in the electronic logbooks. Notably, this comes in addition to physical inspection of the catch at all landings in Norway and Russia as well as all transshipments. When fish is landed in the Netherlands, the catch is physically checked in accordance with the NEAFC port state control regime provisions.

The Russian sanctioning system makes wide use of administrative fines and refers serious cases to the judicial system. The Russian Federal Fisheries Act requires the withdrawal of quota rights in the following situations, inter alia: i) the company fails to take 50 % of its quota two years in a row; ii) the company has committed two serious violations of the fisheries regulations within one calendar year; iii) the company has failed to go to Russian port with catch taken in the REZ; iv) the vessel has switched off the VMS system for more than 48 hours within a calendar year without approval from the authorities. The Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Infractions specifies the level of fines that can be issued administratively by enforcement bodies, e.g. up to RUR 5,000 for ‘citizens’, 50,000 for executive officers’ and 200,000 for companies. The Criminal Code requires that illegal fishing such as causing ‘large damage’, conducted in spawning areas or migration ways leading to such areas, or in marine protected areas, be penalized by either fines up to RUR 300,000 or an amount corresponding to 1-2 years’ income for the violator, compulsory work of no less than 480 hours, corrective work for at least two years or arrest for at least 6 months. In Norway, statutory authority for the use of sanctions in the event of infringements of fisheries regulations is given in the Marine Resources Act. Intentional or negligent violations are punished with fines or prison up to one year, while infringements committed with gross intent or negligence may be punished with prison up to six years. In the judgment of the seriousness of the infringement, the economic gain of the violation, among other things, is to be taken into consideration. Alternatively, catch, gear, vessels or other properties can be confiscated.

f. Review of the management system

There are various mechanisms in place to evaluate key parts of the fishery-specific management system, but at varied levels of ambition and coverage. At the fishery councils meetings, found at federal, basin and regional levels (see PI 3.1.2 above), management authorities receive feedback on management practices from the industry and other interested stakeholders, including NGOs. The FFA and the Ministry of Agriculture report annually to the Government and the Presidential Administration about their work, with emphasis on achievements in the fishing industry. If progress is slow on specific parameters, the management system must be revised to accommodate further progress. Other federal agencies also review parts of the fisheries management system. For instance, the Auditor General evaluates how allocated funds are spent, and the Anti-Monopoly Service how competition and investment rules are observed. Within FFA, there is regular review of the performance of the Agency’s regional offices. Recommendations from the regional fishery councils are important in the regional offices’ feedback to the federal office. In the establishment of TACs, the scientific advice from PINRO is peer reviewed by the federal fisheries research institute, VNIRO, and then forwarded to FFA and the federal natural resources monitoring agency Rosprirodnadzor for comments. It is also presented to the general public for discussion at public hearings, announced in the local press. Further, the fishery-specific management system is subject to various forms of review by ICES. For instance, ICES has reviewed the harvest control rules for cod and haddock on several occasions. There is a comprehensive system

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe of routine monitoring of information relevant for management decision making and stock assessment purposes, although not of the management system as such. In 2005, the Russian Auditor General invited his Norwegian counterpart to conduct a parallel audit of the Barents Sea fisheries. After this work was finished in 2007, the two parties continued to monitor developments in follow-up meetings.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Principle 3 Performance Indicator scores and rationales

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: - Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); PI 3.1.1 - Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and - Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management There is an effective national There is an effective national There is an effective national legal system and a legal system and organised legal system and binding framework for cooperation and effective cooperation procedures governing a Guide with other parties, where with other parties, where cooperation with other necessary, to deliver necessary, to deliver parties which delivers post management outcomes management outcomes management outcomes consistent with MSC consistent with MSC consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2 Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2.

Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The fishery largely takes place in the Norwegian Economic Zone and the Fishery Protection Zone around Svalbard, which is also under Norwegian jurisdiction. Some of it takes place in the Russian Economic Zone. Catches are partly landed in Norwegian and Russian ports, partly transhipped to transport vessels and landed in the Netherlands. Hence, the national management systems of both Norway and Russia must be assessed in addition to the international level, i.e. the bilateral level between Norway and Russia. The NEAFC port state control regime is relevant for the assessment of enforcement in the fishery; cf. SI 3.2.3a below. Barents Sea cod and haddock are shared stocks between Norway and Russia. Norway and the Soviet Union agreed in 1975 to set up a Joint Norwegian–Soviet (later: –Russian) Fisheries Commission (JNRFC) and to treat cod and haddock as joint stocks to be split 50/50 between them. Capelin, Greenland halibut and red fish have later been added to the list, with varying distribution keys, all in Norway’s favour. The Commission sets TAC for the joint stocks and coordinates research, regulatory and enforcement cooperation between the parties. Within the context of the Commission, the parties also exchange quota shares of their respective exclusive stocks. Saithe is a Norwegian exclusive stock, but a quota is given to Russia in quota exchange between the two countries. Norway and Russia set their own fishing rules in their respective economic zones, and for Norway in the Protection Zone around Svalbard as well. Since the mid-1990s, the two countries have worked actively to harmonize regulations in their respective zones. Both countries have well-established systems for fisheries management, evolved over more than a century and now codified in the Norwegian 2008 Marine Resources Act and the 2004 Russian Federal Fisheries Act, respectively, and supplementary legislation. The most important practical fishing rules are found in the Norwegian Regulation on the Execution of Marine Fisheries, which is updated annually, and the Russian Rules for Fishing in the Northern Fishery Basin of the Russian Federation, which were adopted in 2014 and last revised in 2017. These regulatory documents in both countries set rules, now largely harmonized between them, on closed areas, fishing gear (e.g. mesh size), by-catch and minimal allowable size of different species, among other things. The Northern basin in practice includes Russian fisheries in the northern Atlantic, but if formally defined as covering fishing activities conducted from the follow four federal subjects (regions) of the Russian Federation: Murmansk and Arkhangelsk Oblasts, the Republic of Karelia and Nenets Autonomous Region. In practice, fisheries in the Northern basin are managed in and largely operated from Murmansk, although companies located in the other three regions also have quotas.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

The executive body at governmental level in Norway is the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries, while the practical regulation of fisheries is delegated to the Directorate of Fisheries. Enforcement at sea is taken care of by the Coast Guard, which is part of the Royal Norwegian Navy, but performs tasks on behalf of several ministries, including the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries. Scientific research is conducted by the Institute of Marine Research. Fisheries management authorities coordinate their regulatory work with that of other bodies of governance, for instance the Ministry of Climate and Environment and the Norwegian Environmental Agency, which are responsible for the implementation of the integrated management plans for different marine areas under Norwegian jurisdiction. Within the Russian Government, fisheries policy falls under the purview of the Ministry of Agriculture (Minselkhoz). The implementing body for fisheries management under the Ministry is the Federal Fisheries Agency (FFA – in Russian: Rosrybolovstvo), which is the successor of the former State Committee for Fisheries (abolished in 2004), and in turn the Soviet Ministry of Fisheries. The Federal Border Service (since 2003 part of the Federal Security Service, the FSB) is responsible for enforcement at sea. The FFA has 18 territorial administrations (in Russian: upravlenia), most of which cover several federal subjects. The territorial administrations are responsible for licensing, monitoring of quota uptake, and the administration of closed areas, amongst other things. The UoA fishery is subject to the control of the Severomorsk Territorial Administration (formerly the Barents-White Sea Territorial Administration, BBTA; in Russian: BBTU). Within the Russian Government, the Ministry of Agriculture interacts with other federal ministries, e.g. with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (Minprirody) through its implementing Agency for Monitoring of Natural Resources (Rosprirodnadzor), which carries out environmental impact assessments of fisheries regulations. In Murmansk Oblast (country), the Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture (at the Governor’s office, the executive branch of government at regional level in Russia) is responsible for inland fisheries, recreational fisheries and the distribution of the indigenous peoples’ quota (see SI 3.1.1c below). Hence, there is an effective national legal system in place and a framework for cooperation with other parties to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. SG 60 is met. The cooperation between Norway and the Russia in the Barents Sea can be characterised as organised and effective. SG 80 is met. It also contains binding procedures insofar as it is based on national law and binding international agreements. SG 100 is met.

Resolution of disputes The management system The management system The management system incorporates or is subject by incorporates or is subject by incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism for the law to a transparent law to a transparent b Guide resolution of legal disputes mechanism for the resolution mechanism for the resolution arising within the system. of legal disputes which is of legal disputes that is post considered to be effective appropriate to the context of in dealing with most issues the fishery and has been and that is appropriate to the tested and proven to be context of the UoA. effective. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

At national level in Norway and Russia, there are effective, transparent dispute resolution mechanisms in place, as fishers can take their case to court if they do not accept the rationale behind an infringement accusation by enforcement authorities or the fees levied against them. Verdicts at the lower court levels can be appealed to higher levels. In both countries, however, most disputes are solved within the national systems for fisheries management, not requiring judicial treatment. There are well-established systems of consultation with user groups (see SI 3.1.2b below), transparent for actors within the fishing industry. At the international level, the JNRFC has a fine-meshed system of consultations between Norway and Russia at different levels of its administrative structure. The Permanent Committee, established in 1993, is of particular importance in clearing out differences that arise between the parties at the level of the Commission itself. The Permanent Committee also has several working groups where delegates from the two countries are set to find compromise when agreement cannot be reached in the Commission or the Permanent Committee. This has proven to be a very effective mechanism for resolving disputes between the two countries, where both parties take a pragmatic Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe approach and intend to find compromise even if that takes several years in some instances. The system is transparent in that protocols from sessions in the JNRFC and minutes from meetings in the Permanent Committee and the working groups are publicly available on the Commission’s website. At a wider international level, a state can institute proceedings against another state through mechanisms such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) or bring a dispute to international arbitration. At the regional level, the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) in 2004 adopted a recommendation for compulsory dispute settlement. It has not been necessary in the fishery under assessment to resort to these mechanisms as all disputes have been resolved in the Permanent Committee and its working groups. Hence, the management system incorporates or is subject by law (national legislation in Norway and Russia as well as binding treaty between the two countries) to a mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes. SG 60 is met. These mechanisms are transparent and considered to be effective in dealing with most issues and is appropriate to the context of the UoA. SG 80 is met. It has been tested and proven to be effective since all disputes between the two parties have indeed been resolved within the regime since its establishment in 1975. SG 100 is met.

Respect for rights The management system has The management system has The management system has a mechanism to generally a mechanism to observe the a mechanism to formally respect the legal rights legal rights created explicitly commit to the legal rights created explicitly or or established by custom of created explicitly or c Guide established by custom of people dependent on fishing established by custom of post people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the for food and livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. 1 and 2. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The Norwegian system for fisheries management includes various mechanisms that generally respect and observe the rights of the coastal population along the country’s northern, western and southern coast. For the most important species, significantly and proportionately larger quota shares are allotted to coastal fisheries than to the ocean going fleet (see, for instance, the Regulation on Participation in Fisheries for an overview), with particular attention to the traditional fisheries of the coastal Sami population in the northernmost part of the country. The Sami Parliament, which is a consultative body for the indigenous Sami population on Norwegian territory, is consulted on all management measures, including the distribution of the national quota, related to species of particular historic importance to the Sami. The Government has formally committed to this through the 2005 Royal Decree on Consultations with the Sami Parliament. In Russia, the rights of fishery-dependent communities are explicitly stated in the Federal Fisheries Act. The Act states that ‘the small indigenous peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East’ (ethnic groups with a ‘traditional’ lifestyle consisting of less than 50,000 people) shall be given access to fish resources in order to secure their livelihood. It gives ‘fisheries to protect the traditional lifestyle of small indigenous peoples of the North Siberia and the Far East’ extended rights compared to the other types of fisheries listed in the Act (e.g., ‘industrial fisheries’, ‘coastal fisheries’ and ‘fisheries for scientific and enforcement purposes’). In the Northern basin, a fixed quota of cod and haddock (300 and 75 tonnes, respectively) is given to the Saami, based on their traditional fishing rights in the region. Hence, the management system has a mechanism to generally respect the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. SG 60 is met. The system has a mechanism to observe such rights, so SG 80 is also met. Since it is founded in law, the mechanism formally commits to these rights, and SG 100 is met.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

References

Avtale mellom Norge og Sovjetunionen om gjensidige fiskeriforbindelser (‘Agreement between Norway and the Soviet Union on Mutual Fisheries Relations’), signed in Moscow 15 October 1976. Available in Overenskomster med fremmede stater (‘Agreements with Foreign States’), Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norway, 1977, p. 974. Avtale mellom Norge og Sovjetunionen om samarbeid innen fiskerinæringen (‘Agreement between Norway and the Soviet Union on Cooperation within the Fishing Industry’), signed in Moscow 11 April 1975. Available in Overenskomster med fremmede stater (‘Agreements with Foreign States’), Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norway, 1975, p. 546. ФЕДЕРАЛЬНЫЙ ЗАКОН О РЫБОЛОВСТВЕ И СОХРАНЕНИИ ВОДНЫХ БИОЛОГИЧЕСКИХ РЕСУРСОВ (‘Federal Act on Fisheries and Protection of Aquatic Biological Resources’ – Federal Fisheries Act), N 166-ФЗ, Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, 2004 (last revised 2014). J-3-2021: Deltakerforskriften (‘Regulation on Participation in Fisheries’), Directorate of Fisheries, Norway, 6 January 2021. J-31-2021: Forskrift om utøvelse av fisket i sjøen (‘Regulation on the Execution of Marine Fisheries’), Directorate of Fisheries, Norway, 2 February 2021. Jørgensen, Anne-Kristin, ‘Рыбноe хозяйствo и управлениe отраслью в России’ (‘The fishing industry and fisheries management in Russia’), in Anne-Kristin Jørgensen and Geir Hønneland, Общее море, общие задачи: Сравнительный анализ рамочных условий рыбной отрасли России и Норвегии (‘Common sea, common challenges: a comparative analysis of the framework conditions for the fishing industries in Russia and Norway’), Lysaker: Fridtjof Nansen Institute, 2015. Lov om forvaltning av viltlevande marine ressursar (havressurslova), LOV-2008-06-06-37 (‘Marine Resources Act’), Parliament of Norway (Stortinget), 2008. Meld. St. 10 (2010–2011) Oppdatering av forvaltningsplanen for det marine miljø i Barentshavet og havområdene utenfor Lofoten (‘Update of the [Integrated] Management Plan for the Marine Environment in the Barents Sea and the Marine Area outside Lofoten’), Ministry of Climate and Environment, Norway, 2011. NEAFC Dispute Resolution Mechanism, Annex K – Amendment of the Convention on Dispute Settlement, 2004. ОБ УТВЕРЖДЕНИИ ПРАВИЛ РЫБОЛОВСТВА ДЛЯ СЕВЕРНОГО РЫБОХОЗЯЙСТВЕННОГО БАССЕЙНА (‘On the Confirmation of Fisheries Regulations for the Northern Fishery Basin’), N 414, Ministry of Agriculture, the Russian Federation, 2014 (last revised 2017). Prosedyrer for konsultasjoner med Sametinget, Kgl. res. 04/186 (‘Royal Decree on Procedures for Consultations with the Sami Parliament’), Government of Norway, 2005. Protocols from the annual sessions of the JNRFC, available in Norwegian and Russian on the Commission’s website (www.jointfish.org).

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

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Condition number (if relevant)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Roles and responsibilities Organisations and individuals Organisations and individuals Organisations and individuals involved in the management involved in the management involved in the management process have been identified. process have been identified. process have been identified. a Guide Functions, roles and Functions, roles and Functions, roles and post responsibilities are generally responsibilities are explicitly responsibilities are explicitly understood. defined and well defined and well understood for key areas of understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction. responsibility and interaction. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The functions, roles and responsibilities of the different countries involved in the management of the Barents Sea fisheries, as well as of the different organisations and individuals involved at the national level, are explicitly defined in international agreements and national laws and regulations, as well as in long-standing practice; see SI 3.1.1a for an overview of the main state bodies engaged in the management of the fishery, and SI 3.1.2b for an overview of non- governmental organisations involved. Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified, and according to the submitted client checklist, their functions, roles and responsibilities are generally understood. SG 60 is met. The functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined in legislation and long-standing practice and well understood for key areas of responsibility and interaction. SG 80 is met. It remains to be seen at interviews during the site visit whether these are well understood for all areas. At this point SG100 is not met.

Consultation processes The management system The management system The management system includes consultation includes consultation includes consultation processes that obtain processes that regularly processes that regularly relevant information from seek and accept relevant seek and accept relevant b Guide the main affected parties, information, including local information, including local post including local knowledge, to knowledge. The management knowledge. The management inform the management system demonstrates system demonstrates system. consideration of the consideration of the information obtained. information and explains how it is used or not used. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Norway has a long tradition of including non-governmental organisations in fisheries management, with continuous consultation and close cooperation between governmental agencies and user-group organisations, in particular the Norwegian Fishermen’s Association, but also the more specialized organisations such as the fishermen’s sales organisations. As these organisations have regional branches, whose representatives are actively involved in Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe policymaking, ensuring that local knowledge is also taken into consideration in the management process. So-called Regulatory Meetings are organized twice a year are open to all; user-group organisations and NGOs attend on a regular basis. In addition, there is day-to-day contact by telephone and email between authorities, user groups and other interested parties. Distribution of the national quota between different gear and fishing fleets has in practice been delegated to the Norwegian Association of Fishermen, which includes all fishermen from the smallest coastal vessels to ocean-going trawlers. Technical regulation measures are to a large extent decided upon in direct consultations ‘over the table’ between authorities and user groups at the Regulatory Meetings. As mentioned under SI 3.1.1c above, the Sami Parliament is formally consulted in the management of fisheries that are of historical importance to the Sami population. Similarly, there is a strong Russian (and previously Soviet) tradition of stakeholder consultation in fisheries management. A formal arena for interaction between the Russian fishing industry and the government are the advisory bodies, the so-called fishery councils, found at federal, basin and regional levels. At the federal level, the Public Fisheries Council was established in 2008 on the basis of the requirement in the Federal Public Chamber Act to have a public council for most federal bodies of governance. Basin-level and regional fishery councils have existed since Soviet times, and the 2004 Federal Fisheries Act makes them mandatory for all basins and regions located on their territory. Rules of procedures for ‘basin scientific and fishery councils’ in the Russian Federation were adopted in 2008. They state that the councils shall advice on a wide range of fishery-related issues, including conduct of fisheries in the relevant region; control and surveillance; conservation; recovery and harvesting of aquatic biological resources; distribution of quotas and other issues of importance to ensure sustainable management of fisheries. The fishery councils consist of representatives of the fishing industry, federal executive authorities, executive bodies of the Russian federal subjects (the regions), research institutions and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), including the indigenous people of the North, Siberia and the Far East. Hence, in the Northern basin (covering the counties of Murmansk and Arkhangelsk, the Republic of Karelia and Nenets Autonomous Region) both federal authorities (the FFA through its representation in Murmansk, Severomorsk Territorial Administration) and regional authorities (the Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture under the Governor) meet regularly with representatives of the fishing industry (individual companies and associations such as the Fishing Industry Union of the North (FIUN) and the Association of coastal fisheries in Murmansk Oblast). WWF-Russia is represented on the federal public council, but not on the regional. This makes sense since policy making takes place at the federal level – the regional level is more oriented towards monitoring of the fishery. The current regulations of the Northern Basin Scientific and Fishery Council were given in 2002 and corresponding regulations for the Murmansk Territorial Fishery Council in 2005, stating, inter alia, that the council shall contribute to a harmonised fishery policy in the region, liaise between the fishing industry, fishery authorities, scientific institutions and NGOs. At a more general level, all new federal regulations in Russia have to go through public hearings; i.e. all draft proposals for new regulations have to be published at the website https://regulation.gov.ru, administered by the Ministry of Economic Development, where the public are given 15–30 days to provide their comments. (For public hearings in the fishery-specific management system, see PI 3.2.4 below.) Further, the FFA has a dedicated ‘Open Agency’ initiative which is comprehensively detailed on their website. In addition to the use of the Public Chamber and consultation bodies at lower level, this includes the use of internet conferences with citizens, reference groups to discuss policy initiatives, and a general objective to increase public access to information. User groups from both countries also participate in the respective national delegations to the JNRFC and regular fishery consultations with third countries. Management authorities actively seek advice from user groups in preparation for the international consultations and negotiations. Hence, the management system includes consultation processes that obtain relevant information from the main affected parties, including local knowledge, to inform the management system. SG 60 is met. The processes regularly seek and accept relevant information, and the management system demonstrates consideration of the information obtained. SG 80 is met. It is at this stage not clear whether the authorities provide adequate explanations of how stakeholders’ input is used or not used.SG 100 is not met.

Participation The consultation process The consultation process c Guide provides opportunity for all provides opportunity and

post interested and affected encouragement for all parties to be involved. interested and affected

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement. Met? Yes No

Rationale

As follows from SI 3.1.2b above, the consultation processes provide opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved at both national and international level. Meetings are publicly announced, and authorities encourage all interested parties, including NGOs and the media, to attend. The various hearing opportunities available online also contribute to encouraging and facilitating public involvement. Hence, the consultation process provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved. SG 80 is met. It has not been adequately documented that authorities not only provide opportunity, but actively encourage all parties to be involved and facilitate their effective engagement. SG 100 is not met.

References

ФЕДЕРАЛЬНЫЙ ЗАКОН О РЫБОЛОВСТВЕ И СОХРАНЕНИИ ВОДНЫХ БИОЛОГИЧЕСКИХ РЕСУРСОВ (‘Federal Act on fisheries and protection of aquatic biological resources’ – Federal Fisheries Act), N 166-ФЗ, Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, 2004 (last revised 2014). Jørgensen, Anne-Kristin, ‘Рыбноe хозяйствo и управлениe отраслью в России’ (‘The fishing industry and fisheries management in Russia’), in Anne-Kristin Jørgensen and Geir Hønneland, Общее море, общие задачи: Сравнительный анализ рамочных условий рыбной отрасли России и Норвегии (‘Common sea, common challenges: a comparative analysis of the framework conditions for the fishing industries in Russia and Norway’), Lysaker: Fridtjof Nansen Institute, 2015. Lov om forvaltning av viltlevande marine ressursar (havressurslova), LOV-2008-06-06-37 (‘Marine Resources Act’), Parliament of Norway (Stortinget), 2008. Об образовании Общественного совета при Федеральном агентстве по рыболовству (‘On the formation of a public chamber under the Federal Fisheries Agency’), N 301, Federal Fisheries Agency, Russian Federation, 2008. Об утверждении Положения о Северном научно-промысловом совете и Положения о Рабочей группе Северного научно-промыслового совета (‘On the confirmation of the Order of a Northern scientific and fishery council and the Order of a working group of the Northern scientific and fishery council’), Federal Fisheries Agency, Russian Federation, 2002. ОБ УТВЕРЖДЕНИИ ПОРЯДКА ДЕЯТЕЛЬНОСТИ БАССЕЙНОВЫХ НАУЧНО-ПРОМЫСЛОВЫХ СОВЕТОВ (‘On the confirmation of arrangements for basin scientific and fishery councils’), Federal Fisheries Agency, Russian Federation, 2008. ОБ УТВЕРЖДЕНИИ ПОЛОЖЕНИЯ О ПОРЯДКЕ ДЕЯТЕЛЬНОСТИ ТЕРРИТОРИАЛЬНОГО РЫБОХОЗЯЙСТВЕННОГО СОВЕТА МУРМАНСКОЙ ОБЛАСТИ И ЕГО СОСТАВА (‘On the confirmation of arrangements for the territorial fishery council of Murmansk Oblast and its composition’), N 239-ПП/8, the Government of Murmansk Oblast, Russian Federation, 2005 (last revised 2016). ОБ УТВЕРЖДЕНИИ ПРАВИЛ РЫБОЛОВСТВА ДЛЯ СЕВЕРНОГО РЫБОХОЗЯЙСТВЕННОГО БАССЕЙНА (‘On the confirmation of fisheries regulations for the Northern fishery basin’), N 414, Ministry of Agriculture, Russian Federation, 2014 (last revised 2017). ПОЛОЖЕНИЕ об Общественном совете при Баренцево-Беломорском территориальном управлении Федерального агентства по рыболовству (‘Regulation on the Fishery Council at the Barents and White Sea Territorial Administration of the Federal Fisheries Agency’), N 61, Federal Fisheries Agency, Russian Federation, 2014. Prosedyrer for konsultasjoner med Sametinget, Kgr. res. 04/186 (‘Royal Decree on Procedures for Consultations with the Sami Parliament’), Government of Norway, 2005.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Protocols from the annual sessions of the JNRFC, available in Norwegian and Russian on the Commission’s website (www.jointfish.org). Referat fra reguleringsmøtet 6. og 7. november 2019 (‘Minutes from the Regulatory Meeting 6 and 7 November 2019’), Directorate of Fisheries, Norway, 2019. Reguleringsmøte 2020 (online) (‘Regulatory Meeting 2020 (online)), available at https://www.fiskeridir.no/Yrkesfiske/Dokumenter/Reguleringsmoetet2/Hoeringer-av-reguleringer-for-2021- reguleringsmoetet.

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

Draft scoring range ≥80 More information sought

More information sought on whether functions, roles and responsibilities of the management Information gap indicator system are well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction, and whether the authorities provide information on how stakeholder input is used or not used.

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

Condition number (if relevant)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making that PI 3.1.3 are consistent with MSC Fisheries Standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Objectives Long-term objectives to guide Clear long-term objectives Clear long-term objectives decision-making, consistent that guide decision-making, that guide decision-making, Guide with the MSC Fisheries consistent with MSC consistent with MSC a Standard and the Fisheries Standard and the Fisheries Standard and the post precautionary approach, are precautionary approach are precautionary approach, are implicit within management explicit within management explicit within and required policy. policy. by management policy. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

References

Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (Fish Stocks Agreement), New York, 4 August 1995. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, FAO, Rome, 31 October 1995. Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

ФЕДЕРАЛЬНЫЙ ЗАКОН О РЫБОЛОВСТВЕ И СОХРАНЕНИИ ВОДНЫХ БИОЛОГИЧЕСКИХ РЕСУРСОВ (‘Federal Act on fisheries and protection of aquatic biological resources’ – Federal Fisheries Act), N 166-ФЗ, Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, 2004 (last revised 2014). ОБ УТВЕРЖДЕНИИ ПРАВИЛ РЫБОЛОВСТВА ДЛЯ СЕВЕРНОГО РЫБОХОЗЯЙСТВЕННОГО БАССЕЙНА (‘On the confirmation of fisheries regulations for the Northern fishery basin’), N 414, Ministry of Agriculture, Russian Federation, 2014 (last revised 2017). ПРАВИЛА РЕГУЛИРОВАНИЯ ПРОМЫСЛА ПРИОРИТЕТНЫХ ВИДОВ КРАБОВ И КРАБОИДОВ (‘Rules for the regulation of fishery for crabs and craboids’), Ministry of Agriculture/Federal Fisheries Agency, 2016. Precautionary Approach to Capture Fisheries and Species Introductions, FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, No. 2, FAO, Rome, 1996.

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

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Condition number (if relevant)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives designed to PI 3.2.1 achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Objectives Objectives, which are Short and long-term Well defined and measurable broadly consistent with objectives, which are short and long-term achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving the objectives, which are Guide expressed by MSC’s outcomes expressed by demonstrably consistent with a Principles 1 and 2, are MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are achieving the outcomes post implicit within the fishery- explicit within the fishery- expressed by MSC’s Principles specific management system. specific management system. 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery-specific management system. Met? Yes Yes Partial

Rationale

Short- and long-term objectives are explicit in the annual protocols and research programmes of the JNRFC, as well as national legislation in Norway and Russia; see SI 3.1.1a above. The Commission uses precautionary reference points established by ICES as the basis for establishment of TACs. In the basic principles of the Commission, defined in 2002, it is stated that the Commission will follow the provisions for a responsible fishery as expressed in the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. As main management objectives are defined: i) to attain high sustainable catches from exploited stocks in the ecosystems of the Barents and Norwegian seas without decreasing their productivity; ii) to keep exploited stocks within safe biological limits while maintaining the biodiversity and productivity of marine ecosystems; and iii) to ensure sustainable development of the fisheries industry while exploiting the stocks within safe biological limits. Among the ‘management obligations’ listed is the requirement to apply the precautionary approach and base the Commission’s work on the best scientific data available. Objectives which are broadly consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 are in place in the fishery-specific management system, e.g. in the basic principles of the JNRFC and national legislation in Norway and Russia. SG 60 is met. This includes objectives to maintain fish stocks at sustainable levels (here: both target stocks and other retained species) and protect other parts of the ecosystem, such as habitats. These objectives are short- and long-term and measurable, in the sense that performance against them can be measured through the enforcement bodies’ recording and inspection routines (see PI 3.2.3). SG 80 is met. P1 objectives are well defined, but P2 objectives are less so, warranting a partial score at SG 100.

References

Annual Joint Norwegian–Russian Research Programmes for the Barents Sea, attached to the protocols from the annual sessions in the JNRFC. Basic Principles and Criteria for Long-term, Sustainable Management of Living Marine Resources in the Barents and Norwegian Seas, issued by the JNRFC in 2002. ФЕДЕРАЛЬНЫЙ ЗАКОН О РЫБОЛОВСТВЕ И СОХРАНЕНИИ ВОДНЫХ БИОЛОГИЧЕСКИХ РЕСУРСОВ (‘Federal Act on Fisheries and Protection of Aquatic Biological Resources’ – Federal Fisheries Act), N 166-ФЗ, Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, 2004 (last revised 2014). J-31-2021: Forskrift om utøvelse av fisket i sjøen (‘Regulation on the Execution of Marine Fisheries’), Directorate of Fisheries, Norway, 2 February 2021.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Lov om forvaltning av viltlevande marine ressursar (havressurslova), LOV-2008-06-06-37 (‘Marine Resources Act’), Parliament of Norway (Stortinget), 2008. Meld. St. 10 (2010–2011) Oppdatering av forvaltningsplanen for det marine miljø i Barentshavet og havområdene utenfor Lofoten (‘Update of the [Integrated] Management Plan for the Marine Environment in the Barents Sea and the Marine Area outside Lofoten’), Ministry of Climate and Environment, Norway, 2011. ОБ УТВЕРЖДЕНИИ ПРАВИЛ РЫБОЛОВСТВА ДЛЯ СЕВЕРНОГО РЫБОХОЗЯЙСТВЕННОГО БАССЕЙНА (‘On the confirmation of fisheries regulations for the Northern fishery basin’), N 414, Ministry of Agriculture, Russian Federation, 2014 (last revised 2017). Protocols from the annual sessions in the JNRFC, available in Norwegian and Russian on the Commission’s website (www.jointfish.org).

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

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Condition number (if relevant)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Decision-making processes There are some decision- There are established a Guide making processes in place decision-making processes that result in measures and that result in measures and post strategies to achieve the strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. fishery-specific objectives. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

There are established decision-making processes in the JNRFC and its Permanent Committee and working groups that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. Any potential problem is first raised in direct contact between Norwegian and Russian fishery authorities, then possibly referred to further discussion in the Joint Commission, which meets 1-2 a year, or in its Permanent Committee, which meets 3-4 times annually, or working groups. There are numerous examples of this to be found in the protocols from sessions in the JNRFC; one is how the brief periods of documented overfishing took place in the early 1990s and the mid-2000s. Decisions by the JNRFC are subsequently implemented in federal and regional fishery regulations in Russia as well as Norwegian national legislation. Hence, there are decision-making processes in place that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery- specific objectives. This applies to the UoA fishery as it does to Russian fisheries in general; see PIs 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 above. SG 60 is met. These processes are established – evolved over several decades and now codified in the 2004 Federal Fisheries Act and secondary legislation – so SG 80 is also met.

Responsiveness of decision-making processes Decision-making processes Decision-making processes Decision-making processes respond to serious issues respond to serious and respond to all issues identified in relevant other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, identified in relevant research, monitoring, b Guide evaluation and consultation, research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, post in a transparent, timely and evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take some account of the wider adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. account of the wider implications of decisions. implications of decisions. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The well-established decision-making procedures at national level in Norway and Russia respond to issues identified in research, monitoring, evaluation or by groups with an interest in the fishery through the arenas for regular consultations between governmental agencies and the public. This happens first and foremost at the Regulatory Meetings in Norway and in the fishery councils at basin level in Russia, further through ad hoc consultation with the industry and other stakeholders in both countries (see PI 3.1.2 above). In addition, there is close contact between authorities and scientific research institutions, primarily between the Directorate of Fisheries and the Institute of Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Marine Research in Norway and the FFA and PINRO in Russia. Reports from meetings between stakeholders and authorities show that serious and other important issues are responded to in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner, including questions related to the scientific base, quotas and technical regulations. The JNRFC is governed by the harvest control rule, which in its formulation and assessment takes into account a range of ecosystem considerations of the mixed nature of the fishery. Furthermore, relevant ICES working group reports include consideration of by-catch, endangered species and effects of fishing gear on habitats, and these are taken into account in decision making. SG 60 is met. Not only serious issues are responded to. The protocols from the sessions in the JNRFC are extensive, several hundred pages with attachments like minutes from meetings in the Commission’s Permanent Committee, sub- committees and working groups, documenting response to a wide arrays of management areas, spanning from science to regulation and enforcement. SG 80 is also met. However, it follows from the protocols of the JNRFC that P2 issues are not given the same degree of attention as P1 issues within the Commission. SG 100 is not met.

Use of precautionary approach Decision-making processes c Guide use the precautionary post approach and are based on best available information.

Met? Yes

Rationale

The JNRFC formally states that it uses the precautionary approach (see reference in PIs 3.1.3 and 3.2.1 to the 2002 basic principles of the Commission and the 2010 agreement between Norway and Russia on maritime delimitation and cooperation in the Barents Sea) and bases its management on best available scientific information. ICES have evaluated both the cod and haddock harvest control rules as precautionary. Decision-making processes at the national level in Russia are based on scientific recommendations from PINRO. The Federal Fisheries Act, which applies to the capture of all marine species, requires fisheries management to be based on the precautionary approach (see PI 3.1.3 above). Similarly, in Norway the 2008 Marine Resources Act requires that all Norwegian fisheries management be guided by the precautionary approach and is based on best available information. SG 80 is met.

Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process Some information on the Information on the fishery’s Formal reporting to all fishery’s performance and performance and interested stakeholders management action is management action is provides comprehensive generally available on available on request, and information on the fishery’s request to stakeholders. explanations are provided for performance and d Guide any actions or lack of action management actions and associated with findings and describes how the post relevant recommendations management system emerging from research, responded to findings and monitoring, evaluation and relevant recommendations review activity. emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The protocols from meetings in the JNRFC are published on the websites of national fisheries management authorities, in Norwegian and Russian, along with press releases further substantiating the decisions. The

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Commission also has a website itself (www.jointfish.org), where all protocols are downloadable. At the national level in Russia, information is available on the fishery’s performance and management action on the websites of the Russian Federal Fisheries Agency and its regional office in the Northern basin, Severomorsk Territorial Administration. Similarly, in Norway such information is available at the website of the Directorate of Fisheries. Some information on the fishery’s performance and management action is generally available, so SG 60 is met. In the sources of information listed above, explanations are provided for actions or lack of action associated with findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Not only serious issues are responded to. This meets the requirement of making explanations for action available to the public, so SG 80 is met, but stops short of being formal reporting to all interested stakeholders. SG 100 is not met.

Approach to disputes Although the management The management system or The management system or authority or fishery may be fishery is attempting to fishery acts proactively to subject to continuing court comply in a timely fashion avoid legal disputes or rapidly Guide challenges, it is not indicating with judicial decisions arising implements judicial decisions e a disrespect or defiance of from any legal challenges. arising from legal challenges. post the law by repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

Disputes between Norway and Russia are solved in the JNRFC, or in its Permanent Committee or working groups (see SI 3.1.1b above). The Norwegian and Russian systems for fisheries management are not subject to continuing court challenges or indicating a disrespect or defiance of the law by repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery. SG 60 is met. When occasionally taken to court by fishing companies, the management authority complies with the judicial decision in a timely manner, in accordance with the formal procedures laid down in the fisheries acts and general legislation on the distribution of power in the respective country SG 80 is met. The management authority works proactively to avoid legal disputes. This is done partly through the tight cooperation with user groups at the regulatory level (see PI 3.1.2 above), ensuring as high legitimacy as possible for regulations and other management decisions. Regulatory and enforcement authorities offer advice to the fleet on how to avoid infringements, keeping them updated on changes in regulations in both Russian and Norwegian waters. They also have the authority to issue administrative penalties for minor infringements (serious enough to be met by a reaction above a written warning), thus referring only the more serious cases to prosecution by the police and possible transfer to the court system. Since the management system acts proactively to avoid legal disputes and rapidly implements judicial decisions, SG 100 is met.

References

Basic Principles and Criteria for Long-term, Sustainable Management of Living Marine Resources in the Barents and Norwegian Seas, issued by the JNRFC in 2002. ФЕДЕРАЛЬНЫЙ ЗАКОН О РЫБОЛОВСТВЕ И СОХРАНЕНИИ ВОДНЫХ БИОЛОГИЧЕСКИХ РЕСУРСОВ (‘Federal Act on Fisheries and Protection of Aquatic Biological Resources’ – Federal Fisheries Act), N 166-ФЗ, Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, 2004 (last revised 2014). Lov om forvaltning av viltlevande marine ressursar (havressurslova), LOV-2008-06-06-37, 2008 (‘Marine Resources Act’), Parliament of Norway (Stortinget). Meld. St. 10 (2010–2011) Oppdatering av forvaltningsplanen for det marine miljø i Barentshavet og havområdene utenfor Lofoten (‘Update of the [Integrated] Management Plan for the Marine Environment in the Barents Sea and the Marine Area outside Lofoten’), Ministry of Climate and Environment, Norway, 2011.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

ОБ УТВЕРЖДЕНИИ ПРАВИЛ РЫБОЛОВСТВА ДЛЯ СЕВЕРНОГО РЫБОХОЗЯЙСТВЕННОГО БАССЕЙНА (‘On the Confirmation of Fisheries Regulations for the Northern Fishery Basin’), N 414, Ministry of Agriculture, the Russian Federation, 2014 (last revised 2017). Protocols from the annual sessions of the JNRFC, available in Norwegian and Russian on the Commission’s website (www.jointfish.no). Referat fra reguleringsmøtet 6. og 7. november 2019 (‘Minutes from the Regulatory Meeting 6 and 7 November 2019’), Directorate of Fisheries, Norway, 2019. Reguleringsmøte 2020 (online) (‘Regulatory Meeting 2020 (online)), available at https://www.fiskeridir.no/Yrkesfiske/Dokumenter/Reguleringsmoetet2/Hoeringer-av-reguleringer-for-2021- reguleringsmoetet. Websites of the Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries (www.fiskeridir.no), Institute of Marine Research (www.imr.no) and Parliament (Stortinget) (www.stortinget.no), as well as the Russian Federal Fisheries Agency (www.fish.gov.ru) and its regional office in the Northern basin, Severomorsk Territorial Administration (www.bbtu.ru).

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

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Condition number (if relevant)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in PI 3.2.3 the fishery are enforced and complied with

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 MCS implementation Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive surveillance mechanisms surveillance system has monitoring, control and exist, and are implemented in been implemented in the surveillance system has been a Guide the fishery and there is a fishery and has demonstrated implemented in the fishery reasonable expectation that an ability to enforce relevant and has demonstrated a post they are effective. management measures, consistent ability to enforce strategies and/or rules. relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The UoA fishery takes place in waters under both Norwegian and Russian jurisdiction, and the catch is landed in Norway and Russia. Hence, the enforcement systems of both must be assessed. In addition, a portion of catches is transshipped to transport vessels and brought to the Netherlands. These landings fall under the NEAFC port state control regime. All landings in Norway are registered by the Norwegian Fishermen’s Sales Organisation and checked towards catch information sent electronically to the Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries after each haul, as well as before entering the Norwegian Economic Zone (NEZ). The Norwegian Food Safety Authority checks all landings by foreign vessels in Norwegian ports, while the Directorate of Fisheries conducts physical inspections of at least 15 % of these landings. The Norwegian Coast Guard operates 15 vessels, of which five patrol the coastal area and the rest the wider EEZ – four of the latter have a helicopter on board. These Coast Guard vessels are the largest in the entire Royal Norwegian Navy. They perform spot checks at sea (in the NEZ and the Protection Zone around Svalbard), including from helicopters during fishing activities and inspections at check points that foreign vessels have to pass when entering or leaving the NEZ and in connection with transshipments in Norwegian waters, which have to be reported in advance. Coast Guard inspectors board fishing vessels and control the catch from last haul (e.g. catch composition and fish size) and fishing gear (e.g. mesh size) on deck and the volume of fish in the holds. Using the established conversion factors for the relevant fish product, the inspectors calculate the volume of the fish in round weight and compare this with the catches reported to the Directorate through the logbooks. Both landing and at-sea control is conducted using a risk-based framework aimed at utilizing resources to optimize compliance at any given moment. In Russia, the FFA (in the northern basin: Severomorsk Territorial Administration, as the Agency’s regional branch) keeps track of how much fish each vessel and company (quotas are given to companies, not vessels in Russia) has fished at any moment, based on daily reports from each fishing vessels and accumulated reports each 15th day from all fishing companies, as well as VMS data. The Inspection Service of the Russian Border Guard, which is part of the Federal Security Service (FSB), conducts inspections at sea and in port. Fish caught in the REZ must be taken to Murmansk for customs clearance, but some of it is subsequently transshipped for export. The Border Guard conducts random inspections at sea during fishing, following the same procedures as the Norwegian Coast Guard, with inspection of documentation, fish from last haul, gear and catch in holds. It also conducts physical inspections of all transhipments at sea (weather conditions allowing) and at the control points that all foreign vessels – and Russian vessels having fished outside the REZ – have to go through when entering and leaving the REZ. When Russian vessels land in other European ports, they are subject to the NEAFC port state control scheme, which implies that the port state has to check with the flag state that the landed catch is counted towards a quota, inspect a fixed share of the catch physically, and inform the flag state of the landed volumes. Both Norwegian and Russian inspectors have the authority to close an area with too much juvenile or bycatch (real-time closure).

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Enforcement bodies on both sides – the Coast Guard and the Directorate of Fisheries in Norway and the Severomorsk Territorial Administration of the FFA and the Border Guard in Russia – cooperate closely in the enforcement of fisheries regulations in the Barents Sea, including running exchange of inspection data and more analytical material related to compliance, as well as regular exchange of inspectors both at sea and in port. Inspection procedures have also been harmonised between the two countries. Hence, monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms exist and are implemented in the fishery, and there is a reasonable expectation that they are effective. SG 60 is met. These measures qualify as a system and have demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and rules; see SI 3.2.3c below on compliance. SG 80 is met. The Norwegian Coast Guard carried out 1139 inspections in waters under Norwegian jurisdiction in 2019 (see SI 3.2.3c below on infringement rates). The client has provided the assessment team with a list of at-sea inspections of all its vessels during 2019. The 17 vessels that were in operation in the Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe fishery that year were inspected 46 times by the Norwegian Coast Guard and 15 times by the FSB (as well as once by NEAFC inspectors and once by the Danish Fish Control), i.e. one average close to four times per year. This is considered a satisfactory level of at-sea inspection given that the inspections involve a full physical check of all fish products in the vessels’ holds at the time of inspection, data from which are compared with catch information submitted to the enforcement authorities in the electronic logbooks. Notably, this comes in addition to physical inspection of the catch at all landings in Norway and Russia as well as all transshipments. When fish is landed in the Netherlands, the catch is physically checked in accordance with the NEAFC port state control regime provisions. Hence, the system is comprehensive and the Norwegian component has demonstrated a consistent ability to enforce regulations; see SI 3.2.3c below on compliance. Information on inspections is not publicly available from Russian enforcement authorities (this is apparently considered confidential information), but this is of less importance for the UoA fishery as it mainly takes place in waters under Norwegian jurisdiction. SG 100 is met.

Sanctions Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- b Guide compliance exist and there is compliance exist, are compliance exist, are some evidence that they are consistently applied and consistently applied and post applied. thought to provide effective demonstrably provide deterrence. effective deterrence. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

Sanctions to deal with non-compliance in Russian and Norwegian waters exist in both countries’ systems for fisheries management, as well as in their wider legal systems. Both make wide use of administrative fines and refer serious cases to the judicial system. The Russian Federal Fisheries Act requires the withdrawal of quota rights if a fishing company has committed two serious violations of the fisheries regulations within one calendar year, among other things. The Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Infractions specifies the level of fines that can be issued administratively by enforcement bodies, e.g. up to RUR 5,000 for ‘citizens’, 50,000 for executive officers’ and 200,000 for companies. The Criminal Code requires that illegal fishing such as causing ‘large damage’, conducted in spawning areas or migration ways leading to such areas, or in marine protected areas be penalized by either fines up to RUR 300,000 or an amount corresponding to 1-2 years’ income for the violator, compulsory work of no less than 480 hours, corrective work for at least two years or arrest for at least 6 months. The Norwegian Marine Resources Act provides for 6 years’ imprisonment for serious violations of fisheries regulations, but this applies only to Norwegian citizens. However, the fines issued for infringements of the fisheries legislation are significantly higher in Norway than in Russia. Alternatively, catch, gear, vessels or other properties can be confiscated. In the judgment of the seriousness of the infringement, the economic gain of the violation, among other things, is to be taken into consideration. Hence, sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and there is evidence that they are applied. SG 60 is met. Sanctions are consistently applied and thought to provide effective deterrence; see SI 3.2.3c below on compliance. SG 80 is met. As follows from SI 3.2.3a above and SI 3.2.3c below, sanctions demonstrably provide effective deterrence in the fishery. SG 100 is met. Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Compliance Fishers are generally Some evidence exists to There is a high degree of thought to comply with the demonstrate fishers comply confidence that fishers management system for the with the management system comply with the management c Guide fishery under assessment, under assessment, including, system under assessment, post including, when required, when required, providing including, providing providing information of information of importance to information of importance to importance to the effective the effective management of the effective management of management of the fishery. the fishery. the fishery. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Based on information from the client and the Norwegian enforcement authorities, the level of compliance among the vessels undergoing assessment, and the Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe fishery in general, is high. The Norwegian Coast Guard carried out 1139 inspections in waters under Norwegian jurisdiction in 2019. 52 inspections (4.6 %) resulted in a fine or prosecution. In 2020, 1155 inspections were carried out, of which 49 (4.2 %) resulted in fine or prosecution. Both Norwegian and Russian enforcement authorities operate on a risk-based framework and give priority to discard of fish, e.g. using helicopters for impromptu inspection. Both work proactively with the fishing industry to avoid discard and regularly organize seminars and meetings with the industry on this topic. The client has provided the assessment team with a list of at-sea inspections of all its vessels during 2019. The 17 vessels that were in operation in the Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe fishery that year, were inspected 46 times by the Norwegian Coast Guard and 15 times by the FSB. Three infringements were detected in Norwegian waters (in 6.5 % of inspections) and one in Russian waters (6.7 % of inspections), all resulting in a fine. Two of the infringements in Norwegian waters involved partial trawling (during one trawl track) in a closed area north of Bear Island, the third intermingling of cod and haddock juveniles in excess of the allowed 15 %. The infringement in Russian waters involved the lack of separation in the logbook between the different wolffish species. In all cases, the fines were paid without the cases going to court, and the captains were given addition instructions on how to avoid such infringements in the future. Hence, fishers are generally thought to comply with the requirements of the management system, including, when required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery. SG 60 is met. Information from the client, Severomorsk Territorial Administration and Norwegian enforcement authorities indicate that fishers comply, so SG 80 is met. Since no aggregated information from Russian enforcement authorities has been made available to the assessment team, it cannot be concluded with a high degree of certainty that SG 100 is met.

Systematic non-compliance d Guide There is no evidence of post systematic non-compliance.

Met? Yes

Rationale

Based on information from the client and enforcement authorities listed under SI 3.2.3c above, fishers generally comply with regulations. There is no other evidence of systematic non-compliance in the fishery either. SG 80 is met.

References

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

КОДЕКС РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ ОБ АДМИНИСТРАТИВНЫХ ПРАВОНАРУШЕНИЯХ (‘Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences‘), N 195-ФЗ, Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, 2001 (last revised 2017). Kystvaktens årsrapport 2020 (‘The Coast Guard’s Annual Report 2020’), Norwegian Coast Guard, 2021. List of inspections of the client vessels by the Norwegian Coast Guard and the FSB during 2019, provided by the client. Lov om forvaltning av viltlevande marine ressursar (havressurslova) (‘Act relating to the Management of Wild Living Marine Resources (Marine Resources Act)’), LOV-2008-06-06-37, Stortinget (Norwegian Parliament), 2008. ОБ УТВЕРЖДЕНИИ ПРАВИЛ РЫБОЛОВСТВА ДЛЯ СЕВЕРНОГО РЫБОХОЗЯЙСТВЕННОГО БАССЕЙНА (‘On the confirmation of fisheries regulations for the Northern fishery basin’), N 414, Ministry of Agriculture, the Russian Federation, 2014 (last revised 2017). Press release from the Norwegian Coast Guard about activities in 2019, referred in several Norwegian media outlets, e.g. the newspaper Vesterålen on 4th January 2020 (https://www.blv.no/nyheter/travelt-2019-for-kystvakta/). Press release from the Norwegian Coast Guard about activities in 2020, referred in several Norwegian media outlets, e.g. the newspaper Fiskeribladet on 1st February 2021 (https://www.fiskeribladet.no/nyheter/kystvakten-ga-138- advarsler-for-brudd-pa-regelverk-og-anmeldte-49-forhold-i-fjor/2-1-955006). Report from the Parallel Review of the Barents Sea Fisheries by the Norwegian and Russian Auditor Generals (‘Document No. 3:2 (2007–2008) from the Norwegian Auditor General’), Office of the Auditor General of Norway, 2008. Riksrevisjonens oppfølging av parallellrevisjonen med Den russiske føderasjons riksrevisjon om forvaltningen av fiskeressursene i Barentshavet og Norskehavet, Dokument 3:8 (2010–2011) (‘The Office of the Auditor General’s Follow-up of the Parallel Audit with the Office of the Auditor General of the Russian Federation relating to the Management of Fish Resources in the Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea, Document 3:8 (2010–2011)’), Office of the Auditor General of Norway, 2011. Websites of the Federal Fisheries Agency (www.fish.gov.ru) and its regional office in the Northern basin, Severomorsk Territorial Administration (www.bbtu.ru).

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

Draft scoring range ≥80 More information sought

Information gap indicator Inspection and infringement levels to be sought confirmed by Russian enforcement bodies.

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

Condition number (if relevant)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific PI 3.2.4 management system against its objectives There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Evaluation coverage There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in a Guide place to evaluate some parts place to evaluate key parts of place to evaluate all parts of post of the fishery-specific the fishery-specific the fishery-specific management system. management system. management system. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The working of the JNRFC has been subject to several comprehensive evaluations over the last decade or so. After its session in 2004, it commissioned an anniversary edition from an independent researcher to be published at its 30 years anniversary in 2006. Furthermore, the Russian Auditor General invited his Norwegian counterpart to conduct a parallel audit of the Barents Sea fisheries in 2005. After this work was finished in 2007, the two parties continued to monitor developments and published a follow-up report in 2011. The fishery-specific management system is also subject to various forms of review by ICES. For instance, ICES has reviewed the harvest control rules for cod and haddock. There is a comprehensive system of routine monitoring of information relevant for management decision making and stock assessment purposes, although not of the management system as such. Within Russia, there are various mechanisms in place to evaluate key parts of the fishery-specific management system, but at varied levels of ambition and coverage. At the fishery councils meetings, found at federal, basin and regional levels (see SI 3.1.2b above), management authorities receive feedback on management practices from the industry and other interested stakeholders, including NGOs. The FFA and the Ministry of Agriculture report annually to the Government and the Presidential Administration about their work, with emphasis on achievements in the fishing industry. Other federal agencies also review parts of the fisheries management system. For instance, the Auditor General evaluates how allocated funds are spent, and the Anti-Monopoly Service how competition and investment rules are observed. Within FFA, there is regular review of the performance of the Agency’s regional offices. In the establishment of TACs, the scientific advice from PINRO is peer reviewed by the federal fisheries research institute, VNIRO, and then forwarded to FFA and the federal natural resources monitoring agency Rosprirodnadzor for comments. It is also presented to the general public for discussion at public hearings, announced in the local press. In Norway, management authorities receive feedback on management practices from the industry and other interested stakeholders, including NGOs, at the Regulatory Meetings that take place twice a year (see PI 3.1.2 above). The enforcement component of the management system is subject to continuous evaluation at meetings between the various bodies involved in enforcement activities, where priorities are hammered out on the basis of risk-based monitoring of past experience. The international side to the Norwegian fisheries management system is reviewed by the Parliament upon submission by the Government (through the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries) of annual reports on the agreements concluded with other states for the coming year, and the previous year’s fishing in accordance with such agreements. The Office of the Auditor General conducts annual reviews of the financial performance of the fishery management system. Hence, the fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate key parts of the management system, so SG 80 is met. It is a principal challenge to claim that ‘all’ parts of a fisheries management system are subject to review, but it seems reasonable to expect some sort of a holistic evaluation of the system as such, which does not seem to be the case for the national management system in Russia. SG 100 is not met.

b Internal and/or external review Guide The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific post management system is management system is management system is Lloyd’s Register, LR and any variants are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Acoura Marine: trading as Lloyd's Register (Reg. no. SC313289). Registered office: 50 Lothian Road, Festival Square, Edinburgh, EH3 9WJ. Registered in Scotland. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group. www.lr.org

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

subject to occasional subject to regular internal subject to regular internal internal review. and occasional external and external review. review. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Regular internal review of the fishery-specific management system is performed through the various forms of evaluation in the Russian and Norwegian management systems listed under SI 3.2.4a above. SG 60 is met – SG 80 is also met for the national component of the management system. This SI, as opposed to SI 3.2.4a above, does not ask about the extent of reviews (covering some/key/all parts of the management system), but rather about their frequency and whether they are internal or external to the management system. Hence, various forms of evaluation can be taken into consideration under this SI even if they do not comprise the entire management system (the ‘holistic’ review required to score a 100 at SI 3.2.4a). But some level of interrelationship between these PIs must be assumed, so that external reviews of only peripheral components of the management system should not automatically lead to a positive score on the external review indicator (whether ‘occasional’ for SG 80 or ‘regular’ for SG 100), in the opinion of the assessment team. As follows from SI 3.2.4a above, the JNRFC has been subject to several external reviews, including a specially commissioned anniversary edition in 2006 and a parallel audit by the two countries’ Auditors General in 2005–2007, with a follow-up four years later. SG 80 is met for the international component of the management regime. Although it can be debated how often (and at what specific intervals) reviews must be carried out to meet the SG 100 requirement of ‘regular’ external reviews, we conclude that it is not met here. External evaluations seem to be conducted only when particular circumstances require this. SG 100 is not met.

References

ФЕДЕРАЛЬНЫЙ ЗАКОН О РЫБОЛОВСТВЕ И СОХРАНЕНИИ ВОДНЫХ БИОЛОГИЧЕСКИХ РЕСУРСОВ (‘Federal Act on fisheries and protection of aquatic biological resources’ – Federal Fisheries Act), N 166-ФЗ, Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, 2004 (last revised 2014). Meld. St. 13 (2019–2020) Noregs fiskeriavtalar for 2020 og fisket etter avtalane i 2018 og 2019 (‘White Paper on Norway’s [International] Fisheries Agreements for 2020 and Fishing in Accordance with the Agreements in 2018 and 2019’), Ministry of Industry, Trade and Fisheries, Norway, 2020. ОБ УТВЕРЖДЕНИИ ПРАВИЛ РЫБОЛОВСТВА ДЛЯ СЕВЕРНОГО РЫБОХОЗЯЙСТВЕННОГО БАССЕЙНА (‘On the confirmation of fisheries regulations for the Northern fishery basin’), N 414, Ministry of Agriculture, the Russian Federation, 2014 (last revised 2017). Report from the Parallel Review of the Barents Sea Fisheries by the Norwegian and Russian Auditor Generals (Document No. 3:2 (2007–2008) from the Norwegian Auditor General), Office of the Auditor General of Norway, 2008. Riksrevisjonens oppfølging av parallellrevisjonen med Den russiske føderasjons riksrevisjon om forvaltningen av fiskeressursene i Barentshavet og Norskehavet, Dokument 3:8 (2010–2011) (‘The Office of the Auditor General’s Follow-up of the Parallel Audit with the Office of the Auditor General of the Russian Federation relating to the Management of Fish Resources in the Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea, Document 3:8 (2010–2011)’), Office of the Auditor General of Norway, 2011. Websites of the Federal Fisheries Agency (www.fish.gov.ru) and its regional office in the Northern basin, Severomorsk Territorial Administration (www.bbtu.ru).

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

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

8 Appendices 8.1 Assessment information 8.1.1 Previous assessments The Ocean Trawlers (now Norebo) cod and haddock fishery was certified 22 November 2010. It was re-assessed with saithe included 20 September 2016. Information on these assessments can be found on the MSC website: https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/barents-sea-cod-haddock-and-saithe/@@assessments

Table 26 - Summary of previous assessment conditions

Condition PI(s) Year closed Justification

State year of Insert condition number and Insert PI closure, if summary applicable. In 2010, ICES evaluated the revision of the HCR and deemed it to be precautionary. The same year the JNRFC declared that the revised harvest control rule would be used for setting the TAC five years ahead, and then 1: Elements of the Arctic Cod re-evaluated. There was now sufficient harvest strategy work together PI 1.2.1 (only evidence to confirm that there is a robust and 2011 towards achieving cod) precautionary harvest strategy in place for the management objectives NEA cod fishery that is being monitored

annually and from current evaluation is evidencing to be responsive to the state of the NEA cod stocks and management objectives of its approved harvest strategy and target reference points. Improved levels of fishery monitoring and information from the observer programme and the MSC logbook coupled with recent ICES report which confirms discarding and IUU in this fishery is minimal to non-existent is 2: Ensure good information on appropriate justification to conclude that there all fishery removals from the PIs 1.2.3, 1.2.2 2011 is good information on all removals from this stock joint-fishery. In addition, stock abundance and

fishery removals are annually evaluated by ICES and JNRFC at levels of accuracy and coverage that is consistent with the agreed HCR and management plan objectives in place. 2012 (beaked 3: Ensure a partial strategy of redfish and Analytical stock assessments were demonstrably effective Greenland completed, and status of stocks determined, management measures for PIs 2.1.1, 2.1.2 halibut), 2013 ensuring a partial strategy of demonstrably retained species (with (spotted effective management measures for retained objective basis for confidence) wolffish), 2014 species.

(golden redfish) 4: Ensure the fishery is highly The fleet was now complying with all rules unlikely to reduce habitat relating to benthic habitat, but also going PIs 2.4.1, 2.4.2 2014 structure and function to a further in terms of cooperating on the development of more benthos friendly gear,

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

point where there would be the identification and avoidance of sensitive serious or irreversible harm habitat, and monitoring of non-commercial

bycatch. It is working closely with WWF- Russia to maximise the benefits from these initiatives. The client had since initial assessment engaged with WWF-Russia at both federal 5: Ensure the consultation and regional level, organising joint seminars process provides opportunity PI 3.1.2 2013 and sustainability courses for captains and for all interested and affected establishing meeting platforms between parties to be involved environmental NGOs and management authorities. The client had advocated the use of the precautionary approach in a series of seminars jointly organised with WWF-Russia 6: Ensure clear long-term and in general correspondence with objectives are explicit within management authorities. Also, there was management policy, which are emerging consensus in harmonisation PI 3.1.3 2013 consistent with the processes that the traditional Russian precautionary approach (Both concept of ‘conservation and rational use’ spp. PI 3.1.3) equals the precautionary approach as

understood in the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and its technical guidelines.

8.1.2 Small-scale fisheries Table 27 – Small-scale fisheries

Percentage of vessels with length Percentage of fishing activity completed Unit of Assessment (UoA) <15m within 12 nautical miles of shore

UoA 1 0% 0%

UoA 2 0% 0%

UoA 3 0% 0%

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

8.2 Evaluation processes and techniques 8.2.1 Site visits The assessment was announced on the MSC website and stakeholders that were identified by the client and also by Lloyd’s Register, using stakeholder list from other MSC assessments within the region, were contacted directly by Lloyd’s Register. A site visit will take place remotely from the 27th - 31st of May (This re-assessment was due to take place onsite, but will now take place remotely, as per the MSC COVID-19 derogation). The assessment team prepared an audit itinerary prior to the site visit, and meetings will be conducted individuals & organisations relevant to the fishery

8.2.2 Stakeholder participation

A total of 58 stakeholder organisations and individuals having relevant interest in the assessment were identified and notified, via e-mail, of the assessment process. This highlighted the potential process for engagement in the assessment, if desired. In addition, the interest of others not appearing on this list was solicited through the postings on the MSC website.

8.2.3 Evaluation techniques

1. Public Announcements The full assessment was publicly announced on the 26th April 2021 at the MSC website as well as sent by email in the MSC Fishery Announcements newsletter to all registered recipients. The announcement was also distributed to all LR stakeholders via the LR Mailchimp system (see Section 8.2.2). This was also the method used for consultation on subsequent steps (e.g. peer reviewers announcement, new UoA, etc.). See Section 8.4 for a detailed list of all consultations that took place at different stages along the process. At this time, LR also announced the assessment site visit dates and location, as well as the assessment team. This was done according to the process requirements in MSC’s Fisheries Certification Process v2.2, and in the MSC Fisheries Standard v2.0/2.01. Together, these media presented the announcement to a wide audience representing industry, agencies, and other stakeholders. Meetings and conference calls held during the site visit constituted the main tool in guaranteeing the participation of relevant stakeholders.

2. Information gathering The assessment team reviewed documents sent by the client ahead of the onsite visit (catch data, logbooks, internal records of quota monitoring, sales notes and other relevant documents generated after landing, Russian and Norwegian fisheries and environmental regulations, science and advice reports and other scientific publications). Discussions with the clients and management agencies centred on the content within the provided documentation. In cases where relevant documentation was not provided in advance of the meeting, it was requested by the assessment team and subsequently supplied during, or shortly after the meeting. The assessment team and the clients set up meetings with the relevant stakeholders during the site visit, as per MSC FCP v2.2, Section 7.16.

3. Scoring Scoring was performed according to the procedure established in Certification Requirement 7.10 (MSC FCR v2.01). In the Fisheries Standard v2.01 default assessment tree used for this assessment, the MSC has 28 PIs, six in Principle 1, 15 in Principle 2, and seven in Principle 3. The PIs are grouped in each principle by ‘component.’ Principle 1 has two components, Principle 2 has five, and Principle 3 has two. Each PI consists of one or more ‘scoring issues;’ a scoring issue is a specific topic for evaluation. ‘Scoring Guideposts’ define the requirements for meeting each scoring issue at the 60 (conditional pass), 80 (full pass), and 100 (state of the art) levels.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Note that some scoring issue may not have a scoring guidepost at each of the 60, 80, and 100 levels; in the case of the example above, scoring issue (b) does not have a scoring issue at the SG60 level. The scoring issues and scoring guideposts are cumulative; this means that a PI is scored first at the SG60 levels. If not all of the SG scoring issues meet the 60 requirements, the fishery fails, and no further scoring occurs. If all of the SG60 scoring issues are met, the fishery meets the 60 level, and the scoring moves to SG80 scoring issues. If no scoring issues meet the requirements at the SG80 level, the fishery receives a score of 60. As the fishery meets increasing numbers of SG80 scoring issues, the score increases above 60 in proportion to the number of scoring issues met; PI scoring occurs at 5-point intervals. If the fishery meets half the scoring issues at the 80 level, the PI would score 70; if it meets a quarter, then it would score 65; and it would score 75 by meeting three-quarters of the scoring issues. If the fishery meets all of the SG80 scoring issues, the scoring moves to the SG100 level. Scoring at the SG100 level follows the same pattern as for SG80. Principle scores result from averaging the scores within each component, and then from averaging the component scores within each Principle. If a Principle averages less than 80, the fishery fails. Scoring for this fishery followed a consensus process in which the assessment team discussed the information available for evaluating PIs to develop a broad opinion of performance of the fishery against each PI. Review of sections 7.2, 0 and 7.3.1 by all team members assured that the assessment team was aware of the issues for each PI.

The assessment team held preliminary scoring meetings along the site visit where the Performance Indicators of the fishery were evaluated jointly by the team in order to assess whether there was still information needs to be communicated to the client. After the site visit, each team member was assigned their relevant section in the report to complete before proceeding to a joint evaluation of every PI and the pertaining scoring systems and rationales through scoring meetings which took place via conference calls. Team members are responsible for completely their relevant scoring tables and providing a provisional score. The necessary harmonisation procedure was already described in section 8.9. PI scores were entered into MSC’s Fishery Assessment Scoring Worksheet (Section 7.1) to arrive at Principle-level scores.

The team agrees that none of the scoring issues assessed for the Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe fails to meet at the SG60 level, and a weighted average score of 80 or more was achieved for each of the 3 MSC Principles. Scores allocated to the default performance indicators are summarised in Section 7.1.

The Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe complies with MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements v2.01. The team has set X binding conditions for certification and X non-binding management recommendations (see sections 5.2.3 and 5.2.4 for more details).

4. Use of the RBF The RBF was not used for this re-assessment, based on the following rationale: The team concluded that, in accordance with the MSC’s FCP v2.2, Annex PF, Table PF1, Principle 1 does not need to be scored and consequently, RBF has not been used for PIs 1 and 2.

8.3 Peer Review reports To be drafted at Public Comment Draft Report stage The CAB shall include in the report unattributed reports of the Peer Reviewers in full using the relevant templates. The CAB shall include in the report explicit responses of the team that include:

- Identification of specifically what (if any) changes to scoring, rationales, or conditions have been made; and, - A substantiated justification for not making changes where Peer Reviewers suggest changes, but the team disagrees.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.14

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

8.4 Stakeholder input To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage The CAB shall use the ‘MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments’ to include all written stakeholder input during the stakeholder input opportunities (Announcement Comment Draft Report, site visit and Public Comment Draft Report). Using the ‘MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments’, the team shall respond to all written stakeholder input identifying what changes to scoring, rationales and conditions have been made in response, where the changes have been made, and assigning a ‘CAB response code’.

The ‘MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments’ shall also be used to provide a summary of verbal submissions received during the site visit likely to cause a material difference to the outcome of the assessment. Using the ‘MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments’ the team shall respond to the summary of verbal submissions identifying what changes to scoring, rationales and conditions have been made in response, where the changes have been made, and assigning a ‘CAB response code’.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Sections 7.15, 7.20.5 and 7.22.3

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

8.5 MSC Technical Oversight To be drafted at Public Comment Draft Report

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

8.6 Conditions – delete if not applicable To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage The CAB shall document in the report all conditions in separate tables.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.18, 7.30.5 and 7.30.6

Table 28: Condition 1

Performance Indicator

Score State score for Performance Indicator.

Cross reference to page number containing scoring template table or copy justification Justification text here.

Condition State condition.

Condition deadline State deadline for the condition.

Exceptional Check the box if exceptional circumstances apply and condition deadline is longer than circumstances ☐ the period of certification (FCP v2.2 7.18.1.6). Provide a justification.

Milestones State milestones and resulting scores where applicable.

Verification with other Include details of any verification required to meet requirements in FCP v2.2 7.19.8. entities

Complete the following rows for reassessments.

Check the box if the condition is being carried over from a previous certificate and include a justification for carrying over the condition (FCP v2.2 7.30.5.1.a).

Carried over condition ☐ Include a justification that progress against the condition and milestones is adequate (FCP v2.2 7.30.5.2). The CAB shall base its justification on information from the reassessment site visit. Check the box if the condition relates to a previous condition that was closed during a previous certification period but where a new condition on the same Performance Indicator or Scoring Issue is set. Related condition ☐

Include a justification – why is a related condition being raised? (FCP v2.2 7.30.6 & G7.30.6). Check the box if the condition has been rewritten. Include a justification (FCP v2.2 Condition rewritten ☐ 7.30.5.3).

8.7 Client Action Plan To be drafted at Public Comment Draft Report stage The CAB shall include in the report the Client Action Plan from the fishery client to address conditions.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.19

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

8.8 Surveillance To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage The CAB shall include in the report the program for surveillance, timing of surveillance audits and a supporting justification.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.28

Table 29: Fishery surveillance program

Surveillance level Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

e.g. On-site e.g. On-site e.g. On-site e.g. On-site surveillance audit & e.g. Level 5 surveillance audit surveillance audit surveillance audit re-certification site visit

Table 30: Timing of surveillance audit

Proposed date of surveillance Year Anniversary date of certificate Rationale audit e.g. Scientific advice to be released in June 2018, proposal to postpone e.g. 1 e.g. May 2018 e.g. July 2018 audit to include findings of scientific advice

Table 31: Surveillance level justification

Year Surveillance activity Number of auditors Rationale

e.g. From client action plan it can be deduced that information needed to verify progress towards conditions 1.2.1, 2.2.3 and 3.2.3 can be provided remotely in year 3. Considering that milestones indicate that most e.g. 1 auditor on-site with e.g.3 e.g. On-site audit conditions will be closed out in year 3, remote support from 1 auditor the CAB proposes to have an on-site audit with 1 auditor on-site with remote support – this is to ensure that all information is collected and because the information can be provided remotely.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

8.9 Harmonised fishery assessments To be completed at Public Certification Report stage. The MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.2 (FCP) sets out procedures for ensuring consistency of outcomes in overlapping fisheries (see Annex PB of the FCP). The intention of this process is to maintain the integrity of MSC fishery assessments. The audit team have consulted the guidance issued on the MSC’s interpretation log to identify the harmonisation requirements for this fishery (see https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/What-are-the-MSC-requirements-on- harmonisation-multiple-questions-1527586957701). For each overlapping fishery, LR have considered harmonisation requirements for each PI using the table below.

8.9.1 MSC Directions for harmonisation between overlapping MSC fisheries

Table 32: MSC directions for harmonisation between overlapping MSC fisheries

MSC fisheries overlapping fisheries have been identified as fisheries operating within FAO 27, subareas 1 and 2. MSC Fisheries with overlapping UoCs to the UoAs under assessment here are detailed below in Table 33 and the relevant PIs which require harmonisation are shown. Please note only MSC Fisheries using the same version of the assessment tree (v2.0 or v.201) have been harmonised (MSC FCP v2.2 Annex PB 1.2.1). The scores awarded for the MSC fisheries were analysed during this re-assessment audit (see

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Table 35: Comparison of scoring elements with overlapping MSC fisheries [green shading indicates overlapping elements] Arkhan NFA gelsk Estonia Norwa Norwe Norwa Trawl North Faroe Murma y North Ocean gian Norwa y North Barent fleet Russia AGAR East Islands nseld 2 East prom FIUN Ling & y North East s Sea Norwe Barent BA Arctic North Barent Artic Barent Russia Tusk East Arctic Compon cod, gian & s Sea Spain cold East s Sea haddoc s Sea n and Arctic cod ent haddoc Barent Greenl Barent water Arctic cod k cod Barent NFA cold offshor k and s Seas and s Sea prawn cold and offshor and s Sea Norwe water e saithe cod, Halibut cod and water haddoc e haddoc shrimp gian prawn (>12n haddoc cod prawn k (>12n k Lumpfi m) k & fishery m) sh saithe

Cod Cod PI1.1.1 Cod Cod Haddo Haddo No No No No Haddo No Target Cod Cod Cod ck ck overlap overlap Haddo overlap overlap ck Haddo overlap species ck ck Saithe Saithe

Cod Cod Cod PI 2.1.1 Haddo Cod Haddo Haddo No No No Haddo No No No Primary Cod Cod ck ck ck overlap overlap overlap ck overlap overlap Haddo overlap main Saithe ck Saithe Saithe Saithe

PI 2.2.1 No No No No No No No No No No No No Seconda none overlap overlap overlap overlap overlap overlap overlap overlap overlap overlap overlap overlap ry main

Norther n Fulmar Comm on or Comm blue on or Comm PI 2.3.1 skate blue on or No Spiny No No Spiny No Spurdo Spurdo Spurdo No skate ETP Spurdo blue overlap dogfish overlap overlap dogfish overlap g g g overlap g / Spurdo skate spiny g dogfish ? Blue Ling

Outsid VMEs e the identifi See See See See See See scaled See See See See See PI 2.4.1 ed See Table Table Table Table Table Table down Table Table Table Table Table Habitats Table 24 24 24 24 24 24 manag 24 24 24 24 24 24 ed area

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

a) not a) not a) not a) not a) not a) not Outsid a) not a) a) a) a) not a) not scored scored scored scored scored scored e the scored scored scored scored scored scored scaled PI 2.4.2 at at at at at at at at at at at at down a & d SG100 SG100 SG100 SG100 SG100 SG100 SG100 SG100 SG100 SG100 SG100 SG100 manag d) d) d) d) d) d) d) d) d) d) d) d) N.A. ed SG80 SG80 SG80 SG80 SG100 SG100 area SG100 SG100 SG100 SG100 SG80

Table 36) and any differences in scoring is explained in Table 37.

Table 33: Overlapping fisheries

Certification status, date and version Fishery name Performance Indicators to harmonise (v) of the standard used Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe Certified Nov 2010 – March 2022

(This Fishery) V2.01 Arkhangelsk Trawl fleet Norwegian & Certified

Barents Seas cod, haddock & saithe V2.0 Russia Barents Sea Greenland Certified Apr 2020 – Oct 2025

Halibut V2.0 Certified Feb 2018 – Aug 2023 Russia Barents Sea Red King Crab V2.0 Certified Apr 2020 – Oct 2025 Russia Barents Sea Opilio Trap V2.0 Certified Nov 2013 – Oct 2024 AGARBA Spain Barents Sea cod V2.0 Compagnie des Pêches Saint Malo Certified Apr 2012 – Apr 2023 N/A* and Euronor cod and haddock V1.3 Estonia North East Arctic cold water Certified

prawn and cod fishery V2.0 Faroe Islands and Iceland North East Certified Aug 2012 – Feb 2023 N/A* Arctic cod, haddock and saithe V1.3 Faroe Islands North East Arctic cold Certified Nov 2013 – May 2024

water prawn V2.0 FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod Certified Jun 2013 – Feb 2024 N/A* and haddock V1.3 Greenland cod, haddock and saithe Certified May 2015 – Nov 2025 N/A* trawl fishery V1.3 Murmanseld 2 Barents Sea cod and Certified Mar 2020 – Sep 2025

haddock V2.0 NFA Norwegian Ling & Tusk and NFA Certified Oct 2017 – Apr 2023

Norwegian Lumpfish V2.0 Norway North East Atlantic Blue Suspended N/A fishery suspended whiting V2.0 Norway North East Arctic cold water Certified Mar 2012 – Sep 2023

prawn V2.0

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Certified Jun 2008 – Dec 2023 Norway North East Artic saithe N/A* V1.3 Undergoing re-assessment certified Norway North East Artic haddock Apr 2010 – Apr 2021 offshore (>12nm) RA against v2.01 Oceanprom Barents Sea cod and Certified Jun 2019 – Dec 2024

haddock V2.0 Russian Federation Barents Sea cod, Certified May 2014 – Nov 2024 N/A* haddock and saithe V1.3 In Assessment FIUN Russian Barents Sea shrimp V2.01 In Assessment Antey Sever Barents Sea Crab V2.01 *These fisheries don’t require harmonisation under the following clause of the MSC FCP V2.2 PB1.2.1 Fishery assessments using the same versions of any assessment tree (MSC Fisheries Standard Annex SA, Annex SB, Annex SC and Annex SD) shall harmonise their assessments. Fisheries marked with * are on a different version of the Standard. Table 34: Overlapping fisheries information

Supporting information

- Describe any background or supporting information relevant to the harmonisation activities, processes and outcomes.

Was either FCP v2.2 Annex PB1.3.3.4 or PB1.3.4.5 applied when harmonising? Yes / No

Date of harmonisation meeting DD / MM / YY

If applicable, describe the meeting outcome

- e.g. Agreement found among teams or lowest score adopted.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Table 35: Comparison of scoring elements with overlapping MSC fisheries [green shading indicates overlapping elements]

Arkhan NFA gelsk Estonia Norwa Norwe Norwa Trawl North Faroe Murma y North Ocean gian Norwa y North Barent fleet Russia AGAR East Islands nseld 2 East prom FIUN Ling & y North East s Sea Norwe Barent BA Arctic North Barent Artic Barent Russia Tusk East Arctic Compon cod, gian & s Sea Spain cold East s Sea haddoc s Sea n and Arctic cod ent haddoc Barent Greenl Barent water Arctic cod k cod Barent NFA cold offshor k and s Seas and s Sea prawn cold and offshor and s Sea Norwe water e saithe cod, Halibut cod and water haddoc e haddoc shrimp gian prawn (>12n haddoc cod prawn k (>12n k Lumpfi m) k & fishery m) sh saithe

Cod Cod PI1.1.1 Cod Cod Haddo Haddo No No No No Haddo No Target Cod Cod Cod ck ck overlap overlap Haddo overlap overlap ck Haddo overlap species ck ck Saithe Saithe

Cod Cod Cod PI 2.1.1 Haddo Cod Haddo Haddo No No No Haddo No No No Primary Cod Cod ck ck ck overlap overlap overlap ck overlap overlap Haddo overlap main Saithe ck Saithe Saithe Saithe

PI 2.2.1 No No No No No No No No No No No No Seconda none overlap overlap overlap overlap overlap overlap overlap overlap overlap overlap overlap overlap ry main

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

Table 36: Scoring differences

Performance Fishery name Fishery name Fishery name Fishery name Indicators (PIs)

PI Score Score Score Score

Table 37: Rationale for scoring differences

If applicable, explain and justify any difference in scoring and rationale for the relevant Performance Indicators (FCP v2.2 Annex PB1.3.6).

If exceptional circumstances apply, outline the situation and whether there is agreement between or among teams on this determination.

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

8.10 Objection Procedure – delete if not applicable To be added at Public Certification Report stage The CAB shall include in the report all written decisions arising from the Objection Procedure.

Reference(s): MSC Disputes Process v1.0

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820

LR Announcement Comment Draft Report Barents Sea cod, haddock and saithe

9 Template information and copyright This document was drafted using the ‘MSC Reporting Template v1.2’.

Template version control

Version Date of publication Description of amendment

1.0 17 December 2018 Date of first release

1.1 29 March 2019 Minor document changes for usability

1.2 25 March 2020 Release alongside Fisheries Certification Process v2.2

A controlled document list of MSC program documents is available on the MSC website (msc.org).

Marine Stewardship Council Marine House 1 Snow Hill London EC1A 2DH United Kingdom

Phone: + 44 (0) 20 7246 8900 Fax: + 44 (0) 20 7246 8901 Email: [email protected]

LR MSC FCP v2.2 Reduced Reassessment Template 130820