4Th Surveillance Report for the Norway North East Arctic Cod and Haddock Fisheries

4th Surveillance Report for the Norway North East Arctic cod and haddock fisheries

Report No.: 2019-025, Rev. 1 Date: 30.06.2020 Certificate number: MSC-F-31210 (cod) & MSC-F-31209 (haddock)

Conformity Assessment Body DNV GL Business Assurance Norway AS (CAB) Assessment team Hans Lassen, Sandhya Chaudhury

Fishery client Norges Fiskarlag

Assessment Type Surveillance 4

Project name: Surveillance No. 4 DNV GL - Business Assurance Report title: Report for the “Norway North East Arctic cod and haddock fisheries” DNV GL Business Assurance Norway Customer: Norges Fiskarlag, Pirsenteret, 7462 Trondheim, AS Norway Veritasveien 1 Contact person: Tor Bjørkelund Larsen 1322 HØVIK, Norway Date of issue: 30.06.2020 Tel: +47 67 57 99 00 Project No.: PRJC-504563-2014-MSC-NOR http://www.dnvgl.com Organisation unit: ZNONO418 Report No.: 2019-025, Rev.1 Certificate No MSC-F-31210 (cod) & MSC-F-31209 (haddock)

Objective: The objective of this report is the fourth surveillance audit of the Norway North East Arctic cod and haddock fisheries and verification of the ongoing compliance of the fishery to the Marine Stewardship Council.

Prepared by: Verified by:

Sandhya Chaudhury Sigrun Bekkevold Principle specialist

Hans Lassen Principle expert

Copyright © DNV GL 2014. All rights reserved. This publication or parts thereof may not be copied, reproduced or transmitted in any form, or by any means, whether digitally or otherwise without the prior written consent of DNV GL. DNV GL and the Horizon Graphic are trademarks of DNV GL AS. The content of this publication shall be kept confidential by the customer, unless otherwise agreed in writing. Reference to part of this publication which may lead to misinterpretation is prohibited. DNV GL Distribution: Keywords: ☒ Unrestricted distribution (internal and external) MSC Fishery, surveillance audit, cod, haddock ☐ Unrestricted distribution within DNV GL ☐ Limited distribution within DNV GL after 3 years ☐ No distribution (confidential) ☐ Secret

Rev. No. Date Reason for Issue Prepared by Verified by

0 2020-03-02 First issue Hans Lassen, Sandhya Chaudhury Sigrun Bekkevold

1 2020-06-30 Closing of condition 4; stakeholder comment & Hans Lassen, Sandhya Chaudhury

Traceability (auction/sales organizations)

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 2

1 CONTENTS 1 CONTENTS ...... 3 2 GLOSSARY ...... 4 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 7 3.1 The assessment process ...... 7 3.2 History of the assessments ...... 10 3.3 Fourth annual surveillance – 2019 ...... 13 3.4 Conclusion ...... 14 4 REPORT DETAILS ...... 16 4.1 Surveillance information ...... 16 4.2 Background ...... 21 4.3 Version details ...... 29 5 RESULTS ...... 30 5.1 Surveillance results overview...... 30 5.2 Conditions ...... 36 5.3 Client Action Plan ...... 50 5.4 Re-scoring Performance Indicators ...... 51 6 APPENDICES ...... 71 6.1 Evaluation processes and techniques ...... 71 6.2 Stakeholder input ...... 74 6.3 Harmonised fishery assessments – delete if not applicable ...... 100 6.4 References ...... 103 6.5 Vessel list ...... 105 7 Template information and copyright ...... 156

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 3

2 GLOSSARY Abbreviations & acronyms ACOM (ICES) Advisory Committee AFWG (ICES) Arctic Fisheries Working Group BSMP Barents Sea Management Plan CEFAS Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science CPUE Catch per unit effort CRISP Centre for Research-based Innovation in Sustainable fish capture and Pre-processing technology DoF Directorate of Fisheries EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone ETP Endangered, threatened and protected species EU European Union FAM Fisheries Assessment Methodology FNI Fridtjof Nansen Institute GADGET Globally applicable Area Disaggregated General Ecosystem Toolbox GPS Global Positioning System HCR Harvest Control Rule HelCom Baltic Marine Environment Protection (Helsinki) Commission ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea IMR Institute for Marine Research (Havforskninsinstituttet), Norway IPI Inseparable or practically inseparable catches IUU Illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing IWC International Whaling Commission JNRCEP Joint Norwegian–Russian Commission on Environmental Protection JNRFC Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission JRNFC Joint Russian–Norwegian Fisheries Commission MAREANO Marine AREA database for NOrwegian waters / Marin AREAldatabase for NOrske kyst- og havområder MFCA Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs MSC Marine Stewardship Council MTIF Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries N Norway NAFO Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization NAMMCO North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission NE North East NEA North East Arctic NEAFC North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission NFA Norwegian Fishermen’s Association (Norges Fiskarlag) NGO Non – Governmental Organization NINA Norsk institutt for naturforskning / The Norwegian nature conservation agency NORWECOM NORWegian ECOlogical Model system NPI Norwegian Polar Institute OCEAN- EU-funded program; OCEAN-CERTAIN – “Ocean Food-web Patrol – Climate Effects: Reducing CERTAIN Targeted Uncertainties with an Interactive Network” OSPAR Oslo and Paris Commission for the protection and conservation of the North-East Atlantic and its Resources PI Performance Indicator PISG Performance Indicator Scoring Guidepost RECOVERY Research on Effective Cod Stock Recovery Measures SAM State-space assessment model

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 4

SG Scoring Guidepost SMH Sensitive marine habitat TAC Total Allowable Catch UK United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland UNEP United Nations Environmental Programme VME Vulnerable marine ecosystem VMH Vulnerable marine habitat VMS Vessel monitoring system VPA Virtual population analysis WGBYA (ICES) Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species WGDEC (ICES) Working Group on Deep-water Ecology WGDEEP (ICES) Working Group on the Biology and Assessment of Deep-sea Fisheries Resources WGECO Working Group on Ecosystem Effects of Fishing Activities WGMME (ICES) Working Group on Marine Mammal Ecology WGSAM Working Group on Multispecies Assessment Methods WGSE (ICES) Working Group on Seabird Ecology XSA Extended survivors’ analysis ACOM (ICES) Advisory Committee AFWG (ICES) Arctic Fisheries Working Group BSMP Barents Sea Management Plan CEFAS Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science CPUE Catch per unit effort CRISP Centre for Research-based Innovation in Sustainable fish capture and Pre-processing technology DoF Directorate of Fisheries EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone ETP Endangered, threatened and protected species EU European Union FAM Fisheries Assessment Methodology FNI Fridtjof Nansen Institute GADGET Globally applicable Area Disaggregated General Ecosystem Toolbox GPS Global Positioning System HCR Harvest Control Rule HelCom Baltic Marine Environment Protection (Helsinki) Commission ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea IMR Institute for Marine Research (Havforskninsinstituttet), Norway IPI Inseparable or practically inseparable catches IUU Illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing IWC International Whaling Commission JNRCEP Joint Norwegian–Russian Commission on Environmental Protection JNRFC Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission JRNFC Joint Russian–Norwegian Fisheries Commission MAREANO Marine AREA database for NOrwegian waters / Marin AREAldatabase for NOrske kyst- og havområder MFCA Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs MSC Marine Stewardship Council MTIF Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries N Norway NAFO Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization NAMMCO North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission NE North East NEA North East Arctic NEAFC North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 5

NFA Norwegian Fishermen’s Association (Norges Fiskarlag) NGO Non – Governmental Organization NINA Norsk institutt for naturforskning / The Norwegian nature conservation agency NORWECOM NORWegian ECOlogical Model system NPI Norwegian Polar Institute OCEAN- EU-funded program; OCEAN-CERTAIN – “Ocean Food-web Patrol – Climate Effects: Reducing CERTAIN Targeted Uncertainties with an Interactive Network” OSPAR Oslo and Paris Commission for the protection and conservation of the North-East Atlantic and its Resources PI Performance Indicator PISG Performance Indicator Scoring Guidepost RECOVERY Research on Effective Cod Stock Recovery Measures SAM State-space assessment model SG Scoring Guidepost SMH Sensitive marine habitat TAC Total Allowable Catch UK United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland UNEP United Nations Environmental Programme VME Vulnerable marine ecosystem VMH Vulnerable marine habitat VMS Vessel monitoring system VPA Virtual population analysis WGBYA (ICES) Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species WGDEC (ICES) Working Group on Deep-water Ecology WGDEEP (ICES) Working Group on the Biology and Assessment of Deep-sea Fisheries Resources WGECO Working Group on Ecosystem Effects of Fishing Activities WGMME (ICES) Working Group on Marine Mammal Ecology WGSAM Working Group on Multispecies Assessment Methods WGSE (ICES) Working Group on Seabird Ecology XSA Extended survivors’ analysis

Stock assessment reference points

B0 The (spawning) biomass expected if there had been no fishing (assuming recruitment as estimated through stock assessment).

Blim Spawning biomass limit reference point, sometimes used as a trigger within harvest control rules, or defined as the point below which recruitment is expected to be impaired or the stock dynamics are unknown

Bmsy Spawning Biomass at which the maximum sustainable yield is expected (sometimes expressed as SBmsy)

Btarg Spawning biomass target reference point

Flim Exploitation rate limit reference point, often taken as Fmsy based on UNFSA

Fmsy Fishing mortality rate associated with the achieving maximum sustainable yield

Ftarg Fishing mortality target reference point MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 6

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Table 1 General information Surveillance level Surveillance level 6 (normal surveillance according to v. 1.3) as specified in the PCR. and type Date of 2nd, 3rd & 9th December 2019 surveillance audit CAB name DNV GL Business Assurance CAB contact Address Veritasveien 1 details 1322 HØVIK, Norway http://www.dnvgl.com Phone +47 404 00 404 Email [email protected] Contact name(s) Mrs. Sandhya Chaudhury Client contact Address Norges fiskerilag, Pirsentret, details N-7452 Trondheim, Norway Phone/Fax +47 980 33 041 Email [email protected] / [email protected] Contact name(s) Tor Bjørklund Larsen

In the first reassessment (2015) the fishery achieved a score of below 80 against 3 scoring indicators and was set 4 conditions and 2 recommendations for continuing certification that the client was required to address. 2 conditions from the earlier certification of the inshore cod were also carried over to the first reassessment and are now closed. Conditions 3 to 6 are all closed in this audit. Table 6 shows how the principle scores have developed over the certification period.

3.1 The assessment process

The MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.1 defines the Unit of Certification (UoC) (i.e., the unit entitled to receive an MSC certificate) as follows: “The target stock or stocks (= biologically distinct unit/s) combined with the fishing method/gear and practice (including vessel type/s) pursuing that stock and any fleets, groups of vessels, or individual vessels of other fishing operators.”. The fisheries covered by this certification are defined as described in Table 2 below.

Table 2 Units of Certification (UoC) North East Arctic cod

UoC 1 Description

Species Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua)

Stock North East Arctic cod Stock region: North East Arctic Common name of the body of water: North East Arctic ocean Geographical area FAO area 27 Local fisheries management area: ICES sub areas 1 and 2, Norwegian & Russian Fishing zone and International waters Harvest method / Trawl gear Management Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission & Norwegian Authorities

Client group Norges Fiskarlag on behalf of the entire Norwegian Fleet. The entire Norwegian fleet is included in the Unit of Certification, no other eligible fishers have Other eligible fishers been identified.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 7

UoC 2 Description Species Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) Stock North East Arctic cod Geographical area Stock region: North East Arctic Common name of the body of water: North East Arctic ocean FAO area 27 Local fisheries management area: ICES sub areas 1 and 2, Norwegian & Russian Fishing zone and International waters Harvest method / Longline gear Management Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission & Norwegian Authorities Client group Norges Fiskarlag on behalf of the entire Norwegian Fleet. Other eligible The entire Norwegian fleet is included in the Unit of Certification, no other eligible fishers have fishers been identified. UoC 3 Description Species Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) Stock North East Arctic cod Geographical area Stock region: North East Arctic Common name of the body of water: North East Arctic ocean FAO area 27 Local fisheries management area: ICES sub areas 1 and 2, Norwegian & Russian Fishing zone and International waters Harvest method / Gillnet gear Management Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission & Norwegian Authorities Client group Norges Fiskarlag on behalf of the entire Norwegian Fleet. Other eligible The entire Norwegian fleet is included in the Unit of Certification, no other eligible fishers have fishers been identified. UoC 4 Description Species Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) Stock North East Arctic cod Geographical area Stock region: North East Arctic Common name of the body of water: North East Arctic ocean FAO area 27 Local fisheries management area: ICES sub areas 1 and 2, Norwegian & Russian Fishing zone and International waters Harvest method / Danish seine gear Management Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission & Norwegian Authorities Client group Norges Fiskarlag on behalf of the entire Norwegian Fleet. Other eligible The entire Norwegian fleet is included in the Unit of Certification, no other eligible fishers have fishers been identified. UoC 5 Description Species Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) Stock North East Arctic cod Stock region: North East Arctic Common name of the body of water: North East Arctic ocean Geographical area FAO area 27 Local fisheries management area: ICES sub areas 1 and 2, Norwegian & Russian Fishing zone and International waters Harvest method / Hook & line gear Management Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission & Norwegian Authorities

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 8

Client group Norges Fiskarlag on behalf of the entire Norwegian Fleet. Other eligible The entire Norwegian fleet is included in the Unit of Certification, no other eligible fishers have fishers been identified.

Table 3 Units of Certification (UoC) North East Arctic haddock UoC 6 Description

Species Atlantic haddock (Melangrammus aeglefinus)

Stock North East Arctic haddock Stock region: North East Arctic Common name of the body of water: North East Arctic ocean Geographical area FAO area 27 Local fisheries management area: ICES sub areas 1 and 2, Norwegian & Russian Fishing zone and International waters Harvest method / Trawl gear Management Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission & Norwegian Authorities

UoC 7 Description Species Atlantic haddock (Melangrammus aeglefinus) Stock North East Arctic haddock Geographical area Stock region: North East Arctic Common name of the body of water: North East Arctic ocean FAO area 27 Local fisheries management area: ICES sub areas 1 and 2, Norwegian & Russian Fishing zone and International waters Harvest method / Longline gear Management Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission & Norwegian Authorities Client group Norges Fiskarlag on behalf of the entire Norwegian Fleet. Other eligible The entire Norwegian fleet is included in the Unit of Certification, no other eligible fishers have fishers been identified. UoC 8 Description Species Atlantic haddock (Melangrammus aeglefinus) Stock North East Arctic haddock Geographical area Stock region: North East Arctic Common name of the body of water: North East Arctic ocean FAO area 27 Local fisheries management area: ICES sub areas 1 and 2, Norwegian & Russian Fishing zone and International waters Harvest method / Gillnet gear Management Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission & Norwegian Authorities Client group Norges Fiskarlag on behalf of the entire Norwegian Fleet. Other eligible The entire Norwegian fleet is included in the Unit of Certification, no other eligible fishers have fishers been identified.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 9

UoC 9 Description Species Atlantic haddock (Melangrammus aeglefinus) Stock North East Arctic haddock Geographical area Stock region: North East Arctic Common name of the body of water: North East Arctic ocean FAO area 27 Local fisheries management area: ICES sub areas 1 and 2, Norwegian & Russian Fishing zone and International waters Harvest method / Danish seine gear Management Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission & Norwegian Authorities Client group Norges Fiskarlag on behalf of the entire Norwegian Fleet. Other eligible The entire Norwegian fleet is included in the Unit of Certification, no other eligible fishers have fishers been identified. UoC 10 Description Species Atlantic haddock (Melangrammus aeglefinus) Stock North East Arctic haddock Stock region: North East Arctic Common name of the body of water: North East Arctic ocean Geographical area FAO area 27 Local fisheries management area: ICES sub areas 1 and 2, Norwegian & Russian Fishing zone and International waters Harvest method / Hook & line gear Management Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission & Norwegian Authorities Client group Norges Fiskarlag on behalf of the entire Norwegian Fleet. Other eligible The entire Norwegian fleet is included in the Unit of Certification, no other eligible fishers have fishers been identified.

3.2 History of the assessments

3.2.1 Summary of the original assessment

The intent of the Norway North East Arctic cod and haddock fisheries to become MSC certified was announced on 1st September 2008, and the offshore component of the fisheries received their certification on 26th April 2010 while the inshore component was certified on 13th October 2011. Scope of certification was up to the point of landing and chain of custody commenced from point of sale/landing. The default assessment tree contained within the MSC Fishery Assessment Methodology version 1 (FAM v1), was used for the initial assessments. The fisheries attained a score of 80 or more against each of the MSC Principles and did not score less than 60 against any of the individual MSC Criteria.

The re-assessment of the Norway North East Arctic cod and haddock fisheries was announced on 1st May 2014, and the fisheries were re-certified on 6th October 2015. Norway NEA cod and haddock products landed by Norwegian vessels, recorded by the Directorate of Fisheries and the sales organizations, and sold through or by approval from the sales organizations, are eligible to enter further Chain of Custody. The scope of the MSC Fishery certification is up to the point of landing and Chain of Custody commences from the point of landing. The default assessment tree contained within the MSC Fishery Certification Requirements version 1.3 issued 14 January 2013, was used for the re-assessments. The fisheries attained a score of 80 or more against each of the MSC Principles and did not score less than 60 against any of the individual MSC Criteria. In the re-assessment, the scores of the three Principles are given in Table 4 and Table 5:

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 10

Table 4 Principle scores – reassessment: Norway NEA cod fishery

Danish Principle Trawl Longline Gill-net Hook & Line Seine

Principle 1 – Target Species 95.6

Principle 2 – Ecosystem 85.3 86.7 85.7 85.7 87.0

Principle 3 – Management 95.5 System

Table 5 Principle scores – reassessment: Norway NEA haddock fishery

Principle Trawl Longline Gill-net Danish Seine Hook & Line

Principle 1 – Target Species 95.6

Principle 2 – Ecosystem 85.3 86.7 85.7 85.7 87.0

Principle 3 – Management System 95.5

The fisheries achieved a score of below 80 against 2 scoring indicators. The assessment team set 4 conditions and 2 recommendations for continuing certification that the client is required to address. Conditions and recommendations are presented in full in section 4 of this annual surveillance report.

3.2.2 First annual surveillance – 2016

The first surveillance audit was performed as an on-site audit and conducted according to MSC Certification Requirements, version 2.0 dated 01 October 2014. The default assessment tree set out in the MSC Certification Requirements, version 1.3 dated 14 January 2013, was used. The surveillance was announced on the MSC website on 11th October 2016, followed with a supporting notice to stakeholders issued by the MSC on the same date. Direct email notification was also sent to the stakeholders that had previously been identified for the fishery, inviting interested parties to contact the audit team. The re-assessment certificate was issued on 25th October 2015. The first surveillance audit was scheduled for 16th and 17th November 2016, which is in accordance to clause 7.23.6.1 of CR v 2.0. The audit was coordinated with the following fisheries: • Norway North East Arctic Saithe fishery (certificate issued 16 June 2008 and 16 June 2013) • Norway North Sea Saithe fishery (certificate issued 16 June 2008 and 16 June 2013)

Co-ordination of surveillance activities was done in order to achieve: • Coordinated stakeholder consultancies • Reduction in travel and subsistence costs for the client • Reduction in administration and coordination activities and costs

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 11

• Reduction of the time stakeholders would have to invest in participating in multiple assessment activities • Harmonised outcomes of assessments and achievement of consistent conclusions • Sharing of fishery information

The surveillance visit for the fishery was therefore conducted on the scheduled dates in Bergen and Oslo, Norway. A member of the surveillance audits of the initial certification, Team Leader Mrs. Sandhya Chaudhury and independent expert Mr. Tim Huntington gathered input from the various stakeholders, including the Norwegian Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries, Fisheries Directorate, the Institute of Marine Research and the client fishery. The meetings reviewed the fishery in 2015 and did a preliminary review of the fishery in 2016. At each of the meetings the relevant parts of the six conditions were reviewed and conditions 1 & 2 (from the inshore cod certification) were closed.

3.2.3 Second annual surveillance – 2017

The second surveillance audit was performed as an on-site audit and conducted according to MSC Certification Requirements, version 2.0 dated 01 October 2014. The default assessment tree set out in the MSC Certification Requirements, version 1.3 dated 14 January 2013, was used. The surveillance was announced on the MSC website on 18th August 2017, followed with a supporting notice to stakeholders issued by the MSC on the same date. Direct email notification was also sent to the stakeholders that had previously been identified for the fishery, inviting interested parties to contact the audit team. The second surveillance audit was scheduled for 19th and 20th September 2017 in Bergen and Oslo, Norway and was integrated with the site visit of the fourth surveillance and recertification audits of the saithe fisheries.

These fisheries are:

• Norway North East Arctic Saithe fishery (certificate issued 16 June 2008 and 16 June 2013)

• Norway North Sea Saithe fishery (certificate issued 16 June 2008 and 16 June 2013) with additional species North Sea cod, haddock and European hake for the re-certification. Integration of these audit activities was done in order to achieve the aims described for the first annual surveillance audit. A member of the surveillance audits of the initial certification and the first surveillance after recertification, Team Leader Mrs. Sandhya Chaudhury and independent expert Mr. Hans Lassen gathered input from the various stakeholders, including the Norwegian Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries, Fisheries Directorate, the Institute of Marine Research and the client fishery. There was no rescoring at this second surveillance audit and conditions 3 to 6 were all on target.

3.2.4 Third annual surveillance – 2018

The third surveillance audit was performed as an on-site audit and conducted according to MSC Certification Requirements, version 2.0 dated 01 October 2014. The default assessment tree set out in the MSC Certification Requirements, version 1.3 dated 14 January 2013, was used. The surveillance audit was announced on the MSC website on 6th September 2018, followed with a supporting notice to stakeholders issued by the MSC on the same date. Direct email notification was also sent to the stakeholders that had previously been identified for the fishery, inviting interested parties to contact the audit team. The third surveillance audit was scheduled for 16th and 17th October 2018 in Bergen and Oslo, Norway and was integrated with the site visit of the fourth surveillance and recertification audits of the herring fisheries. These fisheries are: Norway North East Arctic cod and haddock fishery Norway North Sea and Skagerrak herring Norway Spring Spawning herring. Integration of these audit activities was done in order to achieve the aims described for the first annual surveillance audit. A member of the surveillance audits of the initial certification and the first surveillance after recertification, Team

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 12

Leader Mrs. Sandhya Chaudhury and independent expert Mr. Hans Lassen gathered input from the various stakeholders, including the Norwegian Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries, Fisheries Directorate, the Institute of Marine Research and the client fishery. There was no rescoring at this third surveillance audit and conditions 3 to 6 were all on target.

3.3 Fourth annual surveillance – 2019

The 4th surveillance audit was announced on 30th October 2019. The audit was integrated with the following assessment activities: 1. NEA cod & haddock fishery including coastal cod – 2nd reassessment 2. NEA cod & haddock fishery- 4th surveillance 4 3. Norway Sand eel, pout and North Sea sprat fishery: 2nd surveillance 4. NFA Norway tusk and ling and NFA Norway lumpfish fisheries: 2nd surveillance 5. Norway NEA saithe fishery – 1st surveillance 6. North Sea demersal fisheries – 1st Surveillance

The on-site activities were held in Bergen, Norway on 2nd December 2019, in Oslo, Norway on 3rd December 2019 and by Skype on 9th December 2019. The assessment team met with representatives from IMR and Fisheries Directorate in Bergen and the Norwegian Ministry for trade, industry and fisheries in Oslo. As a result a number of Principle 2 PI’s (2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.3.1, 2.4.1 and 2.4.2) were rescored. Conditions 3 to 6 were all closed at this fourth surveillance audit. See Table 11 for an overview. The reasons for the rescoring were: - Additional data on the fisheries impact on harbour porpoise were presented, see section 5.2 (Conditions 3 and 4) - Additional data on habitats affected by the fisheries were presented, see section 5.2.3 for further details (Condition 5) - Golden redfish was, at the 2015 assessment, misclassified as ETP species and was reclassified as ‘Retained/minor’ at this audit, see section 5.2.4 for further details, (Condition 6)

3.3.1 Summary of surveillance findings

No new conditions were set at this audit

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 13

3.4 Conclusion

The fisheries continue to be within the scope of the MSC fisheries standard (MSC FCP v2.1 § 7.4) according to the following determinations (MSC FCP v2.1 § 7.4):

 The target species are fish and the fisheries do not use poisons or explosives;  The fisheries are not conducted under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement;  The client or client group does not include an entity that has been successfully prosecuted for a forced labour violation in the last 2 years;  The fisheries have mechanisms for resolving disputes and disputes do not overwhelm the fisheries;  The fisheries are not enhanced or based on an introduced species.

The main findings of the surveillance audit included  The fisheries, in 2018-2019, are conducted with the same strategy, same gears and covering the same grounds as in previous years  The fisheries are documented at the same level as in previous years  The stocks remain healthy  Management regulations are unchanged.  Monitoring, Control and Enforcement activities and strategies were unchanged and remained as in previous years.  No significant non-compliance has been reported  Research continues to improve understanding of the biology of fisheries  Traceability issues are unchanged  The database for by-catch of marine mammals have improved not least based on the SCANS III 2016 survey (Hammond et al 2017) and 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 were rescored and condition 3 and 4 were closed  Mapping of sea pens and megafauna have improved over the certification period and an assessment of the impact can now be made. Habitat impact 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 were rescored and Condition 5 was closed.  Golden redfish was misclassified as ETP at the original re-assessment of 2015 and was reclassified as retained species in this surveillance assessment. Retained species 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 were rescored and condition 6 was closed. There have been no material changes to the status of the target stocks, ecosystem impact nor the management system since re-assessment. These fisheries had six conditions and two recommendations. Two conditions (Condition 1 and Condition 2) were carried over from Norwegian North East Arctic Inshore Cod Fishery certification in 2010 (Intertek Moody Marine, 2010). Both of these were closed at the first surveillance audit of 2016. Conditions 3, 4, 5 and 6 are all closed at this surveillance audit. The following rescoring was done (Original score/SA4 score) Table 6 Summary of re-scoring PI Trawl Longline Gillnet Danish Hook and seine line Principle 1 Stock status Unchanged Cod and 95.6 Haddock 2.1.1 Retained Revised at 80/80 80/80 80/80 80/80 80/80 SA4

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 14

2.1.2 Revised at 95/90 90 95/90 95/90 95/90 SA4 2.1.3 Revised at 85/85 85/85 85/85 85/85 85/85 SA4 – scores remain unchanged 2.2.1 By-catch Unchanged 90 90 90 90 90 2.2.2 Unchanged 85 85 85 85 85 2.2.3 Unchanged 85 85 85 85 85 2.3.1 ETP Revised at 75/80 75/80 70/80 75/80 75/80 SA4 2.3.2 Revised at 85 85 70/80 85 85 SA4 2.3.3 Unchanged 85 85 85 85 85 2.4.1 Habitat Revised at 70/80 95 95 75/80 95 SA4 2.4.2 Unchanged 85 85 85 85 85 2.4.3 Unchanged 90 90 90 90 90 2.5.1 Ecosystem Unchanged 95 95 95 95 95 2.5.2 Unchanged 85 85 85 85 85 2.5.3 Unchanged 95 95 95 95 95 Principle 2 Orig/SA4 85.3/86.3 86.7/87.0 85.7/86.7 85.7/86.3 87.0/87.0 Principle 3 Management Unchanged 95.6

Overall, the fishery continues to be fully compliant with the standards set for MSC certification SG 80. The assessment team concludes that the MSC Certificate for these fisheries shall remain active, subject to annual surveillance review.

Table 7 Conclusion Fishery Status of Comment certification Norway North East Certified The assessment team concludes that the MSC Certificate for this fishery Arctic Cod fishery shall remain active, subject to the agreed annual surveillance schedule and progress on the remaining conditions. Norway North east Certified The assessment team concludes that the MSC Certificate for this fishery Arctic Haddock shall remain active, subject to the agreed annual surveillance schedule fishery and progress on the remaining conditions.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 15

4 REPORT DETAILS

4.1 Surveillance information

Table 8 Surveillance Audit information

1 Fishery name Norway North East Arctic cod fishery

Norway North East Arctic haddock fishery 2 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) (one table per UoA)

UoA 1 Description

Species Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua)

Management Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission & Norwegian Authorities

Client group Norges Fiskarlag on behalf of the entire Norwegian Fleet. The entire Norwegian fleet is included in the Unit of Certification, no other eligible fishers Other eligible fishers have been identified.

UoA 2 Description Species Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) Stock North East Arctic cod Geographical area Stock region: North East Arctic Common name of the body of water: North East Arctic ocean FAO area 27 Local fisheries management area: ICES sub areas 1 and 2, Norwegian & Russian Fishing zone and International waters Harvest method / gear Longline Management Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission & Norwegian Authorities Client group Norges Fiskarlag on behalf of the entire Norwegian Fleet. Other eligible fishers The entire Norwegian fleet is included in the Unit of Certification, no other eligible fishers have been identified. UoA 3 Description Species Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) Stock North East Arctic cod Geographical area Stock region: North East Arctic Common name of the body of water: North East Arctic ocean FAO area 27 Local fisheries management area: ICES sub areas 1 and 2, Norwegian & Russian Fishing zone and International waters

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 16

Harvest method / gear Gillnet Management Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission & Norwegian Authorities Client group Norges Fiskarlag on behalf of the entire Norwegian Fleet. Other eligible fishers The entire Norwegian fleet is included in the Unit of Certification, no other eligible fishers have been identified. UoA 4 Description Species Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) Stock North East Arctic cod Geographical area Stock region: North East Arctic Common name of the body of water: North East Arctic ocean FAO area 27 Local fisheries management area: ICES sub areas 1 and 2, Norwegian & Russian Fishing zone and International waters Harvest method / gear Danish seine Management Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission & Norwegian Authorities Client group Norges Fiskarlag on behalf of the entire Norwegian Fleet. Other eligible fishers The entire Norwegian fleet is included in the Unit of Certification, no other eligible fishers have been identified. UoA 5 Description Species Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) Stock North East Arctic cod Stock region: North East Arctic Common name of the body of water: North East Arctic ocean Geographical area FAO area 27 Local fisheries management area: ICES sub areas 1 and 2, Norwegian & Russian Fishing zone and International waters Harvest method / gear Hook & line Management Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission & Norwegian Authorities Client group Norges Fiskarlag on behalf of the entire Norwegian Fleet. The entire Norwegian fleet is included in the Unit of Certification, no other eligible fishers Other eligible fishers have been identified.

UoA 6 Description

Species Atlantic haddock (Melangrammus aeglefinus)

Management Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission & Norwegian Authorities

Client group Norges Fiskarlag on behalf of the entire Norwegian Fleet. The entire Norwegian fleet is included in the Unit of Certification, no other eligible Other eligible fishers fishers have been identified.

UoA 7 Description Species Atlantic haddock (Melangrammus aeglefinus)

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 17

Stock North East Arctic haddock Geographical area Stock region: North East Arctic Common name of the body of water: North East Arctic ocean FAO area 27 Local fisheries management area: ICES sub areas 1 and 2, Norwegian & Russian Fishing zone and International waters Harvest method / gear Longline Management Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission & Norwegian Authorities Client group Norges Fiskarlag on behalf of the entire Norwegian Fleet. Other eligible fishers The entire Norwegian fleet is included in the Unit of Certification, no other eligible fishers have been identified. UoA 8 Description Species Atlantic haddock (Melangrammus aeglefinus) Stock North East Arctic haddock Geographical area Stock region: North East Arctic Common name of the body of water: North East Arctic ocean FAO area 27 Local fisheries management area: ICES sub areas 1 and 2, Norwegian & Russian Fishing zone and International waters Harvest method / gear Gillnet Management Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission & Norwegian Authorities Client group Norges Fiskarlag on behalf of the entire Norwegian Fleet. Other eligible fishers The entire Norwegian fleet is included in the Unit of Certification, no other eligible fishers have been identified. UoA 9 Description Species Atlantic haddock (Melangrammus aeglefinus) Stock North East Arctic haddock Geographical area Stock region: North East Arctic Common name of the body of water: North East Arctic ocean FAO area 27 Local fisheries management area: ICES sub areas 1 and 2, Norwegian & Russian Fishing zone and International waters Harvest method / gear Danish seine Management Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission & Norwegian Authorities Client group Norges Fiskarlag on behalf of the entire Norwegian Fleet. Other eligible fishers The entire Norwegian fleet is included in the Unit of Certification, no other eligible fishers have been identified. UoA 10 Description Species Atlantic haddock (Melangrammus aeglefinus) Stock North East Arctic haddock Stock region: North East Arctic Common name of the body of water: North East Arctic ocean Geographical area FAO area 27 Local fisheries management area: ICES sub areas 1 and 2, Norwegian & Russian Fishing zone and International waters Harvest method / gear Hook & line Management Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission & Norwegian Authorities Client group Norges Fiskarlag on behalf of the entire Norwegian Fleet. The entire Norwegian fleet is included in the Unit of Certification, no other eligible Other eligible fishers fishers have been identified.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 18

Date 26 April 2010 Date of 25 October 2020 certified expiry

3 Surveillance level and type

Surveillance level 6, on-site surveillance audit, according to FCR v1.3

3 Surveillance number

1st Surveillance 2nd Surveillance 3rd Surveillance 4th Surveillance X Other (expedited etc)

4 Proposed team leader

SANDHYA CHAUDHURY is responsible for Traceability and is the team leader.  She meets the Fishery team leader qualifications and competency criteria in MSC FCP V2.1 Annex PC Table PC1.  She has a degree in a relevant subject.  Nearly 14 years’ experience with the MSC fisheries standard.  Passed MSC’s online training for fishery team leader within the last 3 years.  Passed new versions of the compulsory online training modules.  Approved ISO 9001 auditor for 20 years.  Extensive experience with MSC Fisheries and Chain of Custody schemes.  Considerable experience in applying different types of interviewing and facilitation techniques.  She has undertaken more than 2 MSC fishery assessments/surveillance site visits in the last 5 years.  Knowledge of common language spoken by clients and stakeholders for this fishery which is English  Sandhya is responsible for coordinating the Assessment Team’s work and for the completion of the reassessment according to the requirements of FCP v2.1  She is also responsible for Traceability and has considerable first-hand and auditing experience from the MSC Chain of custody as well as other Food safety schemes.  She has no conflict of interest in relation to the fishery under assessment.

5 Proposed team members

HANS LASSEN Principle expert:  Hans has a degree in a relevant subject.  More than 3 year’s fisheries experience.  Passed MSC’s online training for fishery team member within the last 3 years.  Passed new versions of the compulsory online training modules.  More than 3 years’ experience applying relevant stock assessment techniques being used by the fishery under assessment.

 More than 3 years’ experience working with the biology and population dynamics of the target or species with similar biology.  Knowledge of common language spoken by clients and stakeholders for this fishery which is English.  Considerable experience in applying different types of interviewing and facilitation techniques.  He has at least two assignments in the country or region in which the fishery under assessment is based in the last 10 years.  Hans has no conflict of interest in relation to the fishery under assessment.

6 Audit/review time and location

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 19

2nd December 2019 Bergen, Norway; 3rd December 2019 Oslo, Norway and 9th December 2019 by Skype.

This report contains the findings of the fourth annual MSC Fisheries surveillance audit conducted for the Norway North East Arctic cod fishery and Norway North East Arctic haddock fishery during 2nd, 3rd and 9th December 2019. The purpose of this annual Surveillance Report is: 1. To establish and report on any material changes to the circumstances and practices affecting the original complying assessment of the fishery; 2. To monitor the progress made to comply with any Conditions raised and described in the Public Certification Report of 6th October 2015 and in the corresponding Action Plan drawn up by the client; 3. To monitor any actions taken in response to any Recommendations made in the Public Report; 4. To re-score any Performance Indicators (PI) where practice or circumstances have materially changed during the intervening year, focusing on those PIs that form the basis of Conditions raised.

The primary focus of this surveillance report is to review the changes occurred since the previous year. For a complete picture of the fishery, this report should be read in conjunction with the Public Certification Report available for download at www.msc.org.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 20

4.2 Background

The surveillance assessment of the Norway North East Arctic cod fishery and the Norway North East Arctic haddock fishery is based on the reassessment Public Certification Report dated 06th October 2015. The current certificate is valid until 25th October 2020. Information from the recertification is available at: https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/norway-north-east-arctic-cod/@@assessments and https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/norway-north-east-arctic-haddock/@@assessments . The default assessment tree contained within the MSC Fishery Certification Requirements version 1.3 issued 14 January 2013, was used for the reassessments. The fisheries attained a score of 80 or more against each of the MSC Principles and did not score less than 60 against any of the individual MSC Criteria. The Norway NEA cod and haddock fisheries achieved a score of below 80 against 3 scoring indicators. The assessment team set 4 conditions for continuing certification that the client was required to address. In addition, 2 conditions were transferred from the inshore cod certification to the reassessment of 2015. In addition, 2 recommendations were set for the certification of the fishery. The conditions and recommendations are presented in full in section 5.2 of this annual surveillance report.

4.2.1 Stock Status of Northeast Arctic Cod

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 to slightly above FMSY. There has been no strong recruitment since the 2004 and 2005 year- classes.

ICES assesses that fishing pressure on the stock is above FMSY and between Fpa and Flim, while the spawning stock size is above MSY Btrigger, Bpa, and Blim.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 21

Figure 1 Northeast Arctic Cod. Stock Status and stock trend. Source: ICES (2019) advice on NEA Cod

Stock status is unchanged.

4.2.2 Stock status of Northeast Arctic Haddock . The spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has been above MSY Btrigger since 1989. Due to the strong recruitment-at-age 3 in 2007–2009 (2004–2006 year- classes) the stock reached an all-time high level in 2013. SSB is now decreasing, but remains well above MSY Btrigger. Fishing mortality (F) has increased since 2013 and was above FMSY in 2017 and 2018. ICES assesses that fishing pressure on the stock is above FMSY, but below Fpa and Flim, and that the spawning stock size is above MSY Btrigger, Bpa, and Blim. Stock status is unchanged.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 22

Figure 2 Northeast Arctic Haddock. Stock status and stock trends. Source: ICES (2019) NEA Haddock advice

4.2.3 Impact on the ecosystem

Catch compositions are presented in section 5.1.2. These demonstrate that the fisheries have continued as in previous years, by-catch pattern remains as in former years. There are no reports of catches in the offshore fisheries by ETP species, sea birds and marine mammals.

The status of the species represented in the catches are unchanged compared to previous years or the amounts remain small and will not seriously affect stock development.

Figure 3 presents the effort distribution for bottom trawls in 2017, this remains valid in general. The VMS tracks for 2018 are shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 23

Figure 3 : Effort distribution of bottom trawlers in 2017 for Norwegian vessel by target species. Source: Directorate of Fisheries. (Cod in blue, haddock in yellow, saithe in green)

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 24

Figure 4 Trawl VMS tracks for NEA Cod and Vulnerable Sea pens and mega fauna communities. Source: Client

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 25

Figure 5 Trawl VMS tracks for NEA Haddock. Source: Client

The surveillance audit consulted with Norwegian Institute on Nature Research on the impact on sea birds and with IMR on the impact on marine mammals. In both cases there was no particular concern expressed for these fisheries. NINA runs a project supported by the Client on documenting the by-catch of sea birds in the fisheries. The Client presented an October 2019 report from Reference group for by-catch of sea birds ‘referansegruppen for bifangst av sjøfugl’. Neither at this meeting did the Barents Sea trawl fishery figure as a particular threat.

The habitat impact is largely by trawls and Figure 4 and Figure 5 presents overlap between the sea pen and megafauna communities for 2018. These are results of studies initiated by the client. Until 2019 the IMR has not focused on using the Reference Fleet to collect information on bycatches of benthic organisms, or more specifically sponges and corals. From 2019 the Reference Fleet procedures for documenting total catches, including bycatches and discards, was expanded for the trawlers to also include bycatches of corals and sponges. Vessels are required to register for all hauls any bycatches of sponges and coral. Because this is new procedure is being tried the methods for reporting these bycatches may change. Vessels are also given an identification key to use for identifying to family, genus or species.

The fisheries continued as in previous years and the ecosystem impact remain in previously assessed.

4.2.4 Changes to the management system

NEA cod and NEA haddock fisheries are managed by the Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission (JNRFC). JNRFC sets based on adopted management plans annual TACs for both stocks. Management Plans are unchanged in recent years.

Management is unchanged. Monitoring, Control and enforcement are unchanged

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 26

Compliance remains good. Control is executed based on a Risk assessment and therefore proportions of inspections that result in warnings etc is not a reflection of the general level of compliance in the Norwegian fisheries. In 2019 15 out of 502 inspections resulted in reactions (Licence suspension, criminal activity review, administrative fine). There were 64 warnings.

There are no changes in the management of NEA cod and NEA haddock fisheries.

4.2.5 CoC considerations

There are no changes that effect Chain of Custody considerations since the second Surveillance audit of 2017. In accordance with the regulation implemented in 2015, catches are recorded using an “app” on smartphones, which also provide fishing location in a similar way to VMS on the larger vessels. Smaller vessels continue to provide notification of landing location and landing company two hours prior to landing and also provide sales notes following landing.

There are no changes to the systems of tracking and tracing in the fishery which are considered sufficient to make sure all fish and fish products identified and sold as certified by the fishery originate from the certified fishery.

Norway North East Arctic cod and haddock and their products landed by Norwegian vessels, involved in these fisheries, recorded by the Directorate of Fisheries and the sales organizations, and sold through or by approval from the sales organizations are eligible to enter further Chain of Custody. The list of vessels is updated at every assessment and is an appendix to this annual report.

The scope of the MSC Fishery certification remains unchanged and is up to the point of landing and Chain of Custody commences from the point of landing and sale.

There is no change to the products, produced on-board the vessels and included in the scope of certification: Live, fresh, frozen, salted and dried fish; filets and by-products (bellyflaps, heads, tongues, cheeks, roe, liver and trimmings).

Production of fish-oil and fishmeal, on board the vessels, is from unspecified fish and require separate CoC certification.

The main market remains unchanged and are producers and traders in Norway.

The client Norges Fiskarlag (The Norwegian Fishermen's Association) was founded in 1926 and is based on memberships in local and regional fishermen's associations. The association has a total of 110 local chapters and two semi-independent group organizations with approximately 4300 members from across the country. It has 7 regional associations and 2 group organizations all of which are part of the client group. The sales organizations are owned by fishermen and boat-owners (although details of the mechanisms that form the electoral basis may vary). The sales organizations are, therefore, all a part of the “MSC client group project” and are together with NFA (and the Norwegian Seafood Council) bound by contract to perform the certifications and provide financing for direct and indirect costs. The sales organizations perform all sales through auctions, do not take ownership of the product or handle the products. They act solely as an intermediary between the vessel owners and the buyers.

The sales organizations are: - Norges Råfisklag - Surofi - Vest-Norges Fiskesalslag - Fiskehav (Rogaland Fiskesalgslag & Skagerakfisk have merged into a single organization).

4.2.6 IPI

Coastal cod qualify as an IPI stock as it cannot be separated in the catches from cod of the Northeast Arctic stock, it forms less than 15% of the total combined catches of the two stock components, it is not an ETP species and it is not certified separately.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 27

A Variation was granted by MSC 10 September 2014 to allow fish or fish products to be considered as coming from IPI stocks to enter into chains of custody.

The MSC Certification Requirements v1.3 section CH 4.2.2 requires that an IPI stock is likely to be within biologically based limits, or if outside the limits, there are measures in place that are expected to make sure that all fishing-related mortality does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of the depleted IPI stock. The performance of IPI stocks eligible to enter further certified chains of custody shall be reviewed and documented during surveillance activities.

After the above- mentioned variation had been requested and granted, it became clear to the MSC and the assessment team that Coastal cod had already been granted IPI status through a variation requested by the CAB and granted by the MSC after the initial assessments were completed, in November 2011. MSC CR v1.3 CH4.1 states that the CAB shall only allow defined and limited proportions of catches from MSC approved IPI stocks to enter into certified chains of custody and use the MSC ecolabel for a maximum of one certification period. A variation was granted by the MSC on 26th November 2014 to allow Coastal cod in the Norway NEA cod fishery to enter into certified chains of custody and use the MSC ecolabel for the full lifetime of the certificate to be issued following the reassessment of the Norway NEA cod fishery, pending the successful reassessment of the Norway NEA cod fishery.

The response from MSC specifies that no further variation to this effect will be granted to extend the allowance beyond the next certification period.

To continue using the Ecolabel on certified products after the reassessment period, the fishery will have to either include coastal cod as a P1 species or have mechanisms in place to reduce their catches below 2% of the total catch or find means to effectively separate their catches on landing by the time of the next reassessment. A recommendation has been placed on this fishery to achieve one of these goals and progress against this recommendation shall be monitored in the annual surveillance reports.

Coastal cod entered chain of custody along with the Norway NEA cod in the reassessment. Coastal cod was assessed under PI 2.1 Retained species in the reassessment.

Table 9 IPI determination Ref. Clause/ Requirement IPI- Y/N Observation

The CAB shall only recognise stock(s) as being an IPI stock, where the inseparability arises because either: a The non-target catch is practicably Y Coastal cod can only be distinguished based on indistinguishable during normal fishing detailed biological inspection, e.g. otolith inspection operations (i.e., the catch is from a stock of the same species or a closely related species) b When distinguishable, it is not NR commercially feasible to separate due to the practical operation of the fishery that would require significant modification to existing harvesting and processing methods. c The total combined proportion of Y The coastal cod is about 5% of the total catch of catches from the IPI stock(s) do not NEA cod exceed 15% by weight of the total combined catches of target and IPI stock(s) for the UoA; d The stocks are not ETP species Y The coastal cod is managed under the Norwegian Marine Resource Act (Havresurslova) e The stocks are not certified separately Y

The IPI status of coastal cod has not changed since the reassessment PCR of 06th October 2015.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 28

4.3 Version details

Table 10 – Fisheries program documents versions

Document Version number

MSC Fisheries Certification Process Version 2.1

MSC Fisheries Standard Version 2.01

MSC General Certification Requirements Version 2.4.1

Default assessment tree – Certification Requirements Version 1.3

MSC Surveillance Reporting Template Version 2.01

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 29

5 RESULTS

5.1 Surveillance results overview 5.1.1 Summary of conditions

No new conditions were raised at this fourth surveillance audit. Status of conditions set for this assessment is given in Table 11 below. Table 11 Summary of Assessment Conditions Condition Condition Performa Status PI original score PI number nce revised indicator score (PI) 3 The quantity and quality of data 2.3.1 Closed 70 Gillnet 80 available for estimating (Harbour 75 Trawl, Longline, porpoise population size and porpoise) Danish seine & fishery related mortalities must Hook and Line. be improved to a level where the effects of the fishery are known and can be shown to be highly likely to be within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species; i.e. gillnet induced mortality rates must be within internationally agreed levels of sustainability. 4. A strategy for managing the 2.3.2 Closed 70 Gillnet 80 fishery’s impact on porpoise (Harbour 85 Trawl, Longline, shall be developed that includes porpoise) Danish seine & measures to minimise gillnet- Hook and Line. related mortality and is highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species, i.e. harbour porpoise. 5 The fishery shall demonstrate 2.4.1 Closed 70 Trawl 80 that it is highly unlikely to 75 Danish Seine reduce Pennatulacea (sea pens) habitat structure and 95 Longline, Gillnet, function of to a point where Hook and Line there would be serious or irreversible harm. 6 The effects of the fishery on the 2.3.1 Closed 70 Gillnet Rescored golden redfish (i.e. Sebastes Golden under 2.1 75 Trawl, Longline, norvegicus, previously S. redfish) 80 Danish seine & marinus) should be highly likely Hook and Line. to be within limits of national and international requirements for protection of this ETP species. The client must present evidence that the direct effects of the fishery are highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to this ETP species.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 30

5.1.2 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data

Table 12 – Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data

NEA Haddock Year NEA Cod (MT) (MT)

TAC 2018 796,000 202,305

UoA share of TAC 2018 356,418 101,605

UoC share of total TAC 2018 356,418 101,605

Total green weight catch by UoC (incl 2018 (most recent) 368,384 93,838 transfer from 2017)

Total green weight catch by UoC 2017 (second most recent) 408,460 113,360

The apparent overshoot of NEA cod in 2018 is the result of the annual transfer of unused quota from 2017.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 31

Table 13 Catch composition for NEA Cod fishery by Norwegian vessels 2018. Source: Fisheries Directorate

Norway North East Arctic Cod fishery Total green weight catch taken by the client group UoC share of Client catch Fishing TAC Hooks the total TAC of the total year (Tonnes) Gill-nets and lines Seine (Tonnes) TAC (Tonnes) Danish (not (not nets Demersal seine specified) specified) (purse) trawl Other

796,000 356,418 368,384 87,161 94,025 76,117 128 110,842 110

Mixed fishery (less than 50% 61,580 9,104 5,513 17,381 126 29,432 23 cod in each landing)

Targeted fishery (more than 306,804 78,057 88,512 58,736 3 81,410 86 50% cod in each landing) 3,513 417 9,693 0 13,495 1 Bycatch of: Haddock 5,343 2,737 476 0 10,205 3 Saithe Greenland 2 16 1,184 - 1,556 0 halibut Beaked 0 - 1 - 1,986 -0 redfish Spotted 35 1 852 - 641 0 wolffish Golden 39 54 205 - 1,068 0 redfish Northern 1 0 1,252 - 1 0 wolffish Atlantic 15 6 193 0 758 0 2018 wolffish 4 62 508 - 11 0 Tusk 49 306 182 - 40 0 Ling 15 246 81 - 46 0 Halibut Skates and 1 1 382 0 0 0 rays, nei. - - - - 273 - Shrimp European 133 36 1 0 13 0 plaice 7 69 8 1 1 1 Pollack Thorny - - 83 - - - skate 8 32 1 0 - 0 Monkfish 7 1 0 - - 0 Lemon sole European 1 5 0 - 1 0 hake King crab, - 0 2 - - 5 males

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 32

Table 14 Catch Composition for Norwegian vessels targeting NEA haddock. Source: Fisheries Directorate

Norway North East Arctic Haddock fishery

Total green weight catch taken by the client group Fishing TAC UoC share of the Client catch of the year (Tonnes) total TAC(Tonnes) total TAC(Tonnes) (not seine seine trawl Other Other Danish (purse) (purse) Gill-nets Gill-nets lines (not lines Demersal Demersal specified) specified) specified) Seine nets nets Seine and Hooks

202,305 101,605 93,838 14,009 2,509 37,933 4 39,375 7

Mixed fishery (less than 50% 54,072 5,957 1,982 17,514 4 28,613 2 haddock in each landing) Targeted fishery (more than 50% haddock in each 39,766 8,052 527 20,419 0 10,763 5 landing) 2,676 94 7,128 0 4,519 1 Bycatch of: Cod 268 112 197 - 1,478 2 Saithe 0 3 776 - 7 0 Tusk 0 - 0 - 485 0 Beaked redfish 3 1 106 - 269 0 Golden redfish 11 31 309 - 23 0 Ling 2 0 310 - 15 0 Spotted wolffish Greenland 1 - 216 - 79 -0 halibut

2018 2018 Northern - - 115 - - - wolffish 85 1 1 0 0 - European plaice 14 0 36 0 14 0 Atlantic wolffish 2 26 26 - 7 0 Pollack 7 2 39 0 5 - Halibut Skates and rays, 0 0 14 - 0 0 nei. Roughead - - 12 - - - grenadier 3 2 6 0 - 0 Monkfish 1 4 1 - 3 - European hake - - 3 - - 2 King crab, males 4 0 0 - - - Lemon sole

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 33

0 0 3 - - 0 Picked dogfish - - 3 - - - Thorny skate 0 0 1 - 1 0 Whiting Greater - 0 1 - - -0 forkbeard King crab, - - 0 - - 0 females - 0 0 - - -0 Blue ling 0 - - - - - Grey gurnard Right eye 0 - - - - - flounders 0 0 0 - - - Turbot - - 0 - - - Rabbitfish - - 0 - - 0 Norway lobster European - - - - - 0 lobster - - - - 0 - Unidentified - - 0 - - - American plaice - - 0 - - - Blue skate European - - 0 - - - conger Whelk (Common - - - - - 0 whelk) - - 0 - - - Common dab Grey gurnard - - 0 - - -

5.1.3 Recommendations

There are no new recommendations set at this fourth surveillance audit for this fishery. Status of recommendations set for this assessment is given in Table 15 below. Table 15 Summary of assessment recommendations Rec. PI Recommendation Response at surv. Audit no 1 The client should be aware of the SA1: It was noted that whilst the cod stock has been designation of the Norwegian coastal under a recovery plan for around six years, whilst it was cod stock as an Inseparable or no longer in decline it was not yet fully recovered. Practically Inseparable (IPI) stock within Rebuilding activities are still in place and their the scope of this certification process. effectiveness yet to be fully evaluated. This designation can only be applied to STATUS: This recommendation has not been addressed this stock for one assessment. For any to date. future re-assessment the MSC Certification Requirements, CR v1.3 CH SA2: The Client reviewed progress with coastal cod 3.1, suggest that; the CAB may make a recovery and has over the years introduced measures

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 34

recommendation to either promote the aimed at coastal cod stock recovery all aimed at future Principal 1 assessment of the IPI reducing the fishing pressure on the coastal cod. stock (CH 6.1.1.1) or to develop However, the status of coastal has not improved as techniques to effectively separate the expected. catches of the currently IPI stock (CH STATUS: This recommendation is being addressed but 6.1.1.2) or to develop measures to the coastal cod status remain depleted. reduce the proportion of the IPI stock in the catches to 2% or less and ensure SA3: Status as in 2017. that the catch of the IPI stock does not create a significant impact on the state of SA 4: The classification of the golden redfish was the IPI stock as a whole (CH 6.1.1.3) inappropriate, and the impact was rescored under 2.1.1, triggering a variation request (27.4.10.2). 2.1.2 and 2.1.3, Also 2,3,1, 2.3.2, and 2.3.3 were rescored - see section 5.4. We therefore recommend that the client This rescoring is based on CR v1.3 takes due note of the MSC requirements for any future re-assessment of this fishery and takes the necessary action well before any re-assessment process begins.

For the Norwegian coastal cod, we consider it highly unlikely that they can be practically separated in the mixed catches with NEA cod. Therefore, the client needs to make representations to the appropriate authority for action to ensure that, for any future reassessment of the fishery the Norwegian coastal cod can either; · be dealt with under Principle 1 · or the catch of Coastal cod can be reduced to 2% or less of the total combined cod catch. 2 It is recommended that steps are taken SA1: Norwegian regulations (755/2011) have been to bring Norwegian SMH protection amended (9 March 2016) along international (e.g. measures in line with international NEAFC) standards. See standards recommended elsewhere. i.e. http://www.fiskeridir.no/Yrkesfiske/Regelverk-og- 1. the move-on rule should apply to all reguleringer/J-meldinger/Gjeldende-J-meldinger/J-40- coral catches (soft and hard) exceeding 2016 30 kg; STATUS: Two of the four recommendation elements 2. the move-on rule should apply to have now been adopted, so this recommendation is sponge bycatch that exceeds 400 kg; considered to be on target. Progress on the two 3. the move-on rule should be applied to remaining recommendation elements should be made all catches of sea pens, or similar by the next SA. burrowing megafauna, exceeding 7 kg SA2: The Norwegian authorities continue to improve the 4. the move-on rule should be increased net of non-fisheries zone with a view to protect the sea- from 2 to 5 nautical miles. bottom fauna. There was no specific progress to report the main emphasis has been on the development of additional closures as reported in section 2.4 STATUS: Two of the four recommendation elements have now been adopted, so this recommendation is considered to be on target. Progress on the two remaining recommendation elements should be made by the next SA. SA3: There was no specific progress to report the main emphasis has been on the development of additional closures as reported in section 2.4. SA 4: No specific progress was reported as in SA3

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 35

5.2 Conditions

There are 4 conditions on the Norway North East Arctic cod and Norway North East Arctic haddock fishery. The additional 2 conditions transferred from the Inshore cod fisheries were both closed in the second surveillance audit. The 4 open conditions are addressed below. 5.2.1 Condition 3 Harbour porpoise

Performance 2.3.1 Indicator Scoring The fishery meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. The issue fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species. SG80a: The effects of the fishery are known and are highly likely to be within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. SG80b: Direct effects are highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species. Score 70 Gillnet fishing for both cod and haddock

Condition The quantity and quality of data available for estimating porpoise population size and fishery related mortalities must be improved to a level where the effects of the fishery are known and can be shown to be highly likely to be within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species; i.e. gillnet induced mortality rates must be within internationally agreed levels of sustainability. Milestones At the first surveillance visit, provide evidence that discussions have been held with the appropriate experts to agree a sampling programme for gathering the necessary data for developing more robust population and mortality estimates, particularly with respect to the gillnet fisheries. At the surveillance visits two and three, the client shall provide a written progress report on achieving the requirements of the condition. At the fourth surveillance meeting, the client shall produce an assessment of the NE Arctic porpoise population that demonstrates clearly whether or not the fishery is meeting the standards of required by 2.3.1A Client Action The concerns raised in condition 3 relate to bycatch of porpoise in the coastal gillnet fishery. This is Plan based on recent findings by the reference fleet program, which identified cod and monkfish gillnetting to have a potentially significant bycatch of porpoises. The number attributed to the cod fishery under certification is in the range of 5500-5700 animals per year; a high number that surprises and puzzles the NFA. It is important to point out that these are initial findings and that there is a high degree of uncertainty in the actual figures. In any case, the findings certainly merit further investigation, as well as action if necessary. Initial steps are already being taken in the reference fleet program and through ongoing research. NFA therefore finds the conditions set to be sound and just and commits to the following plan to address the condition. Action 3.1 NFA will hold meetings with cetacean experts at the IMR together with the Directorate of Fisheries to discuss status and potential improvements to monitoring porpoise bycatch in the small coastal gillnetting fleet. There is already ongoing work to follow up the 2013 report with improved estimates of porpoise mortality, and NFA will strongly support this. Since statistical area 00 (mainly Vestfjorden) is identified as the main impact area, efforts will be focused on building a surveillance program for this particular area. Timeframe: initial meetings in year 1. Written progress reports in SA2 and SA3. Action 3.2 NFA will hold meetings with cetacean experts at the IMR together with the Directorate of Fisheries to discuss status and potential improvements to estimate the total porpoise population in the NEA area. Initial discussions have indicated that this may not be practically feasible and that performing an assessment of the Vestfjorden may be more realistic and result in just as effective management tools. NFA will engage in this work and drive it forward. Timeframe: In parallel with action 3.1 - initial meetings in year 1. Written progress reports in SA2 and SA3. Action 3.3 Depending on a successful outcome of action 3.1 and 3.2, NFA will produce updated and more robust mortality rates for harbour porpoises, as well as an assessment of the total stock. Alternatively, similar figures may be produced for key management areas if total figures are not feasible or scientifically necessary. The outcome of this will be a scientifically robust estimate of whether or not the bycatch levels are within sustainable levels as required in PI 2.3.1A. Timeframe:

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 36

progress reports in SA2 and SA3. Completion i in SA4. Follow-up and evaluation in year 5 in preparation of re-assessment. Progress on The NFA and MRI have had extensive discussions on this issue, culminating in a formal, dedicated Condition meeting on the subject on 29th April 2016. This meeting (see NFA, 2016a) reviewed the information year 1- 2016 available on harbour porpoise interactions with coastal fisheries. In particular, it was reported in a recent paper by MRI (Björge and Moan, unpublished) that the estimated bycatch of around 6,900 harbour porpoises over 2006 – 2008 was based on incorrect landings statistics and that a revised number of 3,541 animals a year was more realistic. Of this, the cod fishery is responsible for around 1,600 animals, with the balance from monkfish fisheries (A. Borge, pers. comm., with NFA). A process for the further verifications of these numbers was discussed and agreed. The meeting also discussed approaches for improving information on the abundance and population structure of harbour porpoises in Norwegian waters. MRI has considered the use of an allele-sharing methodology for estimating population size developed by Skaug (2001), but due to costs DNV GL – Report No. 2018-021, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 41 involved and the practical challenges with obtaining a large enough sample base this is not being pursued at present. A new aerial survey program has been introduced in 2016 and will be evaluated at the next audit. Progress on The client presented data from the reference fleet that demonstrated that the catch of harbour Condition porpoise is small and only from gillnets. The Client presented evidence that they, in cooperation year 2- 2017 with IMR continue to urge the fishers to introduce pingers on their gillnets, ref. minutes of meeting at Kystens hus, Tromsø 27.09.2016 Finally, IMR has revised its estimates of the annual bycatch of about 6900 harbour porpoises in the period 2006-2008 (Bjørge et al. 2013). Unfortunately, the original estimate was based on incorrect landing statistics of the target species provided by the Directorate of Fisheries. Using the same model and correct landing statistics the revised estimate is 3541 (CV 0.10) porpoises annually. Also, the methodology was revisited, and this revised the best estimate to 2946 (CV 0.11) porpoises, Björge, A., and A. Moan (2016). Progress on An experiment by mitigating devices applied in the gillnet fishery is reported, see section 2.4, data Condition on the by-catch from the reference fleet are being collected. An appraisal of the population size of year 3- 2018 harbour porpoise in Norwegian waters is available (SCANS-III), see section 2.4. Further studies aimed at introducing pingers in the gillnet fisheries are planned – ref. Appendix 4. Client information on status of conditions. Progress on The Norwegian strategy is as in other countries to introduce mitigating devices (‘pinger’). The Client Condition together with IMR conducted a workshop in an attempt to introduce these pingers on a voluntary year 4- 2019 basis. Arne Bjørge & André Moan 2019. Workshop on marine mammal bycatch monitoring and mitigation. Ålesund, Norway, 19th -20th June 2019 Institute of Marine Research. Also, the Fisheries Directorate, in July 2019 reminded the industry of the obligation by Professional fishermen fishing with boats over 15 metres to report by-catch of marine mammals to the Directorate of Fisheries and stressed the importance of these data. This is designed to meet international requirements for the protection of ETP species as well as documenting the impact.

The overall level of by-catch of harbour porpoise in the Norwegian coastal fisheries (primarily cod and monkfish) dropped around 2014, see below. Overall the annual by-catch is about 2900 harbour porpoise of which about 40% are taken in the cod fisheries. Moan pers. Comm.)

The SCANS III surveys provided a general estimate of the harbour porpoise in the North Eastern Atlantic suggesting that at this scale the mortality generated by the Norwegian fisheries are well below 1%. Also, NAMMCO notes that the series of three SCANS surveys do not reveal any trend in the total harbour porpoise population since the mid- 1990s https://nammco.no/topics/harbour- porpoise/#1475844513273-d6d59198-d3a0

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 37

Status Closed

5.2.2 Condition 4 Harbour porpoise

Table 16 – Condition 4

2.3.2 The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: · Meet national and international requirements; · Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species; · Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and · Minimise mortality of ETP species.

Performance Performance Indicator Scoring SG80a: There is a strategy in place for managing the fishery’s impact on ETP species, including issue measures to minimise mortality, which is designed to be highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species.

Score 70 Gillnet fishing for both cod and haddock

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 38

On the basis of reference-fleet data and extrapolation to the whole fleet, it is estimated that c. 7000 porpoises are killed each year by gillnetting. Justification Although the exact status of the NE Arctic porpoise population is unknown, it is feared that this level of mortality is unsustainable. Mitigation measures (pingers) are under development and review but their efficacy has yet to be assessed. A strategy for managing the fishery’s impact on porpoise shall be developed that includes measures Condition to minimise gillnet-related mortality and is highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species, i.e. harbour porpoise. The client shall engage actively with the appropriate authorities in developing, assessing and introducing effective means by which porpoise bycatch in gillnets can be reduced. At the first surveillance visit, provide evidence that discussions have been held with the appropriate experts to agree a programme for developing and testing systems for reducing porpoise bycatch in Milestones gillnets. At surveillance visits two and three, the client shall provide a written progress report. At the fourth surveillance meeting, the client shall produce an assessment of the mitigation measures developed, tested and introduced that demonstrates clearly whether or not the fishery is meeting the standards of required by 2.3.2a. Condition 4 builds on condition 3, and the same comments apply. NFA would like to make the distinction that the knowledge gained from the actions under condition 3 will dictate whether or not it is actually necessary to implement mitigation measures. For this reason NFA agrees with the wording of condition 4; regardless of what we learn about the true extent and sustainability of cetacean bycatch, it is prudent to develop a strategy in parallel to ensure a swift management response if needed. Research has already begun recently within the IMR and the CRISP program to develop and assess potential mitigation methods. NFA will engage with the management authorities and contribute to and develop this work. Action 4.1: NFA will hold initial meetings with the IMR, Directorate of Fisheries and the CRISP-programme to engage with, develop and contribute to the ongoing research of porpoise mitigation methods in the coastal gillnet fishery. NFA will support this work and drive it forward. NFA will also engage with the experts to ensure that a holistic management review will be undertaken; the Client action group will need to evaluate other potential management measures than just “pingers”. plan Timeframe: initial meetings in year 1. Action 4.2: NFA will hold meetings with experts in the IMR, Directorate of Fisheries, and if necessary, the Ministry to specifically evaluate the use of “pingers” in the coastal gillnet fishery. Initial field pilot studies are already being performed. Pending on the results from this, management options for implementation of these pingers will be evaluated. Timeframe: Initial meeting in year 1. Progress reports in SA2 and SA3. Action 4.3: NFA will engage with the IMR, Directorate of Fisheries, and if necessary, the Ministry to evaluate other potential management measures than pingers. Timeframe: in parallel with action 4.2. Initial meeting in year 1. Progress reports in SA2 and SA3. Action 4.4: NFA will present a comprehensive assessment of the mitigation measures that have been developed and tried in the field. An implementation strategy will also be presented in order to meet the standards required by 2.3.2. Implementation will be evaluated in light of the outcomes of the research under condition 2. Timeframe: SA4 Consultation Directorate of Fisheries and Institute of Marine Research. on condition Progress on A meeting was held with MRI on 29th April 2016 to discuss alternative management mechanisms for Condition reducing porpoise interactions with gillnet fisheries. It was agreed that acoustic pingers were proven [Year 1- deterrent elsewhere in European waters, but they need to be tested for their effectiveness in 2016] Norwegian waters. MRI submitted a research funding application for FHF which was subsequently approved. This project is being led by MRI with the NFA as a cooperating industry partner.

A meeting was held between NFA, MRI and Future Oceans on 27 September (NFA, 2016b) on the use and effectiveness of acoustic pingers, and their potential application in Norway. The NFA is now working with MRI on the practical testing of pingers, to be started on the winter cod fishery. The issue appears to be very localised for certain areas and fisheries, so need not be generally applied to

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 39

all fisheries. Whilst pingers are a tested technology, they need to be trialled e.g. to see if it attracts seals. Progress on The client presented data from the reference fleet that demonstrated that the catch of harbour Condition porpoise is small and only from gillnets. [Year 2- The Client presented evidence that he in cooperation with IMR continues to urge the fishers to 2017] introduce pingers on their gillnets, see minutes of meeting at Kystens hus, Tromsø 27.09.2016 Finally, IMR has revised its estimates of the annual bycatch of about 6900 harbour porpoises in the period 2006-2008 (Bjørge et al. 2013). Unfortunately, this was based on incorrect landings statistics of the target species provided by the Directorate of Fisheries. Using the same model and correct landings statistics the revised estimate is 3541 (CV 0.10) porpoises annually. Also, the methodology was revisited, and this revised the best estimate to 2946 (CV 0.11) porpoises, Björge, A., and A. Moan (2016). Progress on An experiment by mitigating devices applied in the gillnet fishery is reported, see section 2.4, data on Condition the by-catch from the reference fleet are being collected. An appraisal of the population size of [Year 3- harbour porpoise in Norwegian waters is available (SCANS-III), see section 2.4. Further studies 2018] aimed at introducing pingers in the gillnet fisheries are planned - ref. Appendix 4. Client information on status of conditions. This condition is on target.

Progress on SG80a: There is a strategy in place for managing the fishery’s impact on ETP species, including Condition measures to minimise mortality, which is designed to be highly likely to achieve national and [Year 4- international requirements for the protection of ETP species. 2019] The Norwegian strategy is in conformity with other countries to impose general restrictions on gears and fishing operations to reduce unwanted by-catch e.g. of marine mammals. For marine mammals, in particular, to introduce mitigating devices (‘pinger’), impose general restrictions on gears and fishing operations so as to reduce unwanted by-catch e.g. of marine mammals.

Through the CRISP programme, which is a manifestation of the national strategy, deterrent pingers have been tested in the Vestfjord fishery as a means to minimise adverse fishery interactions. Further to this the Client together with IMR conducted a workshop in an attempt to introduce these pingers on a voluntary basis. Ref.Arne Bjørge & André Moan 2019. Workshop on marine mammal bycatch monitoring and mitigation. Ålesund, Norway, 19th -20th June 2019 Institute of Marine Research. Also, the Fisheries Directorate, in July 2019 reminded the industry of the obligation by Professional fishermen fishing with boats over 15 metres to report by-catch of marine mammals to the Directorate of Fisheries and stressed the importance of these data. This is designed to meet international requirements for the protection of ETP species as well as documenting the impact.

Management system – Strategy: The management strategy is based on the following laws and regulations:  The Marine Resource Act  Ministry of Climate and Environment’s Nature diversity law: Naturmangfoldloven lov-2009-06-19- 100 - (https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2009-06-19-100) [Law on biodiversity] which applies generally and includes marine areas.  Resource management for the fishing sector is defined in the Havressurslova (https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2008-06-06-37) [Law on management of marine resources] applies.  Animal welfare law: Lov on dyrevelverd

For whales the relevant Norwegian laws are  Parliamentary Act: . “Forskrift om regulering av fangst av vågehval i 2019": Regulation on the regulation of minke whaling in 2020

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 40

. Deltakerloven: No 15 of 27 March 1999 on the Right to Participate in Fishing and Hunting (Norwegian) . Havressursloven: No 37 of 6 June 2008 on marine resources (Norwegian) . Dyrevelferd: No 97 of 19 June 2009 on Animal Welfare (Norwegian) Jakt, fangst og fiske skal utøves på en dyrevelferdsmessig forsvarlig måte.

The Participation Act (deltakerloven) regulates the right to conduct fishing and capture and other harvesting of wild marine resources with vessels that are Norwegian under the rules of the Maritime Act §§ 1 to 4 and vessels owned by a foreign national resident in Norway when the vessel's maximum length is less than 15 metres.

The main legal basis for regulation of incidental catch of marine mammals lies within “Havressursloven” (Lov om forvaltning av viltlevende marine ressurser - “the marine resource act”) https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2008-06-06-37. This defines that marine mammals are within this law, and delegates to the proper authorities to manage them (as with fisheries in general). “Forskrift om regulering av fangst av vågehval i 2019 where §1 of states (unofficial translation): “General prohibition. – It is forbidden to harvest whales” (The definition of whales also includes porpoise) https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/2019-03-25-327/%C2%A73#%C2%A73. This applies unless there is a derogation as given for minke whales. There is no such derogation for harbour porpoise. Intentional harassment is forbidden under the general Norwegian Animal Welfare act (Dyrevelferdsloven) https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2009-06-19-97. Havressurslova §3 extends the law to also apply to other activities related fishing ”For å sikre at hausting og anna utnytting skjer i samsvar med føresegner fastsette i eller i medhald av lova, gjeld lova også for andre tiltak i samband med hausting og anna utnytting av fangst, så som omlasting, levering, landing, mottak, transport, oppbevaring, produksjon og omsetning. [In order to ensure that fishing and other forms of exploitation occur in accordance with the precautionary principle, the law also applies for other activities in connection with fishing and other forms of exploitation, such as reloading, delivery, landing, receiving, transport, storage, production and trade].

The strategy has a wide range of measures at the disposal for management. However, the application of these measures is based on §7 that requires that there is an objective basis for the introduction of the measure, i.e. that the fishery is not meeting required standards. In order to implement such measures §7 requires that the ministry evaluates which management actions are required to achieve the objectives (sustainable management of the wild marine resources). § 7: "The Ministry shall assess the type of management measures necessary to ensure sustainable management of the wildlife marine resources. When managing the wildlife marine resources and the associated genetic material, emphasis should be placed on... a precautionary approach in line with international agreements and guidelines, an ecosystem-based approach that takes into account habitat and biodiversity,... [and] harvesting methods use [that] take into account the need to reduce potential negative impacts on living marine resources" (unofficial translation). Therefore, monitoring of the status of the resources is a central element and IMR is assigned with the task of monitoring the status of marine environment including harbour porpoise. This is supported by international cooperation in organisations such as NAMMCO, IWC, OSPAR and ASCOBANS, e.g. see NAMMCO WG on Harbour porpoise, for the most recent report see https://nammco.no/topics/100519_hpwg- report/. A recent result is the revised estimates of incidental catches of harbour porpoise as presented below, Moan pers. Comm.)

Based on advice from IMR and international organisations Fiskeridirektoratet as the competent Norwegian authority has issued Utøvelsesforskiften J-79-2020 (https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/2004-12-22-1878) which specifies how fishing shall be conducted. Chapter X is relevant requiring that fish, if alive and not permitted to catch, are released.

Mitigating measures The basis for the implementation of mitigating measures is that the fishery impacts the harbour porpoise population when bycatch of this is not within acceptable limits.

The fishery is required to follow all of the laws and regulations described above and is subject to sanctions, fines a.o. Collectively, these laws and regulations constitute an in-place strategy for managing the fishery's impact on ETP species, including measures to minimise mortality, which is

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 41

designed to be highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. -Havressurslova ¬§16: "All harvesting and other exploitation of wildlife marine resources should be as gentle as possible. The Ministry may lay down regulations on the implementation of harvesting, among others...prohibition of harvesting in certain areas, of certain species ... [and] permissible by-catch" (unofficial translation).

The implemented mitigating measures for harbour porpoise include banning fishing and hunting, see J-36-2020) and release of harbour porpoise, if alive, as noted above in J-79-2020. The awareness of avoiding marine mammal incidental by-catch is high in the fisheries and the result is a decrease of such catches after around 2014.

Further measures are considered continuously, in recent years pingers have been investigated but as illustrated by the report authored by Arne Bjørge & André Moan on workshop on Marine Mammal Bycatch Monitoring and Mitigation Ålesund, Norway, 19th -20th June 2019 alternative approaches such as gear material and gear design are also investigated. The report also points to developments in monitoring techniques e.g. REM (Remote electronic monitoring). On 11 June 2020 Fiskeridirektorat has sent a new regulation for public consultation concerning pingers, see https://fiskeridir.no/Yrkesfiske/Nyheter/2020/0620/Hoering-om-tiltak-for-aa-redusere-bifangst-av- sjoepattedyr.

Fisheries Directorate has developed manuals describing best procedures in releasing entangled marine mammals and action plans for interactions with whales. The Fisheries Directorate has the responsibility of updating the action plans regularly.

Closing the Condition At the 4th surveillance an updated estimate of the following period (shown in the text) suggests that the impact for the Norwegian fisheries for the 2014-2018 period is reduced compared to the earlier period and is below 2000 individuals annually. This is interpreted as a result of the of the IMR programme for the introduction of ‘pingers’ in combination with regulations already in place (ban on hunting, avoidance of whales in general, no harassment, etc in the Norwegian legislation). These have functioned as an implementation of ‘mitigating devices’ perhaps in modifications of fishing practices.

According to the IMR reference fleet report of 2020, interactions with harbour porpoises are low in this fishery which is north of 62 and there is a requirement for recording them. Mitigation measures implemented are the Fisheries Directorate’s manuals describing best procedures for releasing entangled marine mammals (Dyrevelferdsmessig forsvarlig håndtering av levende strandet hval, hval i oppdrettsmerder og hval viklet inn i fiskeredskaper i sjøen) of 01 July 2017 and subsequent action plan for interactions with whales (Fiskeridirektoratet Handlingsplan for hendelser med hval) implemented from 01 July 2017 and revised regularly to the present 4th version dated 4th March 2020. Further to the trials implemented in the use of pingers and the resulting workshop the Fisheries Directorate has published a Hearing for J-regulations on 11.06.2020 for mandatory use of pingers in Vestfjorden.

The strategy for managing the fishery’s impact on harbour porpoises is based on a number of laws and regulations (as detailed above) the implementation of which have resulted in mitigation measures. The SCANS III results demonstrate that the population is stable and within national and international requirements for the protection of harbour porpoises. The IUCN classification for this harbour porpoise population is ‘Least Concern’. There is also an ongoing process for further mitigation measures to be implemented when bycatch exceeds acceptable limits.

PI 2.3.2 has been rescored and found to meet SG80. The condition is closed.

Status CLOSED

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 42

5.2.3 Condition 5 Habitats

Table 17 – Condition 5

2.4.1: The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, Performance considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function Indicator

SG80a: The fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point Scoring issue where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Trawl: 70 (Norway and Russia SMHs – burrowing megafauna:60) Score Danish seine: 75 (Norway and Russia SMHs – burrowing megafauna:60) For full rationale, please see PI 2.4.1 scoring tables for trawl and Danish seine in PCR of 06.10.2015 Trawl: · Norway SMHs - Burrowing megafauna: Most burrowing fauna, indeed, most epibenthic fauna are not subject to direct effects of rock-hopper trawls. The principal possible exceptions are the (flexible) upright Pennatulacea – sea pens. Their distribution is known in the MAREANO mapping area, and they are widely, albeit sparsely, distributed throughout the Barents Sea, which suggests that the fishery is unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm even though they are vulnerable to damage or removal. Score 60 · Russia SMHs - Burrowing megafauna: Most burrowing fauna, indeed, most epibenthic fauna are not subject to direct effects of rock-hopper trawls. The principal possible exceptions are the (flexible) upright Pennatulacea – sea pens. Their distribution is sparse but recorded in the annual IMR–PINRO ecosystem survey. Their continued presence and sparse distribution suggests that the fishery is unlikely to reduce habitat structure and Justification function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm even though they are vulnerable to damage or removal. Score 60. Danish seine: · Norway SMHs - Burrowing megafauna: true infauna are not vulnerable disturbance by this gear as it is too light to dig in. The principal exceptions are the Pennatulacea (sea pens). Their distribution is known in the MAREANO mapping area, and they are widely, albeit sparsely, distributed throughout the Barents Sea, which suggests that the fishery is unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm even though they are vulnerable to damage or removal. Score 60. · Russia SMHs - Burrowing megafauna: true infauna are not vulnerable disturbance by this gear as it is too light to dig in. The principal exceptions are the Pennatulacea (sea pens). Their distribution is sparse but they are recorded, abundance and distribution plotted in the annual IMR–PINRO ecosystem survey. Their continued presence and sparse distribution suggest that the fishery is unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm even though they are vulnerable to damage or removal. Score 60. The fishery shall demonstrate that it is highly unlikely to reduce Pennatulacea (sea pens) Condition habitat structure and function of to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. By the fourth annual surveillance audit, the fishery shall present evidence that it is highly unlikely to reduce Pennatulacea (sea pens) habitat structure and function of to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Milestones The intended probability interpretation of “highly unlikely” is here that there should be no more than a 30% probability that the true status of the component is within the range where there is risk of serious or irreversible harm. The evidence requested would allow for a score of 80 for this SG. The knowledge basis regarding sea pens and burrowing megafauna in the Norwegian Sea and Barents Sea is limited, as is the basis with regard to the effects of demersal fisheries on Client action plan these habitats. The condition is set on the premise of a theoretical possibility that trawling and Danish seine has an effect on these habitats north of 62°. Much of this theoretical damage potential is based on limited studies from nephrops trawling in Scottish lochs.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 43

It is obvious that a broader knowledge basis needs to be in place, before management can evaluate potential regulatory actions. Some of these points are: - Lack of habitat definition. OSPAR is yet to set consistent threshold levels for defining sea pen and burrowing megafauna habitats. IMR has been tasked with setting such levels for the north, and this is an ongoing scientific debate. It is probable that a regional approach must be taken. Scottish lochs and the Barents Sea probably have very different potential density levels. - Lack of habitat identification. Consequently, even with the Mareano projects’ unique habitat mapping, identified sea pen and burrowing megafauna habitats are still very limited. The sea pen areas that are identified have been mapped by modelling and probability. - From initial discussions with the IMR, bottom gear destruction of sea pens and burrowing megafauna is unlikely to cause serious or irreversible harm to over 30 % of the component. Following from this condition, NFA has the responsibility to prove that this is “highly unlikely”. Action 5.1: Consult with IMR and Directorate of Fisheries to perform VMS data analysis of bottom gear affected area and probable coverage with sea pen and burrowing megafauna communities. Timeframe: initial consultations in year 1. Progress reports and/or presentations of findings in SA2 and SA3. Action 5.2: Support and review ongoing IMR and OSPAR processes in defining sea pen and burrowing megafauna habitats. Timeframe: progress reports at each surveillance audit. Action 5.3: Monitor Mareano project outputs and mapping of new habitat areas. Timeframe: progress reports at each surveillance audit. Action 5.4: Support and implement ongoing project to make Mareano habitat data available on fishing vessel map plotters. This has a large potential to allow for a higher degree of voluntary avoidance of special habitats. Timeframe: progress reports at each surveillance audit. Consultation on Directorate of Fisheries and Institute of Marine Research. condition Progress on MSC held a workshop entitled “Sustainable bottom trawl fishery in the Barents Sea and Condition [Year 1- adjacent waters - A view from MSC, Science and the industry” on 5th April 2016 which 2016] focused on assessing the impacts of fisheries on VMEs under FCR v2. This was followed with a meeting with the Directorate (29 June 2016) to examine quantitative analysis of interactions with sea pens. IMR indicated their willingness to undertake GIS and VMS analysis of the spatial footprint of trawl and Danish seine fishing activities, but no further steps have been taken.

The following was also noted: 1. IMR is starting to document and map benthic fauna on their regular trawl surveys. 2. The Mareano project (a cumulative habitat mapping project) is moving its coverage further north, with new transects in Svalbard area over 2016 (http://www.mareano.no/en/maps/mareano_en.html#maps/17). Whilst very expensive, it is intended to map all the Norwegian area in time. Mareano data is passed to the industry via Barents Watch for coral reef areas. https://www.barentswatch.no/en/fishinfo. 3. The industry has imposed a voluntary closure on expansion on trawling in the Barents Sea (Fiskebåt, 2016). The offshore fleet has pledged not to go beyond areas with <25 trawling hours E.g. in new areas. 4.Trawling is banned within the 12 nm zone in most areas, as well as within identified cold- water coral areas (19 coral areas have been identified through MAREANO and protected), but this does not include Danish seine fishing. It was also noted that Danish seine is a coastal gear, within 12 nm zone and not used in deeper water. Note SG 80 for 1.3 standard.

This condition is on target. It is expected that the next SA will include progress reports on: 1. IMR’s VMS data analysis of bottom gear affected area and probable coverage with sea pen and burrowing megafauna communities 2. The ongoing IMR and OSPAR processes in defining sea pen and burrowing megafauna habitats

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 44

3. Mareano project outputs and mapping of new habitat areas, and the use of this data by industry in avoiding VMEs Progress on The Fisheries Directorate presented an analysis of the impact of the bottom trawl fisheries in Condition [Year 2- the Norwegian EEZ and the fishing zone at Jan Mayen and around Svalbard. The Jan 2017] Mayen area is not relevant for this Condition. Fisheries Directorate concluded that 3 areas be added to the existing non-fishing zones. Furthermore, 4 zones be classified as ‘New fishing grounds’ and fishing will only be opened when data allowing an impact analysis are available. The proposal is in hearing since July 2017 with the aim of introducing the proposed closures. Progress on NFA have cooperated with the Directorate in the identification of sensitive benthic areas to Condition [Year 3- be protected from ongoing impacts. Further, NFA has imposed a voluntary closure on 2018] expansion on trawling in the Barents Sea. This voluntary closure will remain in place at least until the Directorate proposals are confirmed. Also, NFA has progressed the collection of information to allow a fuller analysis of the potential impacts of both the trawl and Danish seine fisheries on sea pen habitat. The mapping, based on the Mareano programme, is continued. A proposal for protecting the areas around Svalbard is in hearing - ref. Appendix 4. Client information on status of conditions.

STATUS: This condition is on target Progress on The proposal for closures in the Svalbard area has been implemented J-61-2019: Forskrift Condition [Year 4- om regulering av fiske for å beskytte sårbare marine økosystemer. The voluntary closed 2019] areas remain in place. The NFA has initiated a study on the impact of benthic communities and presented maps showing VMS data and sea pen areas, Figure 4 and Figure 5. The Mareano programme and the Joint IR-PINRO surveys has contributed to better overview of the habitats that are affected by the fisheries. 1. NFA have cooperated with the Directorate in the identification of sensitive benthic areas to be protected from ongoing impacts. This is part of an NFA initiated study to supplement the MAREANO and IMR PINRO surveys in mapping areas where there are VMEs 2. There is an updated map presented of where sea pens are in high abundance and where appropriate, these areas are included in the Norwegian VME legislation 3. The Svalbard area has been reviewed and a revised set of protected areas (including considerations of sea pens) has been introduced 4. The industry has imposed a voluntary closure on expansion on trawling in the Barents Sea (Fiskebåt, 2016). The offshore fleet has pledged not to go beyond areas with <25 trawling hours e.g. in new areas

Mapping has increased knowledge of distribution of sea pen habitats and revision of closures together with voluntary area closures has made it highly unlikely that the fishery will create serious or irreversible harm to these habitats.

PI 2.4.1a is rescored and found to meet SG80. The condition is closed Closed Status

5.2.4 Condition 6 Golden Redfish

Table 18 – Condition 6

2.3.1 (Golden Redfish) The fishery meets national and international requirements for the Performance protection of ETP species. The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to Indicator ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species. SG80a: The effects of the fishery are known and are highly likely to be within limits of Scoring issue national and international requirements for protection of ETP species.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 45

SG80b: Direct effects are highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species.

75 – Trawl, longline, Danish seine, jiggers Score 70 - Gillnet Although there are restrictions on the targeting and capture of golden redfish (Sebastes norvegicus), there is still no sign of stock recovery. Despite ICES advising that there should be no targeted fishing and the TAC should be zero (advice that is supported by IMR), there are licensed seasonal gillnet and longline fisheries (that are beyond the remit of this assessment) and relatively generous permitted bycatch levels for all gears in the cod and haddock fisheries that confound the aim of stock recovery. SG80a: There are specific measures prohibiting targeted fishing for the golden redfish, other Justification than in licensed seasonal gillnet fishery, there are bycatch per haul and quota limits. While it is impractical for vessels to avoid golden redfish bycatch completely, the bycatch limits are relatively generous and should be made more demanding as a means to reducing the catch (ICES advice is for a zero TAC) and optimizing potential for stock recovery (Score 60). SG 80b: Potentially, the direct effects are capture and mortality. Even though catches may be small, any catch of golden redfish is contrary to current ICES advice and the potential for stock recovery (score 60). The effects of the fishery on the golden redfish (i.e. Sebastes norvegicus, previously S. marinus) should be highly likely to be within limits of national and international requirements Condition for protection of this ETP species. The client must present evidence that the direct effects of the fishery are highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to this ETP species. By the fourth annual surveillance audit, the client must present evidence to demonstrate that the direct effects of the fishery on the golden redfish (i.e. Sebastes norvegicus, Milestones previously S. marinus) are highly unlikely (specifically at least 80% probability) to create unacceptable impacts to this ETP species. The evidence requested would allow for a score of 80 for SG a and b. The declining stock status of golden redfish (Sebastes norvegicus) is well documented, and a key current focus area in Norwegian management, as well as for the NFA. It is a complex issue, and as the report points out, it is impossible to avoid catches of redfish altogether. However, it is well recognized that catches must be minimized, and there is currently a ban on directed fisheries for redfish. In response to the situation, NFA and Norwegian fisheries management have for several years imposed strict bycatch restrictions in the cod and haddock fishery, as well as other relevant fisheries. These have not yet proven to have had the desired effects, although there is a slight improvement in recruitment in the latest 2014 assessment. This increase is a small positive sign, but it does not change the fact that further management measures should be taken. NFA and Norwegian management authorities are currently in process of making such measures, and this is laid out in the following actions: Action 6.1: The Directorate of Fisheries established a redfish working group in 2014. The group’s mandate is to review the regulations in the redfish fisheries and suggest Client action plan appropriate measures to rebuild the redfish stocks. NFA participates in this working group, together with representatives from the Directorate and IMR. The group suggests the following changes in regulations: · General reduction to 10 % weekly bycatch levels. · Reduction to 30 % weekly bycatch levels for conventional vessels below 21 meters between august 1st and December 31st. · Exemption for handline fisheries. NFA will follow up the working group’s findings, support the proposed regulations, and work towards their implementation. Timeframe: progress reports at each surveillance audit. Action 6.2: NFA and the working group advice that observation and evaluation of the regulatory measures are necessary, and that adjustment will be made if these measures are not proving to be effective. Timeframe: progress reports at each surveillance audit.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 46

Consultation on Directorate of Fisheries and Institute of Marine Research. condition Progress on It was noted that there is no directed fishery for redfish, and this is purely an issue of Condition [Year 1- bycatch from the certified and other similar mixed fisheries. 2016] The recommendations by the Directorate’s Working Group (WG) on Redfish have now been adopted e.g. (i) general reduction to 10% weekly bycatch levels in 2016, a reduction to 30 % weekly bycatch levels for conventional vessels <21 m between August 1st and December 31st and (iii) exemption for handline fisheries<15 m (Directorate of Fisheries, 2016).

The NFA has been correspondence with the Directorate of Fisheries over redfish stock management, gaps and programming. At present there are no direct surveys for redfish abundance (information is gained form other coastal stock surveys) and insufficient deep- water surveys. There is a need for a spring larval survey, with standardised gillnet surveys on redfish mounts / habitats. This has been requested by the NFA, but not yet agreed.

It is noted that whilst landings of redfish have fallen from 6,233 mt in 2004 to 2,492 mt in 2015, the stock has not yet seen any signs of recovery.

Progress reports are required for the next Surveillance Audits on the progress of implementing effort regulations for redfish (Action 6.1) and their effectiveness in preventing this fishery from posing a risk of serious or irreversible harm to redfish and does not hinder their recovery species (Action 6.2) Progress on The Client presented an analysis made by the Fisheries Directorate concerning Condition [Year 2- Management of Golden Redfish (S. norvegicus) and Coastal Cod in Norwegian waters north 2017] of 62 N (ICES (I & II). The paper gives a brief summary of the development in the management of golden redfish and coastal cod since 2004, in the area of Norwegian economic zone north of 62⁰N, i.e. ICES-area I and II. Both golden redfish and coastal cod has been in decline in the recent years, and golden redfish is also listed on the Norwegian red list as an endangered (EN) species, according to the criteria given by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). There have been significant reductions in total catch of Golden redfish was reduced from 6.233 tonnes in 2004 down to 1.1969 in 2016 (68 %), where the landings from trawlers was reduced by 82%, while the landings from coastal fleet was reduced by 55 %. In spite of the reduction, as mentioned above, the stock has so far shown no signs of recovery. The analysis demonstrates that the fishery has been significantly reduced and the authorities work actively with the Client to rebuild the Golden redfish stock in ICES I & II. Progress on No further measures are introduced. There is no directed fishery for redfish. The status of Condition [Year 3- the golden redfish and the coastal cod has not improved as expected. Further measures are 2018] in discussion- ref. Appendix 4. Client information on status of conditions.

STATUS: This condition is on target. Progress on The classification of the golden redfish was inappropriate, and the impact was rescored Condition [Year 4- under 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 2.1.3, Also 2,3,1, 2.3.2, and 2.3.3 were rescored - see section 5.4. 2019] This rescoring is based on CR v1.3. The rationale for the re-classification are: (a) Golden redfish is not recognised as ETP by Norwegian legislation, instead regulation of this stock is under the Act of Marine resources, (b) Golden redfish is not listed under CITES, see section 5.4.1. This is also summarised in this report in section 5.4.1

CB3.11.1 The team shall define ETP (endangered, threatened or protected) species as follows: a. Species that are recognised by national ETP legislation;

b. Species listed in the binding international agreements given below:

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 47

i. Appendix 1 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), unless it can be shown that the particular stock of the CITES listed species impacted by the fishery under assessment is not endangered. CB3.11.2 The team shall assess species and stocks other than those defined in CB3.11.1 under retained or bycatch species components of the tree.

Golden redfish is not recognised as ETP species by Norwegian legislation, rather the exploitation is regulated under Havresurslova [Marine resource Act] Golden redfish is not on the CITES Appendix 1 list.

The original scoring as ETP is based on the following, see Section 3.4.9 in DNV GL (2015) RE-ASSESSMENT REPORT Public Certification Report for the Norway North East Arctic cod and haddock fishery Norges Fiskarlag Authors: John Nichols, Stephen Lockwood, Sten Sverdrup-Jensen, Guro Meldre Pedersen Report No.: 2014-013, Rev. 4 states concerning the Golden redfish:

“Thus, whether viewed purely as an exploited fish or as an ETP species, it is clear that stronger, more effective management measures need to be put in place than is currently the case. In practice, however, it is difficult to see what measures could be applied to directed cod and haddock fisheries other than stringent bycatch limitation and move-on rules per haul. As “more than half” of the species catch is taken in a licensed direct fishery by gillnet and longline, the appropriate action would seem to be a ban on this fishery, which, arguably, is a recommendation beyond the remit of this assessment, albeit a recommendation supported by IMR (IMR – S. marinus). Nevertheless, the continuing poor status of the stock justify treating S. norvegicus as an ETP species.”

The classification is based on the stock status rather than the criteria defined in the standard, see above. Also, the arguments do not point to the Golden redfish being in danger of extinction.

IUCN ETP categories IUCN. (2012). IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. Second edition. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. iv + 32pp. For Golden redfish, with some high recruitment in recent years and a wide range of occurrence in the Norwegian Sea and in the Barents Sea, there are no signs of extinction.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 48

The fishery (by-catch, no directed fishery) is well documented and the stock status is known based on an annual survey. There are no international requirements for the protection of the Golden redfish in Norwegian waters. National requirements are established by a range of restrictions on the by-catches of the golden redfish.

Recruitment has been fairly stable for more than 20 years with some high year-classes and the time series demonstrate that there are no unacceptable impacts based on ETP standards (which do not exist for Golden redfish). The management objectives are to rebuild the stock to viable commercial resource beyond protective measures established for ETP species and such objectives are not met.

There have been changes in information pertinent to the Golden redfish

1. Since the publication of the Reassessment report DNV GL (2015) the call for stronger management measures has been effectively addressed by Norwegian Authorities, see text Table in the SA 4 report. This resulted in as noted in the SA4 report that total catch was reduced from 6.233 tonnes in 2004 down to 2.492 in 2015 (60 %), where the landings from trawlers was reduced by 80%, while the landings from coastal fleet was reduced by 51 %. ICES (2018) Advice on Golden redfish reports “There is no significant direct fishery, and measures have been taken to attempt reduce the bycatch mortality by area closures. “. 2. Management has been tightened. As a background see SA1 report based on Directorate of Fisheries (2016). Internal memo: Management of golden redfish and coastal cod in Norwegian waters north of 62° N (ICES Area I & II). 15 pages. 3. The Norwegian fisheries statistics has improved and now better split between golden and beaked redfish 4. The strong year-classes 2011-12 are now about to enter the fishery and information on these year classes have improved 5. ICES has called for a revised management plan ICES (2018) Advice on Golden Redfish and a working group within IMR and the Norwegian fisheries directorate is working on a review of the stock status and on proposals for future management maintaining the objective to rebuild the stock to viable commercial levels. The report is expected in the spring/summer 2020.

The revised score is 80 or more.

Closed Status

Table 19 Recommendations Rec. PI Recommendation Response at surv. Audit no 1 The client should be aware of the SA1: It was noted that whilst the cod stock has designation of the Norwegian coastal cod been under a recovery plan for around six years, stock as an Inseparable or Practically whilst it was no longer in decline it was not yet fully Inseparable (IPI) stock within the scope of recovered. Rebuilding activities are still in place this certification process. This designation and their effectiveness yet to be fully evaluated. can only be applied to this stock for one STATUS: This recommendation has not been assessment. For any future re-assessment addressed to date. the MSC Certification Requirements, CR SA2: The Client reviewed progress with coastal v1.3 CH 3.1, suggest that; the CAB may cod recovery and has over the years introduced make a recommendation to either promote measures aimed at coastal cod stock recovery all the future Principal 1 assessment of the IPI aimed at reducing the fishing pressure on the stock (CH 6.1.1.1) or to develop techniques to effectively separate the coastal cod. However, the status of coastal has not catches of the currently IPI stock (CH improved as expected. 6.1.1.2) or to develop measures to reduce SA3: Status as in SA2. the proportion of the IPI stock in the

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 49

catches to 2% or less and ensure that the SA4: Status as in SA2. The Client is fully aware of catch of the IPI stock does not create a the MSC standard’s requirements significant impact on the state of the IPI stock as a whole (CH 6.1.1.3) triggering a STATUS: This recommendation is being addressed variation request (27.4.10.2). but the coastal cod status remain depleted. We therefore recommend that the client takes due note of the MSC requirements for any future re-assessment of this fishery and takes the necessary action well before any re-assessment process begins. For the Norwegian coastal cod, we consider it highly unlikely that they can be practically separated in the mixed catches with NEA cod. Therefore, the client needs to make representations to the appropriate authority for action to ensure that, for any future reassessment of the fishery the Norwegian coastal cod can either; · be dealt with under Principle 1 · or the catch of Coastal cod can be reduced to 2% or less of the total combined cod catch. 2 It is recommended that steps are taken to SA1: Norwegian regulations (755/2011) have been bring Norwegian SMH protection measures amended (9 March 2016) along international (e.g. in line with international standards NEAFC) standards. See http://www.fiskeridir.no/Yrkesfiske/Regelverk-og- recommended elsewhere. i.e. reguleringer/J-meldinger/Gjeldende-J-meldinger/J- 1. the move-on rule should apply to all coral 40-2016 catches (soft and hard) exceeding 30 kg; STATUS: Two of the four recommendation 2. the move-on rule should apply to sponge elements have now been adopted, so this bycatch that exceeds 400 kg; recommendation is considered to be on target. 3. the move-on rule should be applied to all Progress on the two remaining recommendation catches of sea pens, or similar burrowing elements should be made by the next SA. SA2: The Norwegian authorities continue to megafauna, exceeding 7 kg improve the net of non-fisheries zone with a view to 4. the move-on rule should be increased protect the sea- bottom fauna. There was no from 2 to 5 nautical miles. specific progress to report the main emphasis has been on the development of additional closures as reported in section 2.4 STATUS: Two of the four recommendation elements have now been adopted, so this recommendation is considered to be on target. Progress on the two remaining recommendation elements should be made by the next SA.

SA3: There was no specific progress to report the main emphasis has been on the development of additional closures as reported in section 2.4.

SA4: No specific progress was reported as in SA3 3 The Client should focus attention on the (NEW) accuracy on reporting of living corals and living sponges. The Client should present a review on how well the regulation J-208- 2017 is adhered to.

5.3 Client Action Plan

Client action plan is included in the detailed conditions in the tables above. There are no updates to these plans in this assessment.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 50

5.4 Re-scoring Performance Indicators 5.4.1 Golden Redfish (Sebastes norvegicus)

The classification of the golden redfish in this assessment was inappropriate and the impact is now rescored under 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 2.1.3. Also PI 2.3.1 is rescored (Table 23). The rescoring is based on CR v1.3

The golden redfish in ICES subareas 1 and 2 is depleted (ICES 2018) Advice on Golden redfish. The stock is assessed bi-annually, and the evaluation presented at the 3rd surveillance report is based on the most recent stock assessment. The status is summarised as: ICES assesses that the spawning stock size is below Bpa and Blim. The current exploitation rate is above the FMSY proxy. The contribution of the relatively strong 2003- year class to the fishable biomassis is still small and uncertain.

The Golden redfish is classified as endangered (EN) by the Norwegian redlist and combined with the ICES stock assessment, the stock was at the 2015 re-assessment classified as ETP species and scored under PI 2.3.

The criteria for classifying the stock as ETP are (FCR v1.3 CB3.11.1 and CB3.11.2)

CB3.11.1 The team shall define ETP (endangered, threatened or protected) species as follows: a. Species that are recognised by national ETP legislation; b. Species listed in the binding international agreements given below: i. Appendix 1 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), unless it can be shown that the particular stock of the CITES listed species impacted by the fishery under assessment is not endangered. CB3.11.2 The team shall assess species and stocks other than those defined in CB3.11.1 under retained or bycatch species components of the tree.

The Norwegian Redlist is a decision basis for legislators and not national ETP legislation, Golden redfish is not listed by CITES. Golden redfish is managed under the Norwegian Marine Resource Act (Havresurslova). Based on these criteria golden redfish is not an ETP species but should be assessed as ‘Retained’ under PI 2.1. There is no directed fishery on golden redfish. There is a management plan for golden redfish aimed at recovering the stock. The main management regulations of this species are area closures (fjordlines) and bycatch limitations in other fisheries. The table below shows the main measures implemented since 2004.

Regulations of the fishery for golden redfish (Sebastes Norwegicus) Bycatch limitatio Mesh Year Regulatory measures n size Other Fishery banned between Minimum size: 32 cm, 1. 1th may – 31th may 20% < 10 % redfish in numbers of 2004 total catch Fishery banned between 15 % 2005 1. 20th April – 19 June No fishery from 1. 1th April– 31th may 20% 2006 2. 1th sept. – 30. sept 120 mm Fishery banned between Vessels < 11 m l.o.a. using 1. 1th march– 30th June 20% hand line excepted from the 2007 2. 1th sept. – 30. sept regulatory measures Fishery banned between Vessels > 11 m l.o.a. using 1. 20th Dec.– 30th June 20% hand line excepted from 2012 2. 1th sept. – 30. sept bycatch regulatory measures Conventional gears, between Trawlers < 15 % inside 12 n. 1. 4th Aug.– 31th Aug, and mile zone, outside – 20%. 2014 2. 29th sept. – 21. dect 25% Vessels. using hand line catch restricted < 50% of total excepted from the bycatch catch pr week regulatory measures

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 51

From 1. Aug – 31. Dec, Vessels < 15 m l.o.a. using 2016 vessels < 21 m l.o.a. 30% of total 10% hand line exempted 1. June – catch pr week 31. Aug

Total catch was reduced from 6.233 tonnes in 2004 down to 2.492 in 2015 (60 %), where the landings from trawlers was reduced by 80%, while the landings from coastal fleet was reduced by 51 % .

The main retained species for the cod fishery includes (see Table 13 and Table 14). Haddock Saithe

The scorings for haddock and saithe remain unchanged.

Golden redfish is only stock assessed bi-annually and the Surveillance report 2018 presents the stock status. This is summarised below

The spawning-stock biomass (SSB) shows a declining trend since the late 1990s and is currently at the lowest in the timeseries. Recruitment in 2006 (the 2003 year-class) is now entering the SSB and fishery but the SSB has not yet ceased declining. The large recruitment estimates for 2011 and 2012 have high uncertainty. Fishing mortality (F) decreased until around 2005 but is now rising again. ICES assesses that the spawning stock size is below Bpa and Blim. The current exploitation rate is above the FMSY proxy.

ICES. 2018. Golden redfish (Sebastes norvegicus) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea Ecoregions Published 13 June 2018 reg.27.1-2 https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.4408 ICES Advice 2018

The Golden redfish is classified as ‘Minor’ based on (fishbase.de) which deem the species as having ‘High to very high vulnerability’ and with low resilience

- Late maturity (10-12 years at first maturity) - Slow growth (k=0.11 for the Barents Sea, Norway) - Longlevity (45 years for Norway)

On this basis the 2% criterion is applied rather than the customary 5% by-catch rule. Table 13 and Table 14 demonstrates that the by-catch is less than 1% For cod 1,068 t against a cod catch of 110,842 t for trawl and 269 t against a haddock catch of 39,375 t.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 52

Table 20 Re-scoring of PI 2.1.1 – All gears. The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species 2.1.1 and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species Scoring SG60 SG80 SG100

Issue Guidepost Main retained Main retained There is a high degree of certainty that species are likely to species are highly retained species are within biologically be within biologically likely to be within based limits and fluctuating around their a based limits (if not, biologically based target reference points. go to scoring issue c limits (if not, go to below). scoring issue c below). Met? NA NA NA Justification The Golden redfish stock in 1+2 is depleted go to scoring issue c) Target reference points are defined for b Guidepost retained species. Met? Y Justification Reference points are defined for Golden Redfish Guidepost If main retained If main retained species are outside species are the limits there are outside the limits measures in place there is a partial that are expected to strategy of ensure that the demonstrably c fishery does not effective hinder recovery and management rebuilding of the measures in place depleted species. such that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? Y Y Justification The golden redfish is classified as ‘Minor’, i.e. ‘Not Main’ and SG60 and SG80 are met by default. The reaction of the stock is not well understood, there has since 2010 been introduced a range of measures aimed at reducing the fishing mortality and rebuilding the stock. There is no significant direct fishery, and measures have

been taken to attempt reduce the bycatch mortality by area closures. However, fishing mortality has been rising in recent years. SG60 is met based on the measures in place. The measures form a partial strategy in the form of banning directed fishery, seasonal closures. SG80 is met. Guidepost If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected to result in the fishery d not causing the retained species to be outside biologically based limits or hindering recovery. Met? NA Justification Stock status is well known. The stock assessment is based on an age-length model (Gadget) and an impressive dataset including Catch numbers-at-age and -length, and -at-length from the trawl, gillnet, and longline fisheries, by year; numbers-at-age-and-length and numbers-at-length from the winter survey

in the Barents Sea (BS-NoRuQ1-Btr); numbers-at-length from the coastal survey in the Barents Sea (NOcoast-Aco-Q4); commercial catches (total catch in tonnes, split by gear); one survey index (Barents Sea winter survey, total swept area estimate, length distributions, age and length distributions); annual

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 53

maturity data from the Barents Sea winter survey; natural mortalities are assumed constant (at 0.05, following the WKRED 2012 benchmark). The stock was benchmarked in 2018. DNV GL 2015 References DNV GL 2018 SA3 report ICES 2018 Golden redfish advice Golden redfish: 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE Overall score: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant) NA

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 54

Table 21 Re-scoring of PI 2.1.2 – all gears There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to ensure the 2.1.2 fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species Scoring Issue SG60 SG80 SG100 Guidepost There are There is a partial There is a strategy in place for measures in place, strategy in place, if managing retained species if necessary, that necessary, that is are expected to expected to maintain the main maintain the main retained species at retained species at levels which are levels which are a highly likely to be highly likely to be within biologically within biologically based limits, or to based limits, or to ensure the fishery ensure the fishery does not hinder does not hinder their recovery and their recovery and rebuilding. rebuilding. Met? Y Y Y Justification The golden redfish is classified as ‘Minor/Not Main’. The overarching strategy for safeguarding the exploited fish stocks of the NE Arctic is enshrined in the Joint Russian–Norwegian Fisheries Convention and the Norwegian management plans for the Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea. The generic strategy for the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fish stocks is supported by ongoing research into the distribution and abundance of all fishes in the NE Arctic. The CRISP programme undertakes research into potential improvements in target identification and gear selectivity There is a comprehensive strategy in place for the main retained species of haddock and saithe that is stated explicitly in the stock management plan and HCRs. ICES has evaluated the management plans and concluded they are in accordance with the precautionary approach and, for haddock, not in contradiction to the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) approach. A recovery programme, with associated stringent gear and area restrictions, is in place for coastal cod and redfish, which ICES has judged as being appropriate for stock conservation and recovery. For all other retained species, it is the generic strategy covering all fish stocks under the aegis of the JNRFC. This strategy is implemented through a broad range of fishery management regulations aimed at safeguarding juvenile fish and vulnerable species; e.g. real-time closures in areas where vulnerable species such as redfish or juvenile fish of any species exceed threshold levels in individual catches. Where deemed appropriate (e.g. for golden redfish), the strategy has included a ban on targeted fishing for vulnerable species such as redfish other than in specific seasonal licensed longline and gillnet fisheries. This has also been done for Greenland halibut in the past but in response to improving abundance indices, the restriction has been eased and targeted fishing is now permitted with a specific quota (licence) for (some) longliners. Halibut <80 cm must be returned to sea alive. SG100 is met. Guidepost The measures are There is some Testing supports high confidence considered likely objective basis for that the strategy will work, to work, based on confidence that the based on information directly plausible partial strategy will about the fishery and/or species argument work, based on involved. b (e.g., general some information experience, theory directly about the or comparison fishery and/or with species involved. similar fisheries/species). Met? Y Y N Justification For main retained species, the haddock and saithe management plans are

scrutinised annually as part of the annual stock assessment exercise and

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 55

are subject to more detailed examination as part of the periodic JNRFC management plan reviews and ICES benchmarking of methods, parameters and assumptions. Direct testing of these plans during the benchmarking processes, and comparison with comparable plans on other stocks in the NE Arctic and elsewhere, promotes high confidence that the strategy for the main retained species will work. Even in the absence of explicit species-specific management plans there is evidence that the generic strategy for safeguarding the exploited fish stocks will work. Positive trends in abundance indices has resulted in an easing of earlier restrictions affecting fishing for Greenland halibut and there are similar positive trends in the abundance indices for other species, e.g. ling, tusk and beaked redfish, provide an objective basis for confidence that the generic strategy is working, although the strategy with respect to these species has not been subject to explicit testing. Although a comparable strategy applies to golden redfish, the strategy of protection measures with respect to cod and haddock fisheries are confounded by the licensed seasonal directed longline fisheries. ICES has endorsed the redfish and a coastal cod recovery plan as been an appropriate basis for stock recovery but, in the absence of stronger recruitment, there is no sign of recovery yet. SG100 is not met. Guidepost There is some There is clear evidence that the evidence that the strategy is being implemented c partial strategy is successfully being implemented successfully. Met? Y Y N Justification The strategy is based on a rigorous management and enforcement regime in which all discarding of commercial fish species is prohibited and detailed records of all fishing activity and catches must be kept at all times. This is backed with a very broad range of technical (eg mesh size and sorting grids) and biological (e.g. minimum sizes, permanent, seasonal and real- time closures) measures aimed at protecting juvenile fish and vulnerable species. The clearest evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully is in the stock assessments where NEA cod, haddock and saithe have been at or well in excess of previously known levels and less abundant species such as Greenland halibut, beaked redfish, ling and tusk are all showing positive trends in abundance since a more coherent, more

integrated NE Arctic management strategy has been developed and implemented. SG80 is met. Although the strategy per se is being implemented successfully with respect to golden redfish within the context of the cod fishery, it is being confounded by the licensed seasonal directed longline fisheries. Since the coastal cod recovery plan was put in place the stock has stabilised and there is a suite of fishery management measures in place aimed at optimising stock recovery once there is an improvement in recruitment. Even so, there is no sign of recovery of the golden redfish nor of the coastal cod. SG100 is not met. Guidepost There is some evidence that d the strategy is achieving its overall objective. Met? Y Justification The evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective is in the state of the stocks since a more integrated approach to managing NEA resources has been developed and implemented. NEA cod, haddock and saithe have been at or well in excess of previously known levels and less abundant species such as Greenland halibut, beaked redfish, ling and tusk

are all showing positive trends in abundance. The relative stability in the status of the coastal cod stock in recent year (i.e. it has ceased to decline) provides some evidence that the suite of measures in place to aid this stocks recovery are achieving their objectives, even if actual stock recovery is unlikely in the absence of stronger recruitment. SG100 is met.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 56

Guidepost It is likely that It is highly likely There is a high degree of e shark finning is not that shark finning certainty that shark finning is taking place. is not taking place. not taking place. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justification See original re-assessment 2015

References INTERNAL MEMO MANAGEMENT OF GOLDEN REDFISH AND COASTAL COD IN NORWEGIAN WATERS NORTH OF 62⁰ N (ICES-area I and II) Fiskeridirektoratet 2018 Golden redfish:90 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE Overall score: 95 adjusted to 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant) NA

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 57

Table 22 Re-scoring of PI 2.1.3 Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to determine the risk 2.1.3 posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species Scoring SG60 SG80 SG100

Issue Guidepost Qualitative Qualitative information Accurate and verifiable information is and some quantitative information is available on the available on the information are available catch of all retained species a amount of main on the amount of main and the consequences for the retained species retained species taken by status of affected populations. taken by the the fishery. fishery. Met? Y Y N Justification There is a no-discard management regime throughout the NE Arctic; all commercial species must be retained, recorded and landed. Thus, accurate and verifiable (by on-board observers in the Russian sector and inspection at sea by the Norwegian Coastguard) information is available on the catch of all species. The quality of these data and the monitoring, surveillance and compliance have been assessed by FAO and found to be high. The consequences for the status of

the commercially more important retained species, haddock, saithe, tusk, Greenland halibut, ling, redfish, hake and angler are assessed annually during the annual stock assessment exercise. SG80 is met. For other stocks, all that can be said that if there is a sudden increase in catches, it is likely to have an adverse effect whereas status quo or reduced catches are less likely to have adverse effects.SG100 is not met. Guidepost Information is Information is sufficient to Information is sufficient to adequate to estimate outcome status quantitatively estimate qualitatively with respect to biologically outcome status with a high assess outcome based limits. degree of certainty. b status with respect to biologically based limits. Met? Y Y Y Justification Catches of all commercial species are monitored with equal rigour and data passed to the appropriate coastal state and stock monitoring agencies (JNRFC, ICES). The information gathered is demonstrably sufficient to estimate quantitatively the outcome status for cod, haddock and saithe with a high degree of certainty. Albeit with less certainty, data are sufficient to support trends based assessments for other key species (tusk, Greenland halibut, redfishes, ling) that show positive trends. For the lesser species, it can be inferred, therefore, that the same is true, the difference being that there are not the resources (manpower and time) to justify the same assessment effort for species caught in relatively small quantities. SG80 is met. This latter shortcoming is mitigated, however, by the annual IMR–PINRO trawl surveys that monitor the distribution and relative abundance year on year of all commercial species throughout the NE Arctic. SG100 is met. Guidepost Information is Information is Information is adequate to adequate to adequate to support a support a strategy to manage support partial strategy to retained species, and evaluate c measures to manage main retained with a high degree of certainty manage species. whether the strategy is main retained achieving its objective. species Met? Y Y N Justification The overarching strategy for safeguarding the exploited fish stocks of the NE Arctic is enshrined in the Joint Russian – Norwegian Fisheries Convention and the Norwegian management plans for the Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea. The standard of catch data collection throughout the NE Arctic is demonstrably adequate to support this strategy and the management of all retained species. For the principal exploited species in the NE Arctic – cod, haddock and saithe – there are also sufficient scientific data to complement the catch data to the

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 58

extent that full analytical age-based assessments are undertaken each year for each of these species. From these assessments it is possible to evaluate with a high degree of certainty that the strategy is achieving its objectives. While there is some scientific data to enable trends-based assessments of tusk, Greenland halibut, beaked redfish and ling) these are insufficient to provide the same high degree of certainty. For other retained species the relative abundance year on year is monitored through the annual IMR–PINRO trawl surveys that provide a broad range of data in support of the strategy. Guidepost Sufficient data continue to Monitoring of retained species be collected to detect any is conducted in sufficient detail increase in risk level (e.g. to assess ongoing mortalities to due to changes in the all retained species. d outcome indicator score or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy) Met? Y N Justification Monitoring, surveillance and compliance in Norwegian fisheries has been reviewed by FAO and found to be of a high standard. There is a universal ban on discarding throughout the NE Arctic; all commercial fish caught must be retained, recorded and landed. These standards are enforced by on-board observers in the Russian sector and through ad hoc and scheduled inspections by the Norwegian Coastguard. The monitoring of the principal species, both in terms of catch data and biological sampling, is in sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities to primary retained species. While the catch data for the less important retained species are no less than for the primary species, there is greater dependence on the relative abundance indices gathered in the course of the annual IMR–PINRO trawl surveys. Golden redfish:85 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE Overall score: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant) NA

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 59

5.4.2 Harbour porpoise

The Harbour porpoise is classified as ETP species based on international standards and the classification on the Norwegian redlist. The scoring in DNV GL 2015 for 2.3.1 were as follows

Scoring elements Norway NEA cod and haddock – other components. Component Gear Scoring Main/ Data-deficient? Score Score Score Condition elements Minor a b c no 2.3.1 Gillnet; Dogfish Minor DD 80 80 80 jigger; longline 2.3.1 Gillnet Basking shark Minor DD 80 80 80 2.3.1 Gillnet; Porbeagle Minor DD 80 80 80 trawl 2.3.1 Gillnet Harbour Minor DD 60 60 80 3 porpoise 2.3.1 All gears Redfish Main Stock assessment 60 60 80 6 Sebastes available norvegicus

The rescoring of 2.3.1 is presented in Table 23. This rescoring is due to the transfer of the golden redfish to the group of retained species. There is also changes in the information available for the Harbour porpoise and the combined result is a rescore at 80 and therefore condition 3 is closed.

Scorings of 2.3.2 and 2.3.3 are not affected by the golden redfish. The original score for PI 2.3.2 - Gillnets was 70 based on impact on harbour porpoise, and this gave rise to Condition 4. PI 2.3.2 is rescored at 80 and this condition is closed, see Table 24. For PI 2.3.3 -All gears the score remains unchanged at 80. For Redfish see rescoring under 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 as Table 20, Table 21 and Table 22 above.

Population status In 2016 the SCANS III survey was conducted counting inter alia harbour porpoise and covering more northernly areas than the previous counting surveys. SCANS-III is a large-scale ship and aerial survey to study the distribution and abundance of cetaceans in European Atlantic waters. The survey was conducted predominantly during July 2016, when three ships and seven aircraft surveyed along predetermined transects for whales, dolphins and porpoises. Similar surveys were conducted in 1994 and 2005/07. The coverage and density of harbour porpoise found by SCANS III is presented below (https://synergy.st-andrews.ac.uk/scans3/category/researchoutput/) Most of the Norwegian coast is covered. This was not the case for SCANS I and SCANS II

The main results that emerged from SCANS II and SCANS III were - The most abundant species were harbour porpoise (467,000), common dolphins (468,000) and striped dolphins (372,000). - Harbour porpoise are mainly in areas south of Norway. The results indicate that the shift seen in harbour porpoise distribution in the North Sea from the northwest in 1994 to the south in 2005 was maintained in 2016, with highest densities found in the southwestern North Sea, and north and east of Denmark, see Figure above. - For harbour porpoise, white-beaked dolphin and minke whale in the North Sea, the series of abundance estimates shows no change and a stable trend in abundance over the 22 years covered by the surveys.

Impact by Norwegian fisheries and the Cod-Haddock fisheries in particular

The overall impact by the Norwegian fishery was, at the reassessment in 2015, estimated at around 7000 individuals annually. This estimate was revised in 2016 at about 3000, i.e. the impact was half of the effect as the condition was based upon (Bjørge and Moan 2016). Furthermore, the next period 2014-2018 shows even lower by-catch. IUCN classifies the population as ‘Least Concern’.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 60

The Norwegian fisheries are required to report catch of harbour porpoise. ERS-forskriften” J-208-2017 mandates the obligation to report bycatch of marine mammals (as well as other non-commercial bycatch) for vessels above 15m https://fiskeridir.no/Yrkesfiske/Regelverk-og-reguleringer/J-meldinger/Gjeldende-J-meldinger/J-208-2017

The available statistics for the >15 m vessels for the period 2014-2018 report 2 harbour porpoise in 2017 for the cod fishery and none for the haddock fishery for the entire period.

The management conclusion is therefore that for the cod and haddock (>15 m) fisheries there is no basis for a mandatory implementation of mitigating devices and the associated costs.

There are estimates available for on the total impact by the Norwegian fisheries on harbour porpoise, see graph below, Moan 2019 pers. Comm.

The information that has been collected during the certification period includes 1. An updated assessment of the impact by the fishery, see graph presented below 2. An updated population estimate where the survey (SCANS III) has been extended further north compared to previous general surveys 3. The fishing fleet over 15 meters to-day is obliged to report by-catch of marine mammals via the catch reporting system. This obligation will be extended to cover all commercial fishing vessels in the Norwegian fleet by 2022. 4. Tests in the Norwegian gillnet fisheries on the applicability of the pingers and introduction in the fisheries 5. Adoption of a strategy including mitigating devices and in general to avoid risk of catching harbour porpoise is introduced

The overall conclusion of the SCANS III survey indicates that the harbour porpoise population seems stable and that the current overall pressure on the population is acceptable within international standards. The IUCN finds that the population is ‘Least concern’. However, even so, the Norwegian management is seeking to further reduce the incidents and an assessment of the effects of mitigation measures (pingers) to reduce the impact on the harbour porpoises has been presented by IMR. Based on the review of information described here, the strategy for managing the fishery’s impact on porpoise is in place and implemented to reduce gillnet mortalities thereby achieving national and international requirements for the protection ETP species, i.e. harbour porpoises. Further mitigation measures are also under consideration and will be implemented when bycatch is not within acceptable limits.

In conclusion - The Harbour porpoise is IUCN classified as ‘Least concern’ and the population is well documented - The overall Norwegian by-catch of harbour porpoise has been reduced after 2014 - The Norwegian fleet > 15 m does not catch noticeable amounts of harbour porpoise, the cod-haddock fisheries caught 2 in 5 years - There is a range of protection measures in place, ban on hunting, general protection under the environmental law - IMR has a program for the introduction of pingers particular for small (coastal) fleet which has brought awareness on the issue and functioned as ‘mitigating’ measures.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 61

Table 23 Re-scoring of PI 2.3.1 The fishery meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. The 2.3.1 fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring SG60 SG80 SG100 Issue

Guidepost Known effects of the fishery are The effects of the fishery are known There is a high likely to be within limits of and are highly likely to be within degree of certainty national and international limits of national and international that the effects of requirements for protection of requirements for protection of ETP the fishery are within a ETP species. species. limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. Met? Y Y N Justification SG80a: There is a strategy in place for managing the fishery’s impact on ETP species, including measures to minimise mortality, which is designed to be highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species.

The Norwegian strategy is as in other countries to introduce mitigating devices (‘pinger’). The Client together with IMR conducted a workshop in an attempt to introduce these pingers on a voluntary basis. Arne Bjørge & André Moan 2019. Workshop on marine mammal bycatch monitoring and mitigation. Ålesund, Norway, 19th -20th June 2019 Institute of Marine Research. Also, Fisheries Directorate in July 2019 reminded the industry of the obligation by Professional fishermen fishing with boats over 15 metres to report by-catch of marine mammals to the Directorate of Fisheries and stressed the importance of these data. This is designed to meet international requirements for the protection of ETP species as well as documenting the impact.

The SCANS surveys provided a general estimate of the harbour porpoise in the North Eastern Atlantic suggesting that at this scale the mortality generated by the Norwegian fisheries are well below 1%. Also, NAMMCO notes that the series of three SCANS surveys do not reveal any trend in the total harbour porpoise population since the mid- 1990s https://nammco.no/topics/harbour-porpoise/#1475844513273-d6d59198-d3a0

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 62

Guidepost There is a high degree of Known direct effects are Direct effects are highly confidence that there are no unlikely to create unlikely to create b significant detrimental direct unacceptable impacts to unacceptable impacts to effects of the fishery on ETP ETP species. ETP species. species. Met? Y Y N Justification Potentially, the direct effects are capture and mortality. The fisheries are required to report on by-catch. All the indicators are that the capture or Red List fishes and seabirds is sufficiently rare that one can conclude with a high degree of certainty that there are no significant detrimental effects of this fishery on these groups of ETP species. The by-catches has been better estimated since the NEA cod and haddock fisheries were re-assessed in 2015 (DNV GL 2015) and the estimates were revised. The graph presented under 2.3.2a shows the best estimates for the entire Norwegian fishery by year since 2006. The marine mammal populations notably including harbour porpoise were assessed in the SCANS III 2016 survey

(Hammond et al 2017) and NAMMCO concludes that there is no trend in abundance over the more recent 20 years. SG60 is met. The conditions 3 and 4 which were raise in 2015 have helped to improve estimates and have pushed for the introduction of mitigating devices. ON the basis of the existing knowledge the impacts are not considered unacceptable. SG80 is met. The estimates of by-catch of harbour porpoise are not insignificant, and there remain uncertainties in the estimates. Therefore, there is no high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the fishery on harbour porpoise. SG100 is not met. c Score 80 transferred from the original re-assessment in 2015 See Original assessment plus References Bjørge and Moan (2019) Information provided for the site visit

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 63

80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant)

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 64

Table 24 Re-scoring of PI 2.3.2 The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • Meet national and international requirements; 2.3.2 • Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species; • Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and • Minimise mortality of ETP species. Scoring SG60 SG80 SG100 Issue

Guidepost There are measures There is a strategy in There is a comprehensive strategy in place that minimise place for managing the in place for managing the fishery’s mortality of ETP fishery’s impact on ETP impact on ETP species, including species, and are species, including measures to minimise mortality, expected to be highly measures to minimise which is designed to achieve above likely to achieve mortality, which is national and international a national and designed to be highly requirements for the protection of international likely to achieve national ETP species. requirements for the and international protection of ETP requirements for the species. protection of ETP species. Met? Y Y N Justificatio Gillnets: n The strategy is set out in the Norwegian Marine Resources Act, in the protocol for the JNRFC and the Norwegian seas management plans, which explicitly requires an ecosystem approach to marine environmental management. The act also requires that all commercial fish species are retained, recorded and landed and that vessels equipped with elogbooks must record interactions with seabirds and marine mammals. (Paper logbooks are still required in the Russia zone.) Primarily, measures are designed to minimise contact with ETP species. 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 JNRFC. There are permanent and seasonal closures of inshore waters in the vicinity of key seabird nesting sites. The results from the most recent surveys indicate that c. 3000 seabirds may be captured and drowned in the Norwegian gillnet fisheries. Whilst undesirable, these numbers are not sufficiently great to raise demands for action as they are relatively small both in relation to the quantity of gillnet fished and the number of seabirds throughout the NE Arctic. SG80 is met for sea birds. In contrast, concern has been raised that the number of porpoises being killed each year may be unsustainable. This includes about 2,900 harbour porpoise annually among which about 40% are taken in the cod fishery. Another fishery of concern is the monkfish gillnet fishery.

The basis for the implementation of mitigating measures is that the fishery impacts the harbour porpoise population as indicated. Through the CRISP programme, which is a manifestation of the national strategy, deterrent pingers have been tested in the Vestfjord fishery as a means to minimise adverse fishery interactions but their utility is still discussed Bjørge and Moan (2019). NFA, IMR and the Fisheries Directorate are pressing to implement the strategy on a voluntary basis. Thus, some measures are in place that minimise mortality of ETP species, the by-catch of harbour porpoise was reduced around 2015 and are expected to be highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 65

whales, dolphins and porpoises. Similar surveys were conducted in 1994 and 2005/07. The coverage and density of harbour porpoise found by SCANS III is presented below (https://synergy.st-andrews.ac.uk/scans3/category/researchoutput/) Most of the Norwegian coast is covered. This was not the case for SCANS I and SCANS II

The main results that emerged were - The most abundant species were harbour porpoise (467,000), common dolphins (468,000) and striped dolphins (372,000). - Harbour porpoise are mainly in areas south of Norway. The results indicate that the shift seen in harbour porpoise distribution in the North Sea from the northwest in 1994 to the south in 2005 was maintained in 2016, with highest densities found in the southwestern North Sea, and north and east of Denmark, see Figure above. - For harbour porpoise, white-beaked dolphin and minke whale in the North Sea, the series of abundance estimates shows no change and a stable trend in abundance over the 22 years covered by the surveys.

The 2015 assessment and the ensuing condition is based on: “Although the exact status of the NE Arctic porpoise population is unknown, it is feared that this level of mortality is unsustainable.” This fear has lessened based on the SCANS III result.

It might be argued that at this point in time (2018-2019 when the SCANS III results were available and evaluated) the condition could have been closed as the basis for the condition did not seem to stand up to data that emerged.

Impact by Norwegian fisheries and the Cod-Haddock fisheries in particular The overall impact by the Norwegian fishery was, at the reassessment in 2015, estimated at around 7000 individuals annually. This estimate was revised in 2016 at about 3000, i.e. the impact was half of the effect as the condition was based upon

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 66

(Bjørge and Moan 2016). Furthermore, the next period 2014-2018 shows even lower by-catch. IUCN classifies the population as ‘Least Concern’.

The Norwegian fisheries are required to report catch of harbour porpoise. ERS- forskriften” J-208-2017 mandates the obligation to report bycatch of marine mammals (as well as other non-commercial bycatch) for vessels above 15m https://fiskeridir.no/Yrkesfiske/Regelverk-og-reguleringer/J-meldinger/Gjeldende-J- meldinger/J-208-2017

The available statistics for the >15 m vessels for the period 2014-2018 report 2 harbour porpoise in 2017 for the cod fishery and none for the haddock fishery for the entire period.

The management conclusion is therefore that for the cod and haddock (>15 m) fisheries there is no basis for a mandatory implementation of mitigating devices and the associated costs.

Mitigating measures Hunting of whales (including harbour porpoise) is forbidden for Norwegian vessels. The main legal basis for regulation of marine mammals lies within “Havressursloven” (Lov om forvaltning av viltlevende marine ressurser - “the marine resource act”) https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2008-06-06-37. This defines that marine mammals are within this law, and delegates to the proper authorities to manage them (as with fisheries in general). “Forskrift om regulering av fangst av vågehval i 2019 where §1 of states (unofficial translation): “General prohibition. – It is forbidden to harvest whales” (The definition of whales obviously also includes porpoise) https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/2019-03-25-327/%C2%A73#%C2%A73. This applies unless there is a derogation as given for minke whales. There is no such derogation for harbour porpoise. Intentional harassment is forbidden under the general Norwegian Animal Welfare act (Dyrevelferdsloven) https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2009-06-19-97

At the 4th surveillance an updated estimate of the following period (shown in the text) suggests that the impact for the Norwegian fisheries for the 2014-2018 period is reduced compared to the earlier period and is below 2000 individuals annually. This is interpreted as a result of the of the IMR programme for the introduction of ‘pingers’ in combination with regulations already in place (ban on hunting, avoidance of whales in general, no harassment, etc in the Norwegian legislation). These have functioned as an implementation of mitigating devices perhaps in modifications of fishing practices.

In summary, there is a strategy, some measures are in place, documentation requirements are being enforced, SG80 is met. The strategy is not comprehensive being partly based on voluntary participation. SG100 is not met. b Score 80 (Unchanged) c Score 80 (Unchanged) d Score 100 (Unchanged) See Original assessment plus Bjørge and Moan (2019). Concerning the revision of the impact on the Harbour porpoise population, Reference see Bjørge et Moan (2016) s SCANS III report (Hammons et al 2017) Information collected at the site visit OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE Overall score: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant) NA

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 67

5.4.3 Habitat impact

Table 25 Re-scoring of PI 2.4.1 - Trawl and Danish Seine The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, considered on a 2.4.1 regional or bioregional basis, and function Scoring Issue SG60 SG80 SG100

Guidepost The fishery is The fishery is highly There is evidence that the unlikely to reduce unlikely to reduce fishery is highly unlikely to habitat structure habitat structure reduce habitat structure and function to a point a and function to a and function to a where there would be serious or irreversible point where there point where there harm. would be serious or would be serious or irreversible harm. irreversible harm. Met? Y Y N Justification The fishery is unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Many of the trawls used are rockhopper trawls that are designed to ride over seabed irregularities but still have the capacity to affect habitat structure and function through surface abrasion and boulder turning. Compared with earlier trawls, however, they have a lighter environmental footprint in that polyvalent slotted doors sit less heavily on the seabed than earlier dreadnought-type doors and the belly of the net tends to float clear of the seabed as the net is of buoyant material rather than water-logged natural fibres. Modern navigation systems and ground discrimination echo sounders enable vessels to be navigated with a high degree of precision and avoid MSHs. The degree to which the effect of trawl gear on habitats can be regarded as ‘serious or irreversible’ is dependent on the nature and function of the habitats and a determination of an acceptable rate of recovery in event of trawl operations ceasing. Irreversibility may imply regime change, loss or extinction of key habitat species (i.e. recovery would never occur), whereas serious may imply major change in the structure and diversity of species assemblages. Benthic biodiversity studies in the Barents Sea show that in general, although biomass was shown to decrease from the 1920s to the 1960s (attributed in part to both climatic factors and intensive fishing activity with the heavier ground gear), recent years have seen a steady increase in benthic biomass since 2005– 2007 across the Barents sea. Throughout the NE Arctic, benthic species that are potentially vulnerable to trawling remain well represented in both IMR–PINRO and MAREANO survey data and there is no indication of benthic species being threatened with local extinction. There is considerable natural variation in the distribution of benthic habitat forming species, due to factors such as productivity, substratum type and sedimentary environment. As a result, in some areas of fishing activity, benthic communities are likely to be more dynamic and less vulnerable to disturbance, e.g. relatively shallow sedimentary environments. In these areas it could be strongly argued that

the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Nevertheless, fishing activity does have the ability to further influence the natural variation in benthic community assemblages. For example, it has been suggested that it is high intensity of fishing in the southern part of the Barents Sea that is the reason for low indicators of biodiversity and zoobenthos bycatch biomass. By contrast, the north-east part of the Barents Sea with less trawl intensity can be characterized by higher levels of biodiversity and macrobenthos biomass. In terms of recovery of habitat species, if left in an undisturbed state, studies of long-term dynamics of bottom communities in the Barents Sea 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 through to the 1960s and 70s, recovery of areas and bioresources of the most common species, large taxons and trophic groups of zoobenthos was again observed. Rate of recovery is dependent on a number of issues – frequency of disturbance (natural and anthropogenic), productivity, substratum type and species. Benthic recovery rates following trawling are typically in the range of 2.5 to 6 years with the fastest recovery being observed in mud habitats. In the NE Arctic, although the majority of the habitats may fall within the more dynamic and sedimentary range (hence quicker recovery), it is notable that some of the species composition and the substratum types on the shelf edge may show far slower recovery characteristics. Reef forming, cold-water coral species on hard substrata have the slowest recovery rate (potentially well beyond the 2.5–6 year range noted above) for large reef-forming species but when undisturbed they do become established and show relatively rapid growth (~5 mm year–1). The main species of coral (eg. Lophelia sp), which would be particularly vulnerable to trawl impact (potentially qualifying as a serious or irreversible effect), are located in Norwegian coastal waters – largely within 12 miles and therefore

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 68

beyond the area fished by most trawlers most of the time. Furthermore, the Norwegian authorities have designated several of these areas marine protected areas (MPA) within which fishing is prohibited and, more recently have prohibited fishing by any ground-contact gear within any known (i.e. shown by MAREANO mapping) coral-reefs. (This regulation is monitored by VMS as well as surveillance at sea.) Furthermore, if vessels find ≥60 kg live coral in the trawl, they are expected to report it to the Directorate of Fisheries and move a minimum of 2 miles before shooting the gear once more. The principal areas of potential risk are on vulnerable sessile species along the shelf edge and in waters around Svalbard, in particular sponge species but also some coral species. For now, there is no dedicated protection for sponges apart from the inshore exclusion zones and around Svalbard and Bear Island. Skippers avoid known areas of dense sponge communities, however, as a cod- end full of sponges ruins the catch by crushing and can burst the trawl, which is expensive in time to repair or replace. This operational imperative is now underwritten by regulation that requires skippers to avoid such areas and move a minimum of 2 miles if they have the misfortune to take ≥800 kg in a haul. Even where there has been fishing on these habitats it is likely that a cessation in fishing activity would result in gradual recovery of these habitats. It is therefore highly unlikely that the certified fishery would reduce habitat structure and function to the point where there would be serious or irreversible harm but clear evidence to this effect is absent, hence, reduced score. Norway SMHs Coral: Principle areas of coral have been mapped and others are known. Evidence gathered by the assessment team during the re-assessment process and extensive stakeholder consultancy indicates that impacts of bottom trawl gear in cod and haddock fisheries on VMEs such as corals are considered to be low due to higher risk of gear loss and gear damage in these areas and their complete avoidance by trawler skippers. There are precise GPS navigation and ground discrimination echo sounders that enable vessels to avoid known areas of coral with a high degree of reliability. In some unfished areas there are also signs of regrowth of coral. Fishing for cod and haddock is most concentrated in areas that are known to be “clean ground” or have already been cleared of obstructions. Hence vessels in the UoC tend to fish the same ground repeatedly rather than stray into new areas. This approach and the environmental safeguards it represents (along with advisory and statutory protection measures) have been recognised, described and referred to both implicitly and explicitly in the MSC assessment reports on NE Arctic trawl fisheries. This evidence is supported by data from enforcement authorities confirming that there are no systematic non-compliances in regards to regulations applicable to coral habitats (e.g. reporting of bycatches of corals and respecting move on rules, marine protected areas and 12 nm ban on trawling of the baseline, where the most of coral habitats are located) by cod and haddock fishing vessels in the UoC. Score 80.

 Sponges: Principal areas of sponge communities have been mapped and others are known. There are regulations to protect sponge communities and precise GPS navigation and ground-discrimination echo sounders enable vessels to avoid known areas of sponge with a high degree of reliability and compliance (Directorate of Fisheries). Directorate is satisfied that there is a high degree of compliance with protection measures. Score 80.

Burrowing megafauna: Most burrowing fauna, indeed, most epibenthic fauna are not subject to direct effects of rock-hopper trawls. The principal possible exceptions are the (flexible) upright Pennatulacea – sea pens. Their distribution is known in the MAREANO mapping area, and they are widely, albeit sparsely, distributed throughout the Barents Sea, which suggests that the fishery is unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm even though they are vulnerable to damage or removal. Score 60.

Russia SMHs Coral: Although there is not the same level as information as is being gathered in the MAREANO programme, coral areas are known (principally inshore) and key habitats and macro species are recorded in the annual IMR–PINRO ecosystem survey. Precise GPS navigation and ground discrimination echo sounders enable vessels to avoid known areas of coral with a high degree of reliability (for operational if not regulatory reasons). Corals have a limited distribution in the Russian zone and it is highly unlikely that the current fishery will reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 69

Score 80.

Sponges: Although there is not the same level as information as is being gathered in the MAREANO programme, sponge areas are known and such habitats are recorded, their abundance and distribution plotted in the annual IMR–PINRO ecosystem survey (predominantly in the far NE, against and under the ice field). Precise GPS navigation and ground discrimination echo sounders enable to avoid known areas of coral with a high degree of reliability (for operational if not regulatory reasons). Overall, sponges have a limited distribution in the Russian zone and it is highly unlikely that the current fishery will reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Score 80.

Burrowing megafauna: Most burrowing fauna, indeed, most epibenthic fauna are not subject to direct effects of rock-hopper trawls. The principal possible exceptions are the (flexible) upright Pennatulacea – sea pens. Their distribution is sparse but recorded in the annual IMR–PINRO ecosystem survey. Their continued presence and sparse distribution suggest that the fishery is unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm even though they are vulnerable to damage or removal. Score 60.

The above introduction to the scoring remains and the scoring of the impact on corals remains unchanged. The literature quoted in the original scoring should be consulted.

The scoring was below 80 because of the information on sea pens and burrowing megafauna which only scored 60. Since the scoring in 2015 the Mareano mapping programme and the joint IMR-PINRO survey in the Barents Sea have increased our knowledge on the distribution of bottom habitats and in particular sea pens are now better mapped, Figure 4 and Figure 5. The mapping shows that these habitat types are scarce in the Barents Sea and that trawl fisheries generally do not interfere with these areas. Furthermore, the strategy of closing VMEs has been followed up with updating the regulations on closed areas particular in the Svalbard area, see J-61-2019: Forskrift om regulering av fiske for å beskytte sårbare marine økosystemer [Order on protection of vulnerable ecosystems]. See https://www.mareano.no/en . The fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm because of the low degree of overlap and because the deliberate policy to close areas when these have been identified as VMEs. The VMS tracks shows that the impact on the generally encountered habitats will also be low because the trawl tracks are limited in areas, this is not covering a major share of the Barents Sea. The Danish seine will in general fish closer to shore than the larger trawlers but in the same areas as the smaller trawlers and the VMS maps are representative for the fishery. Coastal areas and fjords are closed to fishing where VMEs has been identified. The habitat structure is best known close to shore. SG80 is met also for the Sea pens and burrowing megafauna. The is a high degree of certainty that the fishery will not do irreversible harm. SG100 is not met. There is evidence that the fisheries will not reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. This is supported with the regulations introduced on fisheries access to new areas as defined in the J-61-2019. Even so, there are still areas that are not fished and not mapped and there is not a ‘high degree of certainty’ that such harm may not be done OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE Overall score: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant) NA

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 70

6 APPENDICES

6.1 Evaluation processes and techniques

6.1.1 Site visits

The fourth surveillance audit for the Norway North East Arctic cod and Norway North East Arctic haddock fisheries was done on-site in accordance with the surveillance program. The audit was announced on the MSC website and by stakeholder notification of the 30th of October 2019 and the client submitted required information on 02.12.2019. The on-site visit took place on the 2nd, 3rd & 9th December 2019 and meetings took place according to the schedules presented in Table 26. Information identified at the site visit was submitted during the site visit and by 09.01.2020.

Table 26 Meetings and Persons involved with the surveillance audit Topics Day: Monday Date: 02.12.2019 Time: 08:00– 09:00 Venue: DNV GL Opening meeting – assessment team only Thormøhlens Gate 49A, 5006 Bergen Room: Sustainability Day: Monday Meeting with Directorate of Fisheries and Institute of Marine Research: Date: 02.12.2019 Verification of any changes and new information (2018) - Function, role and responsibility of the institution Time: 09:00– 15:30 - Role in stock assessments Venue: DNV GL - Update on sampling programmes/levels of sampling and surveys including observer Thormøhlens Gate programmes 49A, 5006 Bergen - Integration of national data collection programmes and stock assessments with ICES assessments. Room: Sustainability - Update on stock status, stock structure and recruitment - Stock status of fish by-catch, if ICES assessment not available then IMR reports (if available) on stock status - Changes in monitoring programmes for bycatch, discard and ETP species - Levels of slipping/discards - Changes in impact of the fishery on marine habitats and the ecosystem. - Update on research strategy and programmes for the fisheries of the assessment.

Information should be pertinent to the fisheries in 2018 - Catch composition (weight) by species by UoAs and UoC - Map of catch distribution based on VMS data (or if not available then on logbooks) - Changes in regulations (f.ex. executive orders) applicable to the UoC - Information on Monitoring, Control and Enforcement of the fisheries - Changes in monitoring programmes for bycatch, discard, and ETP species - Fishermen’s compliance with laws and regulations. - Significant discrepancies found at landing control for the fisheries of the assessment in the last year - Changes in observed fishing pattern (gear used, fishing area, number of boats, fishing season) - Updated VMS data for the fisheries of the assessment - Traceability changes - Confirm IPI criteria still apply Day: Tuesday Meeting with Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries  Function, role and responsibility Date: 03.12.2019  Harvest strategy for the fisheries, including regulations limiting fishing effort and Time: 10:00– 12:00 harvest control rules Venue: Ministry of  Short-term and long-term management objectives for the fisheries Trade, Industry and  Consultation and decision-making process for the stocks of the fisheries Fisheries Kongens  Mechanisms for resolution of legal disputes DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com gate 8, Oslo  Regulations for fisheries in the relevant geographical area

 Control, surveillance and monitoring routines/regulations applied to the fisheries in the relevant geographical area  Level of slipping/discards  Strategy for minimising or eliminating ETP by-catch  Strategy and plans for protection of sensitive habitats  Fishermen’s compliance with laws and regulations.  Significant discrepancies found at landing control for the fisheries in the last year  Catch data for the most recent fishing season  Observed fishing pattern (gear used, fishing area, number of boats, fishing season)  VMS data for the fisheries  Research strategy or programmes for the fisheries  Review of progress against conditions and recommendations (enclosed) of each of the fisheries covered by the scope of this agenda - any relevant information on progress for each of the conditions. Day: Tuesday Meeting with client Verification of any changes and new information (2018) Date: 03.12.2019 1. Review of basic info about the company: Time: 13:00– 17:00  Ownership or organizational structure  Roles and responsibilities in the MSC Fisheries certification process Venue: Norges  Vessel/certificate member list Fiskarlag, Stenergata 2 2. Review of fishing operations: near Oslo S  Fishing season, allocation of fishing days, fishing areas and gear used (specifications)  Recording of catch and effort data 3. Review of impact on ecosystem:  List of all by-catch of fish species (species and quantities 3 preceding years)  List of by-catch of marine mammals, birds, ETP species (species and quantities)  Recording of bycatch of fish and shellfish species, marine mammals, ETP species and birds  Discarding practices  Overlap of the fisheries with sensitive habitats and closed areas 4. Compliance with rules and regulations  Control, surveillance and monitoring routines  Disputes with national/ international authorities during 2018/2019.  Records of sanctions and penalties (if any) for 2018/2019. 5. Chain of Custody start:  Traceability system on board and at landing  Labelling of products/changes in labeling of products  List of landing sites in 2017/2018  First point of landing  First point of sale  Main products/change in product range  Main markets 6. Review of progress against conditions and recommendations (enclosed) of each of the fisheries covered by the scope of this agenda - any relevant information on progress for each of the conditions. Day: Monday NINA (The Norwegian nature conservation agency) Date: 09.12.2019  Any specific concerns about these fisheries regarding seabird bycatches. Time: 13:30– 14:00  System for recording bycatch and feedback on bycatch from the fisheries  Changes in fishing behaviour to avoid seabird bycatch. Venue: Skype  Recent analysis of seabird bycatch data.  Recent publications on seabird bycatch

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com

6.1.2 Stakeholder participation

The 4th Surveillance audit was announced at the same time as the reassessment of the Norway North East Arctic cod fishery and the Norway North East Arctic haddock fishery and the on-site visits were also combined.

Thirty days prior to the site visit, all stakeholders were informed of the visit and the opportunity to provide advance information to the auditors or to meet with the team during the site visit. DNV GL did not receive any requests for participation at the site visit, nor any written submissions regarding the Norway North Sea demersal fisheries.

The following participants were present at the different meetings:

Table 27 Stakeholder meeting participants Date Name Organization Meeting venue 02.12.2019 Modulf Overvik Fisheries Directorate DNV GL, Bergen 02.12.2019 Bjarte Bogstad IMR DNV GL, Bergen 02.12.2019 Edda Johannesen IMR DNV GL, Bergen 02.12.2019 Asgeir Aglen IMR DNV GL, Bergen 02.12.2019 Tom Williams IMR DNV GL, Bergen 02.12.2019 Tor B. Larsen Norges Fiskarlag DNV GL, Bergen 03.12.2019 Sara Lier Fagerbakke Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries Ministry offices, Oslo 03.12.2019 Lena Brungot Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries Ministry offices, Oslo 03.12.2019 Mari Didriksen Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries Ministry offices, Oslo 03.12.2019 Tor B. Larsen Norges Fiskarlag Norges Fiskarlag, Oslo 03.12.2019 Willy Godtliebsen Norges Råfisklag Norges Fiskarlag, Oslo 03.12.2019 Jonetten Braathen Norges Råfisklag Norges Fiskarlag, Oslo 09.12.2019 Signe Christsen-Dalsgaard NINA Skype 09.12.2019 Kim Bærum NINA Skype All meetings Hans Lassen Fisheries expert P1 & P3 All meetings Lucia Revenga Fisheries expert P2 All meetings Sandhya Chaudhury DNV GL

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com

6.2 Stakeholder input

During the 30- day stakeholder consultancy period for the announcement of the surveillance audit schedule following input was received from Philipp Kanstinger of WWF.

From: Chaudhury, Sandhya Sent: tirsdag 23. juni 2020 12:00 To: 'Kanstinger, Philipp' Cc: 'Fredrik Myhre' ; Shaun McLennan ([email protected]) ; Bilo, Karin ; Hans Lassen ; Lucia Revenga ; David Parker ; Nathalie Breton (n.breton@accreditation- services.com) ; Antonio Hervas Subject: RE: WG: WWF stakeholder comments Norwegian arctic cod and haddock

Dear Phipipp,

Thank you for your email. 26.11.2019

Communication on this issue so far has been handled as stakeholder comment (ref. MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments submitted on 26.11.2019).

If you would like to take this further as an official complaint, DNV GL has a uniform and structured process for handling complaints from stakeholders. Relevant information on the Complaints and appeals procedure and online form (if required) is available at the following link: https://www.dnvgl.com/assurance/Management- Systems/complaints-procedure.html

Thank you.

BR / MVH For DNV GL Business Assurance

Sandhya Chaudhury Principal Specialist

E-mail [email protected] Mobile +47 404 00 404

From: Kanstinger, Philipp Sent: tirsdag 23. juni 2020 11:47 To: Chaudhury, Sandhya Cc: 'Fredrik Myhre' ; Shaun McLennan ([email protected]) ; Bilo, Karin ; Hans Lassen ; Lucia Revenga ; David Parker ; Nathalie Breton (n.breton@accreditation- services.com) ; Antonio Hervas Subject: AW: WG: WWF stakeholder comments Norwegian arctic cod and haddock

Dear Sandhya, thank you for your last response regarding the non compliance of the Norwegian fleet with J-215-2015. Could you please clarify if DNVGL handled this issue as an official complaint from our side ? And if yes, is this case closed for you with your last email? Thank you for clarification

Best regards Philipp Kanstinger

P.S From a scientific perspective seapens are corals (Octocorallia)

From: Chaudhury, Sandhya Sent: mandag 15. juni 2020 11:51 To: Kanstinger, Philipp

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com

Cc: 'Fredrik Myhre' ; Shaun McLennan ([email protected]) ; Bilo, Karin ; Hans Lassen ; Lucia Revenga ; David Parker ; Nathalie Breton (n.breton@accreditation- services.com) ; Antonio Hervas Subject: RE: WG: WWF stakeholder comments Norwegian arctic cod and haddock

Dear Philip,

DNV GL assessment team thanks you for your email below and would like to clarify the following.

While the team misunderstood the WWF intention (in your email of 29.11.2019- specifically enclosures dt 24.10.2017 from WWF to Directorate and 22.09.2016 from Fisheries Directorate to WWF) it does not follow that the fisheries statistics nor the quality of these statistics is not an issue at the audit. This a standard item on the agenda for every assessment and audit. Should you have information to the opposite we would be happy to see this evidence. Further WWF claims that “It seems that there was no specific questioning of the Directorate regarding the compliance of the Norwegian fleet with the Coral and sponge reporting part of J-208-2017 during the site visit but only a general review of compliance with laws;”. The team requests WWF to provide evidence of this.

The Directorate is informed on the claim by WWF e.g. the letter sent by WWF to the Directorate on 24.10.2017 and Directorate to WWF on 22.09.2016 and have found that the claim is not justified. If, as now claimed by WWF, the reaction to both instances was unsatisfactory a follow-up by WWF with the Directorate might have been appropriate.

The claim that there is ‘systematic non-compliance’ we do not find is justified; the Norwegian fleet complies well with a wide range of data delivery requirements and other regulations. The fleet have done so for decades. The reporting of living corals and sponges is but a single item in a long range of requirements.

The WWF input of November 2019, including the Fisheries Directorate letter to WWF of 22.09.2016, was discussed with the Directorate at the surveillance audit, cf response to this discussion by the Directorate both at the meeting on 02.12.2019 as well as followed up by the directorate on 13.12.2019.

With respect to issue 2 (seapens-condition 5) please note that the fishery was assessed in 2015 against the MSC CR v1.3, and that requirements CB 3.14.2.2 and CB 3.14.3 and their guidance (GCB 3.14.2 and GCB 3.14.3) shall apply here. (CB 3.14.2.2 Irreversibility means changes that are expected to take much longer to recover than the dynamics in unfished situations would imply, some sort of regime change is implied from which recovery may not automatically occur. CB 3.14.3 The team shall consider the full extent of the habitats when assessing the status of habitats and the impacts of fishing, and not just the part of the habitats that overlap with the fishery). We would like to remind WWF that condition 5 only refers to seapens and not to any other VME which might be present in the area , and therefore WWF comment on PI 3.2.3 (the so called issue 1) is of no relevance here (PI 2.4.1).

We reiterate that both Jørgensen et al. (2015) and Denisenko et al. (2013) agree that seapens are more abundant in the northern area of the Barents Sea, on the shelf facing the Arctic Ocean than in the southern region, where this fishery takes place. These northern areas happen to be restricted to fishing by Norwegian regulation J-61-2019, which not only establishes small area closures (see J-61-2019, paragraph 5), but bans any fishing activity in waters deeper than 1000 m and establishes restrictions to bottom fishing in the “new fishing areas” (see J-61-2019, paragraph 4) where a special permit shall be granted before the fishing activity is started, limiting in this way bottom fishing in areas where seapens are abundant (as reported by Jørgensen et al. (2015) and Denisenko et al. (2013)). These “New fishing areas” were previously voluntarily avoided by the UoA who signed the so-called “Greenpeace Agreement” (established in 2016 and finalised in 2019 when J-61-2019 entered in force). Information on this voluntary closure was already documented in the 3rd surveillance report for the fishery.

Above all, the team would like to highlight, once again, that according to OSPAR, seapens and burrowing megafauna are not considered to be threatened or declining in OSPAR region 1 (see https://www.ospar.org/work-areas/bdc/species-habitats/list-of-threatened-declining-species-habitats ) where this fishery takes place.

Thank you.

BR / MVH For DNV GL Business Assurance DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com

Sandhya Chaudhury Principal Specialist

E-mail [email protected] Mobile +47 404 00 404

From: Kanstinger, Philipp Sent: tirsdag 9. juni 2020 10:57 To: Chaudhury, Sandhya Cc: 'Fredrik Myhre' ; Shaun McLennan ([email protected]) ; Bilo, Karin ; Hans Lassen ; Lucia Revenga ; David Parker ; Nathalie Breton (n.breton@accreditation- services.com) ; Antonio Hervas Subject: AW: WG: WWF stakeholder comments Norwegian arctic cod and haddock

Dear Sandhya,

We have carefully reviewed the second response of the assessment team regarding WWFs input for the 4th surveillance.

Our input focused on the systematic non-compliance of the Norwegian NE Arctic cod fishery with regards to the mandatory reporting of living coral and sponge bycatches (J-215-2015 and now J-208-2017). We remain extremely concerned about how DNVGL handled our input and remain concerned that appropriate actions were not taken to resolve the issues WWF raised. We have therefore included ASI (Nathalie Breton; Antonio Hervas) in this email exchange in order to now make an official complaint regarding this matter.

In our stakeholder input before the 4th surveillance we explained our concerns and added supplementary material (email from 29.11.2019).

We presented a letter from the responsible fishing authority that clarifies that Norwegian vessels must report any bycatches of living sponges & corals if > 1kg (STATISTIKK FOR BIFANGST AV KORALL OG SVAMP from August 2016); In that letter, the Directorate states that no bycatches of sponges or corals were reported by the Norwegian fleet since the introduction of this specific reporting requirement within the general reporting law (J-215-2015); To WWFs knowledge the Norwegian fishery continues not to regularly report their bycatches of corals and sponges; Other MSC certified fleets that target the same species, with the same gear (Demersal otter trawl), frequently observe and note bycatches of sponges and corals in the fishing grounds they share with the Norwegian fleet. Those observations of/ reports of coral or sponge bycatches are made by scientific observers (for example AZTI, TI, PINRO) and/or by crew/captains (AGARBA, UK Fisheries/DFFU/Doggerbank, NOREBO, FIUN etc). Captains from these other MSC certified fleets report 2 to 7 interactions with sponges or corals per vessel per year (4SA_report_AGARBA, FIUN PCR 2018). Scientific observers find a higher rate of interactions but of course they can focus more to detect also smaller amounts of coral and sponge bycatches (AGARBA, Garmendia and Iriondo 2017). It is therefore implausible that the Norwegian NE Arctic cod fishery, with hundreds of vessels, does not have any bycatch of sponges and corals. Reporting coral and sponge bycatches is a key measure to evaluate and mitigate impacts on vulnerable marine ecosystems. Establishing routines and reporting systems is part of many client action plans of similar fisheries. For example, WWF were pleased to note that many of the Russian MSC cod fisheries in the Barents Sea voluntarily established a working system to detect and report coral and sponge bycatches. For the Norwegian fleet this is a mandatory legal requirement.

In light of the issues raised, we had expected that DNVGL would reach out to the Directorate (in a fully documented way) and specifically ask the relevant questions regarding compliance with the Coral and sponge reporting part of J-208-2017 §12 data block B. Further, we expected you to ask the client and the Directorate to share an overview of the bycatch incidence report data so that you could evaluate the fleet impacts on VMEs including seapens (condition 5) in in order to consider if the situation has changed since August 2016, and, that the mandatory reporting requirement is being complied with. In contrast, we received answers from DNVGL that can be summarized like this: “Sorry that we have missed out on your input of 29.11.2019” (DNVGL email from 3.04.2020)

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com

“Based on clarification from the Fisheries Directorate (Norsk Fiskeridirektorat) during the site visit it appears that certain foreign fleets have received a derogation for reporting using the specific ERS system….” “Foreign vessels are obliged to report and do so by means available to them e.g. e-mails,; and are therefore in line with the Norwegian regulations. There is no systematic non-compliance and there has been no need for sanctions.” (DNVGL email from 12.05.2020)

“We apologise for the misinterpretation of your original intervention, the non-Norwegian fishery was confused with the issue on the Norwegian fleets because of the reference to the letter from 2016. Please note that this misread was general at the surveillance…..The CAB and the Directorate is aware of the of Regulation J-208-2017 and at the surveillance audits, conformity with the regulation is discussed with the Client and with the Directorate as part of the general review of compliance…It is reported from the authorities that the problems do not represent systematic non-compliance but rather problems with the bureaucracy associated with fishing. We have thus, based on input from the Client and from the Directorate, concluded that there is no systematic non-compliance…..The Letter that is referred to in your comment…. does not include documentation that the reporting is not correct. The topic was dealt with under “Any other business2 (‘Eventuelt’) and there are no minutes for this point on the agenda. (DNVGL email from 28.05.2020)

From our perspective these actions and conclusions are inappropriate because:

It seems that there was no specific questioning of the Directorate regarding the compliance of the Norwegian fleet with the Coral and sponge reporting part of J-208-2017 during the site visit but only a general review of compliance with laws;

WWF's input was missed out and/or misinterpreted during the site visit (emails 3.4.20 and 28.5.20).

We fail to understand how systematic non-reporting does “not represent systematic non-compliance but rather problems with the bureaucracy associated with fishing”. We assume that this was related to the general review of logbooks and landing documentations. However, there is no documentation of this discussion.

We also have not seen any evidence that the assessment team reached out to the Directorate after the site visit to clarify our concerns (once they were finally understood by the assessment team).

In the circumstances, we expect DNVGL to revisit the issues raised by WWF and duly investigate matters, including but not limited to, reaching out to the Directorate for clarification, before closing this case.

In respect to issue 2 (taking new information into account and closure of condition 5 seapens) we welcome that the Assessment team now included the Nordisk Ministerråd, 2019 report that shows that sublittoral sea pen communities have experienced intermediate to very high fishing efforts in over 41.0% of its area of predicted presence or 50.7% when considering the predicted optimal habitat and that the client provided maps showing the (severe) overlap of effort distribution of the cod and haddock bottom trawl fisheries and location of identified seapens (Figure 3 and 4). However, we disagree with the finding that the new area closures in the vicinity of Svalbard are a sufficient measure to safeguard that the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Less than 1% of predicted optimal seapen habitat is additionally protected and this does not significantly decrease the 50 to 60% overlap of medium to high fishing pressure and optimal seapen habitat in Norway and Svalbard. Despite new mapping and overlap data (that show a severe overlap) and the new small protected areas established by the Norwegian regulation J-61-2019 no other new information (since the last recertification) was presented in the assessment team rational to close condition 5. From our perspective the assessment DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com team fails to sufficiently justify its conclusion to close this condition, all the more so, when taking issue 1 into account.

We therefore hope that you will review your answers and reach out to the Directorate to clarify the issues raised.

Best regards

Philipp Kanstinger

Dr. Philipp Kanstinger Referent Seafood Zertifizierung

Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.| | | Telefon +49 40 530200-325 Mobil +49 151 18854956 Mail [email protected] Twitter @WWF_Deutschland

Von: Kanstinger, Philipp Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Mai 2020 16:13 An: Chaudhury, Sandhya Cc: 'Fredrik Myhre' ; Shaun McLennan ([email protected]) ; Bilo, Karin ; Hans Lassen ; Lucia Revenga Betreff: AW: WG: WWF stakeholder comments Norwegian arctic cod and haddock

Dear Sandhya,

WWF confirms receipt of your email of 28.05.2020.

The email will be circulated within the WWF standard team and I will revert to you with our response.

Best regards Philipp

From: Chaudhury, Sandhya Sent: torsdag 28. mai 2020 16:23 To: Kanstinger, Philipp Cc: 'Fredrik Myhre' ; Shaun McLennan ([email protected]) ; Bilo, Karin ; Hans Lassen ; Lucia Revenga Subject: RE: WG: WWF stakeholder comments Norwegian arctic cod and haddock

Dear Philipp,

The assessment team has reviewed both points mentioned in your email below. Please find our response as follows:

1. We apologise for the misinterpretation of your original intervention, the non-Norwegian fishery was confused with the issue on the Norwegian fleets because of the reference to the letter from 2016. Please note that this misread was general at the surveillance.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com

Regulation J-215-2015 is no longer in effect but replaced by J-208-2017. However, the change between J- 215-2015 and J-208-2017 is not affecting the issue that you are concerned with as mentioned above. The change is recorded as ‘I forskriftens vedlegg 2 oppdateres lenken til Fiskeridirektoratets hjemmesider som gir en oppdatert liste over feilkoder.’ [Unoffical translation: In the Order annex 2 the link to the list of error codes on the Directorate’s website is updated.’ ] The team surmises that you raise concerns about the requirement presented in §12 data block B

Fangst CA P Total fangst fra denne fiskeoperasjonen fordelt på artskode (FAO kode) i kilo rund vekt. Parvis angitt. [Påkrævd – Bifangst av sjøpattedyr og sjøfugl føres under dette dataelementet parvis angitt Mandatory] fordelt etter art (FAO kode) og antall. Bifangst av levende koraller og levende svamper føres under dette dataelementet parvis angitt fordelt etter art (FAO kode) og kilo rund vekt. I tillegg skal fangst av tare føres under denne koden. Oversikt over FAO koder for fisk, sjøpattedyr, sjøfugl, levende koraller, levende svamper og tare finnes på www.fiskeridir.no. Dersom dataelementet GE i blokk B er gitt som HAR (harpun) skal det angis en Blokk B for hvert dyr/hver fangstoperasjon.

[Unofficial translation:

Total catch from this fishing operation by species code (FAO code) in kilograms round weight. Pairwise.

By-catch of marine mammals and seabirds are specified under this data element in pairs by species (FAO code) and number. By-catch of living corals and living sponges are specified under this data element by species (FAO code) and kilograms of round weight. In addition, the catch of kelp should be specified under this code.

Overview of FAO codes for fish, marine mammals, seabirds, live corals, live sponges and kelp can be found on www.fiskeridir.no.

If the GE data element in block B is given as HAR (harpoon), a Block B should be specified for each animal/catch operation.]

It is our understanding that you focus on living corals and living sponges and claim that the Norwegian fleet under the MSC certificate is not reporting these two categories as required and that you claim that other fleets with observers onboard do report such data. The CAB is only aware of observer programmes that concentrate on the fish, marine mammals and seabirds while benthos data where they exist are recorded by the crew. There are programmes in training the crew in such identification, e.g. for the Spanish trawl fishery. The overall aim of the regulation is to protect VMEs and the Norwegian strategy is to protect vulnerable bottom habitats through closed areas for heavy bottom contacting gears, 800 000 sq.km, or 38 % of all Norwegian marine waters were closed by the end of 2017. Norway has invested significant resources in mapping the sea bottom, e.g. the Mareano programme, and as a consequence closed a number of VME’s. Furthermore, the catch of corals and sponges creates significant problems for the fishing operations and areas where corals and sponges are known to exist are therefore avoided irrespectively of whether the area is closed or not. The fishery is subject to move-on rules for catch J-61-2019 §3 where previous and similar regulations have been in effect since 2011 (J-128-2011). The rule is, according to information received at on- site interviews, well accepted within the Norwegian fishery. As an illustration that the amounts are in any case minimal, it might be noted that some fishing firms apply more restrictive move-on rules than laid down in the Norwegian legislation. These more restrictive rules are generally not invoked suggesting that by-catches of living corals and living sponges are rare.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com

The CAB and the Directorate is aware of the of Regulation J-208-2017 and at the surveillance audits, conformity with the regulation is discussed with the Client and with the Directorate as part of the general review of compliance. It should be noted that the Norwegian Coast Guard and the inspectors inter alia focus on accuracy of logbooks and landing documentations and that there are guidance and warnings each year in this particular field. It is reported from the authorities that the problems do not represent systematic non- compliance but rather problems with the bureaucracy associated with fishing. We have thus, based on input from the Client and from the Directorate, concluded that that there is no systematic non-compliance. The Letter that is referred to in your comment is for ‘Reguleringsmøte Autumn 2017 dated 24.10.2017. ‘Innspill til «Sak 32 – Eventuelt: Bifangst av levende korall og levende svamp»’. The letter observes that ‘[Unofficial translation: WWF finds it strange that there is no reports of living coral or sponges’ ] but does not include documentation that the reporting is not correct. The topic was dealt with under “Any other business2 (‘Eventuelt’) and there are no minutes for this point on the agenda. Based on your comment the CAB have once more taken this topic up with the Client. Also, the scoring has been extended to include a recommendation to consider the matter further at the coming audits. 2. Condition 5 only refers to seapens. “The fishery shall demonstrate that it is highly unlikely to reduce Pennatulacea (sea pens) habitat structure and function of to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.” The Nordisk Ministerråd, 2019 report refers to all VMEs indicator species, including seapens. Table 4 (page 56) in the document refers to overlapping of all Norwegian fishing activity with seapens in Norwegian EEZ and in Svalbard waters. Specifically, and according to this report, sublittoral sea pen communities have experienced intermediate to very high fishing efforts in over 41.0% of its area of predicted presence or 50.7% when considering the predicted optimal habitat. In the Svalbard fishery area, the bathyal sea pen communities have experienced intermediate to very higher fishing effort in 37.3% of its area of predicted presence to 65.5% of its area of optimal habitat. However, it must be highlighted that the report takes into account all fishing activity in the area, not only bottom trawlers by the UoA, and that it refers to areas of predicted presence and predicted optimal habitat. Jørgensen et al. (2015) studied data collected in 2011 by bottom trawlers to assess the vulnerability of benthic species to trawling, based on the risk of being caught or damaged by a bottom trawl, and found that seapen species (Umbellula encrinus) are more abundant in the northern area of the Barents Sea, on the shelf facing the Arctic Ocean. Denisenko et al (2013) agrees that benthic biomass of seapen Umbelulla incrinus in the southern region is considerably lower than in the northern region of the Barents Sea.

3. Figure 1: Distribution of seapen Umbellula encrinus (in blue) in the Barents Sea. Source: Jørgensen et al. (2015), figure 4.b.

VMS maps by the Directorate of Fisheries show that effort distribution of bottom trawlers targeting cod and haddock takes part in areas southern to those described by Jørgensen et al. (2015) and Denisenko et al. (2013). (See Figure 3 of the 4th surveillance report for the Norway cod and haddock fishery (02.03.2020), here figure 2).

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com

4. Figure 2: Effort distribution of bottom trawlers in 2017 for Norwegian vessel by target species. Source: Directorate of Fisheries. (Cod in blue, haddock in yellow). Source: Directorate of Fisheries.

As reported in the 4th surveillance report on the 2nd March 2020, the client has provided overlapped maps of effort distribution of the cod and haddock bottom trawl fisheries and location of identified seapens.

5. Figure 3: Trawl VMS tracks for NEA Cod and Vulnerable Sea pens and megafauna communities. Source: Client.

6. Figure 4: Trawl VMS tracks for NEA Haddock. Source: Client

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com

Following the concerns regarding possible impacts of the fishing activity on VMEs areas, new area closures in the vicinity of Svalbard have been established in order to protect benthic species including seapens. This has been done through Norwegian regulation J-61-2019: Forskrift om regulering av fiske for å beskytte sårbare marine økosystemer.

Regardless of all the issues addressed above, it must be highlighted that according to OSPAR (who comprises all available scientific information collected by institutions such as IMR, ICES and the Joint Russian Norwegian Commission) seapens and burrowing megafauna communities are not considered to be a declining habitat in OSPAR region 1 (Arctic waters), where the bottom trawl activity for the high seas fisheries takes place (see https://www.ospar.org/work-areas/bdc/species-habitats/list-of-threatened-declining-species-habitats). The team considers that Condition 5 PI 2.4.1.b (seapens) meets the requirements to be closed. In any case, at the reassessment stage the assessment team will carefully review available literature on the occurrence of the different VMEs present in the fishing grounds and on management measures set by Norwegian authorities or by other MSC UoAs present in the area.

References: 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. https://www.ospar.org/work-areas/bdc/species-habitats/list-of-threatened-declining-species-habitats Jørgensen, L. L., Planque, B., Thangstad, T. H., and Certain, G. 2015. Vulnerability of megabenthic species to trawling in the Barents Sea. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsv107. (Figure 4.b) Lassen, H., Chaudhury, S. 4th MSC Surveillance Report for the Norway North East Arctic cod and haddock fisheries. DNV-GL. Date: 02.03.2020. Report: 2019-025, Rev. 0. Vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs): Coral and sponge VMEs in Arctic and sub-Arctic waters – Distribution and threats. Nordisk Ministerråd, 2019. , s. 144. Serie TemaNord, ISSN 0908-6692; 2019:519.

As mentioned before, this communication will be included in the revised report for the 4th surveillance of this fishery.

As always, please feel free to revert if necessary.

Thank you.

BR / MVH For DNV GL Business Assurance Norway AS

Sandhya Chaudhury Principal Specialist

E-mail [email protected] Mobile +47 404 00 404

From: Chaudhury, Sandhya Sent: onsdag 20. mai 2020 08:04 To: Kanstinger, Philipp Cc: 'Fredrik Myhre' ; Shaun McLennan ([email protected]) ; Bilo, Karin Subject: RE: WG: WWF stakeholder comments Norwegian arctic cod and haddock

Dear Philipp,

In response to your email of 13th May 2020, the assessment team had a meeting yesterday. The team has agreed to review your latest comments and will revert to you by early next week.

Thank you.

BR / MVH For DNV GL Business Assurance Norway AS

Sandhya Chaudhury Principal Specialist

E-mail [email protected] Mobile +47 404 00 404 DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com

From: Chaudhury, Sandhya Sent: fredag 15. mai 2020 10:18 To: Kanstinger, Philipp Cc: 'Fredrik Myhre' ; Shaun McLennan ([email protected]) ; Bilo, Karin Subject: RE: WG: WWF stakeholder comments Norwegian arctic cod and haddock

Dear Philipp,

DNV GL confirms receipt of your email of 13.05.2020.

The email will be circulated within the assessment team and I will revert to you with our response.

Please note that a revised surveillance report is planned in the near future which will include all stakeholder updates.

Thank you.

BR / MVH For DNV GL Business Assurance Norway AS

Sandhya Chaudhury Principal Specialist

E-mail [email protected] Mobile +47 404 00 404

From: Kanstinger, Philipp Sent: onsdag 13. mai 2020 18:06 To: Chaudhury, Sandhya Cc: 'Fredrik Myhre' ; Shaun McLennan ([email protected]) ; Bilo, Karin Subject: AW: WG: WWF stakeholder comments Norwegian arctic cod and haddock

Dear Sandhya, thank you for emailing the assessment teams response. We are quite surprised by the findings of the assessment team and we identified severe factual errors in their response regarding the 4th surveillance report. Therefore we kindly ask you to clarify the situation

1. In our input before the annual surveillance audit we provided evidence that the client (Norwegian) fleet systematically does not comply with relevant Norwegian law (Regulation J-215-2015). In response, the assessment team found no systematic non-compliance because “it appears that certain foreign fleets have received a derogation for reporting using the specific ERS system”. This response makes no sense because it is regarding a Norwegian law and Norwegian vessels. We are highly concerned that the CAB did not investigate further.

2. We additionally raised concerns regarding the closure of the 2.4.1 condition. We provided new information about the VME type seapens which contradict the closure of the condition. In their response, the audit team state that “ As stated by an independent adjudicator in the MSC Murmanseld2 Barents Sea cod and haddock fisheries PCR, for the outcome PI (2.4.1), only areas designated as closed by relevant management bodies are considered here”

Actually, the ruling of the IA in the Murmanseld2 process was the contrary and IA decision was that all VMEs and potential VMEs should be assessed and not only those designated by a relevant management body. “33. These factors taken cumulatively make clear the FCR and Guidance drafted and approved by the MSC require the CAB, on an evidence based approach, to determine VME status. They do not support an interpretation the CAB should accept a designation by a governance body.”

Can you please indicate if you will contact the assessment team again and clarify / investigate these issues ? In this case we would kindly ask you to mark the annual surveillance report that was uploaded 3rd March on the MSC fisheries website as preliminary report. Or in case you confirm the teams response, then we will forward the documents to ASI for further clarification.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com

Thank you and best regards Philipp

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com

29.11.2020:

Stakeholder contact and assessment details

Category Contact details

Title

First name* Philipp

Last name* Kanstinger

Organisation* WWF Germany

Email* [email protected]

Department

Job title

Description

Phone number

Postal address

Fishery name* Norway NEA cod

Certification body (CAB)*

Assessment Stage* Providing input at annual surveillance audits

I wish to register as a stakeholder - please keep me informed Register* about each stage of the assessment process

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com

Performance Indicator (PI) input Suggested CAB response CAB Performance Input summary Input detail Evidence or references score to stakeholder response Indicator (PI) change input code Principle 1 - Sustainable fish stocks 1.1.1 - Stock status 1.1.2 - Stock rebuilding 1.2.1 - Harvest strategy 1.2.2 - Harvest control rules and tools 1.2.3 - Information and monitoring 1.2.4 - Assessment of stock status Principle 2 - Minimising environmental impacts 2.1.1 - Primary species outcome 2.1.2 - Primary species management 2.1.3 - Primary species information 2.2.1 - Secondary species outcome 2.2.2 - Secondary species management 2.2.3 - Secondary species information 2.3.1 - ETP species outcome 2.3.2 - ETP species management

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 86

2.3.3 - ETP species information Seapens and burrowing megafauna communities are not considered to be a declining habitat in OSPAR region 1 (Arctic waters), where the bottom trawl activity for the high seas Please review the recent risk assessment for VMEs the fisheries takes fishing area (Nordisk Ministerråd, 2019). The percentage place. As stated by area of Sublittoral seapen communities overlapping with an independant fishing in the Norwegian EEZ is >50 % (even 65% or optimal adjudicator in the seapen habitats). The report concluded that Bottom related MSC Murmanseld2 fisheries were the human activities that were identified as the Barents Sea cod biggest threat to the VMEs. The Norwegian NEA cod fleet and haddock continues to operate in areas that were identified as seapen fisheries PCR, for biotopes by Mareano. The fleet did not conduct a footprint Vulnerable marine ecosystems the outcome PI analysis of their activity. The fleet did not not developed nor (VMEs): Coral and sponge (2.4.1), only areas The fishery can´t demonstrate that it is highly adopt move on rules for this specific habitat (e.g. NAFO VMEs in Arctic and sub-Arctic designated as unlikely to reducePennatulacea (sea pens) 2.4.1 - Habitats mandatory trigger: 7kg Seapens). The fleet did not participate waters – Distribution and closed by relevant habitat structure and function of to a point 65 outcome in data collection of benthic bycatch species like other MSC threats Nordisk Ministerråd, management where there would be serious or irreversible certified similar fleets in the region (e.g. FIUN, AGARBA) 2019. , s. 144 bodies are harm. Condition 5 can´t be closed. although this is legally binding (see comments PI 3.2.3). Serie TemaNord, ISSN 0908- considered here. FIUN final certification report recorded frequently encounters 6692 ; 2019:519 Given that these with VME indicator species. Bycatch sampling is prerequisite areas are avoided to evaluate impact, locate unidentified VME areas and to by the UoAs, it is develop science based meaningful Move on rules. WWF expected that the welcomes the actions by the fishery to support the closure of different UoAs are new areas around Svalbard. However, compared to the highly unlikely to overall overlap of the fleet with VMEs (including seapens) reduce structure these areas are negligible and do not cover many hotspot and function of the VMEs areas identified in the fishing area. designated VME habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. As regards management measures by other MSC fisheries, these are taken into consideration under PI 2.4.2.d. 2.4.2 - Habitats management strategy DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 87

2.4.3 - Habitats information 2.5.1 - Ecosystem outcome 2.5.2 - Ecosystem management strategy 2.5.3 - Ecosystem information Principle 3 - Effective management 3.1.1 - Legal and/or customary framework 3.1.2 - Consultation, roles and responsibilities 3.1.3 - Long term objectives 3.2.1 - Fishery- specific objectives 3.2.2 - Decision- making processes Based on clarification from the Fisheries Directorate (Norsk Fiskeridirektorat) 1) Regulation J-215-2015 states that all living corals and during the site visit sponges are to be reported by the fishing vessels. This goes it appears that into effect from 1 kg corals and 1 kg sponges. To our certain foreign knowledge there is a systematically non compliance with this fleets have regulations and fisher do not report bycatches of VME Fiskeridirektoratet letter: received a indicator species. WWF highlighted this issue in 2017 (see STATISTIKK FOR BIFANGST derogation for Bycatch reporting Norwegian Regulation J- Not 3.2.3 - attached document). Sanctions are not in place. The fishery AV KORALL OG SVAMP reporting using the 215-2015: evidence of systematic accepted Compliance and fails to provide information of importance to the effective WWF letter: Innspill til «Sak specific ERS noncompliance. Sanctions dealing with non (no score enforcement management of the fishery although it is a binding regulation. 32 – Eventuelt: Bifangst av system because of compliance are not applied change) And it would be prerequisite to fullfill condition 5.Similar UoAs levende korall og levende lack of agreement fishing in the same area do report frequently bycatches of svamp» on a common sponges and corals in their ETP logbooks (see assesments system that covers FIUN, AGARBA, DFFU etc). Also observer programs in these all fisheries in the other fleets report such bycatches. Please add the attached Northeast Atlantic. letters from Fiskeridirektoratet and WWF to the public record. Foreign vessels are obliged to report and do so by means available to them e.g. e-mails,; and are therefore in DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 88

line with the Norwegian regulations. There is no systematic non-compliance and there has been no need for sanctions.

3.2.4 - Monitoring and management <60 performance evaluation

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 89

From: Chaudhury, Sandhya Sent: tirsdag 12. mai 2020 15:23 To: Kanstinger, Philipp Cc: 'Fredrik Myhre' Subject: RE: WG: WWF stakeholder comments Norwegian arctic cod and haddock

Dear Philipp,

Firstly I apologise for the delay in reverting with our response. It should not be an excuse but the COVID 19 situation has delayed a lot of regular activities.

Enclosed please find DNV GL response to your 2nd input of 29.11.2010. A revised repot (2nd issue) will be published as soon as it is approved in the near future. Please note that this email and the response to your 2nd input will also be included in this report.

Thank you.

BR / MVH For DNV GL Business Assurance Norway AS

Sandhya Chaudhury Principal Specialist

E-mail [email protected] Mobile +47 404 00 404

From: Chaudhury, Sandhya Sent: fredag 3. april 2020 08:55 To: Kanstinger, Philipp Cc: 'Fredrik Myhre' Subject: RE: WG: WWF stakeholder comments Norwegian arctic cod and haddock

Dear Phillip,

On reviewing the report I see that we have included your first input from 26.11.2019 and our response to that. Sorry that we have missed out on your input of 29.11.2019 (it’s an error and thank you for bringing it to our attention) – as mentioned in my email from yesterday, we are updating the report on a couple of other issues too and will update chapter 6.2 Stakeholder comments too. I will keep you updated on this.

Please do accept our apologies.

Thank you.

BR / MVH For DNV GL Business Assurance Norway AS

Sandhya Chaudhury Principal Specialist

E-mail [email protected] Mobile +47 404 00 404

From: Chaudhury, Sandhya Sent: torsdag 2. april 2020 16:41 To: Kanstinger, Philipp Cc: 'Fredrik Myhre' Subject: RE: WG: WWF stakeholder comments Norwegian arctic cod and haddock

Dear Philipp, Thanks for your email. It has to be an oversight, I will check it tomorrow. I am planning a revised report to be published next week hopefully and will make sure your input is included. DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 90

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

------Original message ------From: "Kanstinger, Philipp" Date: 02/04/2020 16:35 (GMT+01:00) To: "Chaudhury, Sandhya" Cc: 'Fredrik Myhre' Subject: WG: WWF stakeholder comments Norwegian arctic cod and haddock

Dear Sandhya, I just read the Surveillance No. 4 Report for the “Norway North East Arctic cod and haddock fisheries” and saw that our stakeholder input was not included. Please see forwarded email below.

Could you please explain why not ? From our perspective the non-reporting issue we highlighted in our input is very serious

Best regards Philipp Kanstinger

Von: Kanstinger, Philipp Gesendet: Freitag, 29. November 2019 12:20 An: Chaudhury, Sandhya Cc: Fredrik Myhre Betreff: WWF stakeholder comments Norwegian arctic cod and haddock

Dear Sandhya, Please find attached our comments for the Norwegian NEA cod annual audit and the re-assessment report and 2 supplementary documents. Some of our additional supplementary documents (5 WWF Cam assessments of relevant UoAs) are too large for emails. Please download them here:

Download-Link https://wetransfer.com/downloads/7bf7f0bef56527e51788edac93a44dba20191129111029/0084371f70e9724287 e5b08f7b22162420191129111029/b7c3ff

Thank you and best regards Philipp

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 91

26.11.2020:

Stakeholder contact and assessment details

Category Contact details Guidance

Title Optional

First name* Philipp

Last name* Kanstinger

Please enter the legal or Organisation* WWF registered name of your organisation or company.

Email* [email protected]

Department Optional

Job title Optional

Optional description of your Description organisation

Phone number Optional

Postal address Optional

As the fishery appears in the Fishery name* Norway NEA cod Fisheries Update or on fisheries.msc.org.

Certification body (CAB)*

Stakeholder input on the Announcement Comment Assessment Stage* annual surveillance audit Draft Report I wish to register as a stakeholder - please keep me Please indicate whether you'd Register* like to register as a stakeholder informed about each stage of the assessment process for this assessment.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 92

Performance Indicator (PI) input Suggested CAB Performance Input summary Input detail Evidence or references score CAB response to stakeholder input response Indicator (PI) change code Principle 1 - Sustainable fish stocks 1.1.1 - Stock status

1.1.2 - Stock rebuilding

1.2.1 - Harvest strategy

1.2.2 - Harvest control rules and tools 1.2.3 - Information and monitoring 1.2.4 - Assessment of stock status

Principle 2 - Minimising environmental impacts

2.1.1 - Primary species outcome 2.1.2 - Primary species management 2.1.3 - Primary species information 2.2.1 - Secondary species outcome 2.2.2 - Secondary species management 2.2.3 - Secondary species information 2.3.1 - ETP species outcome 2.3.2 - ETP species management 2.3.3 - ETP species information

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 93

Access to key information. The offshore fleet has pledged not to go beyond areas with <25 trawling hours E.g. in new Marine Stewardship Council’s The map of voluntary avoided areas is publicly areas. This information was used in the Fisheries Certification Process available as an annex of the PCR for the Norway 2018 annual surveillance report as well (FCP) v 2.1 clause 4.4.1.1 The CAB North East Arctic cold water prawn report in the ACDR as a justification for better shall make unpublished key available at: scoring habitat PIs. However, the CAB information available when https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/norway- Accepted 2.4.1 - Habitats outcome fails to provide maps showing these new referenced in a north-east-arctic-cold-water- (no score areas. I requested access to this data on public assessment report and shall prawn/@@assessments, pages 230 and 231. change) the 19th November 2019 and have not ensure that the information is The information on the pledge was not used for yet received these map and there is now available throughout the "better scoring" in the 2018 annual surveillance not enough time to properly review the subsequent stages of the report (the report does not have any rescoring - maps before the site visit as well as assessment process. ref appendix 1.) stakeholder comment deadline for the ACDR 2.4.2 - Habitats management strategy 2.4.3 - Habitats information 2.5.1 - Ecosystem outcome 2.5.2 - Ecosystem management strategy 2.5.3 - Ecosystem information Principle 3 - Effective management 3.1.1 - Legal and/or customary framework

3.1.2 - Consultation, roles and responsibilities

3.1.3 - Long term objectives 3.2.1 - Fishery-specific objectives 3.2.2 - Decision-making processes 3.2.3 - Compliance and enforcement

3.2.4 - Monitoring and management performance evaluation

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 94

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 95

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 96

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 97

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 98

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 99

6.3 Harmonised fishery assessments – delete if not applicable

There are several fisheries targeting Barents Sea cod and haddock that are already MSC Fisheries certified or undergoing the assessment process. The scoring of the present fishery underwent significant harmonisation with other fisheries for cod and haddock in the Barents Sea, see first surveillance report for the Norway fisheries for North East Arctic cod and haddock. The Norway NEA cod and haddock fisheries are found to be scored consistently with the other most recent assessments. The factors mentioned during the March 2016 harmonisation discussion would appear to account for most of the differences. Results of this harmonisation discussion were presented in the Surveillance 1 report of 09.01.2017. Principle 1 The Norwegian Coastal waters cod is only fished by the Norwegian fleet while other fleet fishing in the Barents Sea do not have access to this stock. Hence there is no overlap and harmonisation issue NEA Cod and Haddock are fished by fleets listed in Table 28 and PI 1.1.1, PI 1..2.1, PI 1.2.2, PI 1.2.3 and PI 1.2.4 are harmonised for these scoring elements.

Principle 2 The non-Norwegian fleets operating in the Barents Sea are trawlers targeting cod, haddock and saithe and only the bottom trawl UoA’s could be partly harmonised. However, there are differences in fishing grounds and seasons which accounts for differences. Some of the fleets are targeting saithe at least for some period of their fishing trip and these as the saithe stock and cod and haddock stocks are not present on the same fishing grounds along the Norwegian coast. By looking at the directorate of fisheries maps of fishing grounds it is understood that harmonisation as such is not possible. The rationales and scores of the secondary and ETP PI of the saithe report have been taken into account until further information is gathered from IMR and the reference fleet.

Likewise, because of differences in fishing grounds also habitat impact harmonisation is not possible

Principle 3 The non-Norwegian fleet fish under Norwegian legislation when fishing in the Norwegian EEZ. However, the system for consultations etc differs between fleets based on their flag. The fishery specific part of principle 3 (3.2) is not up for harmonisation while 3.1.1 is harmonised.

Table 28 – Overlapping fisheries Assessment Area ICES Gear Performance Certification Fishery name tree area Indicators to status and date harmonise CR v 1.3 27 I & II Bottom trawls, Gillnets And Entangling Nets - Norway North East Certified 26.04.2010 Gillnets, Hooks And Lines, Arctic cod & haddock DNV GL Seine Nets - Boat or fishery vessel seines - Danish seines, Arkhangelsk Trawl fleet Certified 26.01.2016 CR v 1.3 27 Ia, Ib, IIa Bottom trawl PI 1.1.1 Norwegian and Barents Lloyds Register & IIb PI 1.2.1 Seas cod & haddock PI 1.2.2 Faroe Islands and Certified 17.08.2012 CR v 1.3 27 I & II Bottom trawl PI 1.2.3 Iceland North East Arctic DNV GL PI 1.2.4 cod, haddock and saithe PI 3.1.1

FIUN Barents & Certified 25.06.2013 CR v 1.3 27 Ia, Ib, IIa Bottom trawl and Hooks & Norwegian Seas cod Lloyds Register & IIb Lines- longline and haddock Compagnie des Pêches Certified 17.04.2012 CR v 1.3 27 I & II Bottom trawl Saint Malo and Euronor Control Union cod and haddock Pesca

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 100

Russian Federation Certified 06.05 2014 CR v1.3 27 I & II Bottom trawl Barents Sea cod, DNV GL haddock and saithe UK Fisheries/ DFFU/ Certified 03.05.2012 CR v1.3 27 I & II Bottom trawls- otter trawl Dogger Bank Northeast Control Union Arctic cod, haddock and Pesca saithe Greenland cod, haddock Certified 06.05.2015 CR v 1.3 27 I & II Bottom trawl and saithe trawl fishery Lloyds Register Barents Sea cod, Certified 24.11.2010 CR v 1.3 27 I & II Bottom trawl – otter trawls haddock and saithe Lloyds Register (Ocean Trawlers) AGARBA Spain Barents Certified 28.11.2013 FCR v 2.0 27 I & II Bottom trawl Sea cod Bureau Veritas NA - Certification Harmonisation Estonia North East FCR v 2.0 27 Ia Bottom trawls- shrimp is not required Certified 07.11.2013 Arctic cold water prawn trawls for UoAs using DNV GL and cod fishery different versions of the Oceanprom Barents Sea Certified 11.06.2019 FCR v.2.0 27 I & II Hooks & lines- longlines Assessment cod and haddock fishery DNV GL tree. Murmanseld 2 Barents In assessment. FCR v2.0 27 I & II Bottom trawls Sea cod and haddock DNV GL

Table 29 – Scoring differences - cod

Performance Indicators (PIs) Norway NEA cod NEA cod Norway Trawl Arkhangelsk and Norwegian fleet & cod Seas Barents cod, Greenland and saithe haddock fishery trawl Federation Russian Sea cod, Barents and saithe haddock & Barents FIUN cod Seas Norwegian haddock and and Islands Faroe East North Iceland haddock cod, Arctic saithe and DFFU/ Fisheries/ UK Bank Dogger cod, Arctic Northeast and saithe haddock des Compagnie Malo Saint Pêches and cod Euronor and haddock Sea cod, Barents and saithe haddock Trawlers) (Ocean

PI 1.1.1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

PI 1.1.2 90 90 100 100 90 100 90 90 90

PI 1.2.1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

PI 1.2.2 100 90 100 100 100 100 100 100 90

PI 1.2.3 90 90 90 100 90 90 90 90 90

PI 1.2.4 95 95 100 100 95 95 95 95 95

PI 3.1.1 90 100 95 95 100 100 85 95 100 ‘

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 101

Table 30 – Scoring differences - haddock

Performance Indicators (PIs) Norway NEA haddock haddock NEA Norway Trawl Arkhangelsk and Norwegian fleet & cod Seas Barents cod, Greenland and saithe haddock fishery trawl Federation Russian cod, Sea Barents and saithe haddock & Barents FIUN cod Seas Norwegian haddock and and Islands Faroe East North Iceland haddock cod, Arctic and saithe DFFU/ Fisheries/ UK Bank Dogger cod, Arctic Northeast and saithe haddock des Compagnie Malo Saint Pêches and cod Euronor and haddock cod, Sea Barents and saithe haddock Trawlers) (Ocean

PI 1.1.1 100 90 100 100 100 100 100 100 90

PI 1.1.2 90 90 100 100 90 100 100 90 90

PI 1.2.1 100 95 100 100 100 100 100 100 95

PI 1.2.2 100 80 100 100 100 100 100 100 80

PI 1.2.3 90 90 90 100 90 90 90 90 90

PI 1.2.4 95 90 100 100 95 100 90 90 90

PI 3.1.1 90 100 95 95 100 100 85 95 100

Table 31 – Rationale for scoring differences

If applicable, explain and justify any difference in scoring and rationale for the relevant Performance Indicators (FCP v2.1 Annex PB1.3.6)

There are slight differences in scores but none that can be defined as material differences in outcomes.

If exceptional circumstances apply, outline the situation and whether there is agreement between or among teams on this determination

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 102

6.4 References

Bjørge Arne & Moan André, 2019. Workshop on marine mammal bycatch monitoring and mitigation. Ålesund, Norway, 19th -20th June 2019 Institute of Marine Research

DNV GL 2015. RE-ASSESSMENT REPORT Public Certification Report for the Norway North East Arctic cod and haddock fishery Norges Fiskarlag Authors: John Nichols, Stephen Lockwood, Sten Sverdrup-Jensen, Guro Meldre Pedersen Report No.: 2014-013, Rev. 4 Certificate No.: F-DNV-186569 replacing DNV-NOR-MSC-F- 92579-2011; DNV-NOR-MSC-F-92582- 2011; DNV-NOR-MSC-F-92583-2011; DNV-NOR-MSC-F-92584- 2011; DNV-NOR-MSC-F-92585-2011; DNV-NOR-MSC-F-92586-2011; DNV-NOR-MSC-F-92587-2011; DNV- NOR-MSC-F-92588-2011; DNVNOR-MSC-F-92589-2011; DNV-NOR-MSC-F-92590-2011 Date: 2015-10-06

J-61-2019: Forskrift om regulering av fiske for å beskytte sårbare marine økosystemer [Order on protection of vulnerable ecosystems].

Havressurs lova [Marine resource Act] Lov om forvaltning av viltlevande marine ressursar (havressurslova) latest amended LOV-2017-06-16-73

Hammond PS, Lacey C. , Gilles A. , Viquerat S., Börjesson P. , Herr H. , Macleod K- , V Ridoux V. , Santos MB , Scheidat M. , Teilmann J. , Vingada J- , Øien N. Estimates of cetacean abundance in European Atlantic waters in summer 2016 from the SCANS-III aerial and shipboard surveys https://synergy.st- andrews.ac.uk/scans3/files/2017/04/SCANS-III-design-based-estimates-2017-04-28-final.pdf

Mareano https://www.mareano.no/en

NAMMCO https://nammco.no/topics/harbour-porpoise/#1475844513273-d6d59198-d3a0

ICES. 2019. 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

ICES. 2019. 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, https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.4713

ICES. 2019. Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG). ICES Scientific Reports. 1:30. 930 pp. http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.5292

ICES. 2011. Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Roundfish and Pelagic Stocks (WKBENCH 2011), 24–31 January 2011, Lisbon, Portugal. ICES CM 2011/ACOM:38. 418 pp.

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

ICES. 2015b. Norway and Russia request to ICES for revised advice for Haddock in Subareas I and II. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2015. ICES Advice 2015, Book 3, Section 3.2.3.1. 9 pp. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2015/Special_Requests/Norway_Russia_hadarct _update.pdf.

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. JRNFC. 2016. Protocol of the 46th Session of the Joint Russian– Norwegian Fisheries Commission, 17–20 October 2016 (In Russian). 117 pp. Available at: http://www.jointfish.com/rus/content/download/502/6357/file/46-russisk.pdf.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 103

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. 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/NorwayRussia_HCR_No rtheast_Artic_cod_haddock_capelin.pdf.

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. 2019a. 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

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 104

6.5 Vessel list

x Vessel name Callsign Vessel name Aage steinar N0034V Aline Aage steinar T0004LK Alisa Aase T0080K Alise Aasheim M0092AV Alljo A-bas T0290T Alm Ada marie T0012SA Alma lavine Ada-sofie M0003G Alnesing Ada-sofie N0002HS Alsøybuen Adelen s N0016NA Alsøyjenta Adine NT0071N Altebuen Admiral f. T0015H Altevaag Admiral f. N0015Ø Alve Adrian N0321A Alvestad Adrian jr H0008ØN Alvøy Adrian jr. ST0270H Amalie Adrian-senior T0002KF Amalie Agathe LG6648 Amalie lhøre Agnetha F0039G Amalie sofie Aiko F0028N Amanda Ailida T0122TK Amanda Ajax M0219G Amanda Akom T0214T Amigo Akono 3YRI Amor Aksel andre N0360VV Amorin Aksel b F0131NK Amundskjær Akselson F0068NK Andante Akselson N0100A Andenesfisk i Akselson N0083V Andenesværing Akterøy T0081KN Andenesværing Aktiv 2 N0174MS Anders-o Alangen N0138VV Andersson Albatross NT0164V Anderøy Albatross iii N0009L Andfjell ii Albing F0011VS Andfjord Albion N0132A Andhella Alda F0043BD Andopsværing Aldis lind F0095V Andre Aldra ST0019H Andre Alexander F0040SV Andrea Alexandra H0014AV Andrea Alexandra T0071T Andreas Alf F0062BD Andungen Alf martin F0097NK Andungen Alf senior TR0003V Andy

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 105

Alf sigmund N0030A Andøyfisk Alfen N0200A Andøygutt Alf-jens ST0010H Ane Alfon r F0092NK Anetta Alice andrea N0018SG Anette Anfield M0073G Anniken Angel F0216NK Annja Angelsen junior SF0087B Annjo Angelsen senior T0048T Ann-karin Angelsen sr. N0035AH Ann-rita Anita M0072AE Anny lovise Anita N0067VV Antares Anita TR0001SI Antares Anita helen VA0001M Antilde Anja LI4781 Antoki Ann T0049T Anton Ann brita NT0041V Anton junior Ann gøril T0069S Apollo Ann karin F0111L Aqvarius Ann tove VA0040M Arctic Anna T0081T Arctic ocean Anna F0135A Arctic swan Anna christine F0025A Arctic swan Anna karine ST0021H Ares Anna lovise M0016HØ Argo Anna maria SF0010S Argo junior Anna mariell SF0020S Argo junior Anna therese LM5357 Argus Anna therese N0289B Argus Anna-sofie N0153V Ariadne Annbida N0038SO Ariel Anne N0064FE Ariel Anne T0064G Ariel Anne g T0131T Ariel Anne grethe TR0041NR Ariel Anne heidi N0001VR Ariel hardy Anne heidi F0066NK Arild junior Anne katharina ST0488F Arildson Anne marie NT0027F Arina Anne mette N0034BØ Arjo Anne sofie F0098G Ark Anne-alida M0085AV Arktos Anne-grethe T0065K Arme drengen Anne-ida M0058HØ Armoda Anne-k F0188M Arnborg Anne-lise N0201DA Arne johan Anne-marie N0072V Arne-johanne Anne-marie T0142T Arnt ivar

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 106

Anne-merete T0006N Arnvid Anne-mette NT0030NR Arnøyfjord Anne-mette F0240NK Arnøygutt Ann-frida T0008S Arnøytind Ann-helen NT0025NR Arnøyvær Annie NT0048N Aron Annika F0163NK Arsbuen Arthur F0061G Austhavet Artic F0107G Austhavet Artnes N0207V Austnesfjord Artnes junior H0049ØN Austvåg Arya N0058VR Baileys Asbjørn johan F0068HV Bailott Asbjørn selsbane T0248T Bakkebåen Asbjørnson M0006HS Bakkegut Asia NT0081V Bakkeværing Askati TR0081V Bakkeværing Askeladden F0090H Bakkos Askeladden NT0008V Bala Aslak F0012V Balder Asmund senior F0045VS Balder Asnes F0224NK Balder Aspholm N0230SO Balder Asta T0119LK Balder Asta M0002SJ Balder Asta NT0364V Balduska Asterix N0050VV Ballstadgutt jr Astrid N0028VV Ballstadjenta Astrid N0300VV Ballstadværing Astrid N0003VV Ballstadøy Astrid christina N0099VV Ballstadøy Astrid emilie F0030P Bamse Astrid marie F0061M Bamse Atina N0004LN Bamse Atina II N0009BR Bamse Atlantic N0074BØ Bamse Atlantic star H0024ØN Baracuda Atlantic star F0031P Barjo Atlantic viking M0115SM Barry Atlas N0196B Barskiær Atløy viking F0025N Barsnes Aud-jorunn SF0069SU Barstein Aukan N0005ME Barstind Auknes N0038ME Bas Aukraværing F0065M Basnes Aunegut T0007KD Bassøy Aunskjær R0004SO Bastian Aurora F0053NK Bastus

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 107

Aurora N0046BØ Bastus Aurora F0023B Beate Aurora SF0156V Beate Aurora j T0018KD Bekka Aursøy F0199NK Bekkvik junior Ausma N0010LF Bella Austbris F0058N Bella mari Austbris N0068RT Bella marina Austbris VA0011LS Bell-rock Bellsund M0020VD Bjørn martin Benedicte M0010GS Bjørn robin Benjaco M0042SM Bjørn steinar Benoni M0058SA Bjørnar Benoni M0080AV Bjørnes Bente T0082T Bjørnes Bente senior M0088H Bjørnhaug Bentemor M0060A Bjørnholm Bentsjordtinden M0005AE Bjørnholm junior Berdine F0091LB Bjørnnes Berg senior N0052F Bjørnson Bergebas N0090BR Bjørnson Bergebuen M0330SM Bjørnstein Bergebyjenta N0141Ø Bjørnstein Bergegutten N0091HR Bjørnsvik Bergensfjord N0120F Bjørntind Bergensfjord T0034S Bjørntind Bergholm F0121L Bjørnvikværing Berglibuen T0009SD Bjørnøy Bergsvåg T0026K Blankfisk Bergsvåg N0151A Bleiksøy Beringhav F0044NK Blessila Berlevågjenta LEEM Blomøy Bernhard N0049V Blue master Bernt F0111LB Blåfjell Bernt oskar T0012LK Blåfjell Bernt steinar F0023VS Blåmann Bestefar N0019TN Blåmyra Bettina T0020H Blåtind Betty ilona T0481K Blåtind Bibba svala H0062S Bogaskjær Bifangst H0021S Bogasund Big boss ST0177H Bogøyværing Bilisknir R0011SO Boie Billy LGIM Bolga Birger johan N0011TN Bolga Birgerson ST0002SK Boreas Birgitte F0076NK Borgafelli Birgitte N0103V Borgenfjord

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 108

Birgsi ST0003OL Borgenfjord Birk N0027VV Borgvær Birtu-lias N0010V Boy-angel Bispen F0081BD Boysen Bitta F0031H Br. Isaksen Bitte H0029R Bragd radøy Bjarne nilsen ST0093F Brakar Bjørkåsbuen N0068A Braken Bjørkåsbuen H0013B Brandasund Bjørn M0021U Brandungen Bjørn ST0030R Brandy Brandøybuen T0720T Bror Brannøy VA0009K Brosma Brannøy T0054K Brosmekongen Brasøyfisk N0076SG Brott Bratt N0085B Brott Brattfjell SF0094A Brufjord Brattholm T0898T Brunvoll Brattholm M0033S Brusøy Brattholm NT0036V Brusøyskjær Brattholm 2 TR0400V Brusøyskjær Brattholmen N0032VV Brutus Brattholmen N0057ME Brutus Brattholmen N0155Ø Brutus Brattland F0049BD Bryndis Brattværing M0040AK Brødrene solem Brattøy N0288BR Brønnøyvering Bravo M0053F Buabas Bravour M0081F Buagutt Breitind SF0045A Buefjord Breitind F0021SV Bugøy Breitind 1 F0005SV Bugøyfisk Breitinn ii F0078SV Bugøyværing Breivik junior N0037VR Buholmen Breivik junior O0025O Bukkøy Breivik senior N0056VV Buksnesfjord Breivoll F0055G Bullder Bremholmen F0070N Bunes Bremnes N0013MS Bunes Bremnes N0013DA Bunesjenta Bremsjø T0051K Burøy Bremsund T0133K Burøyværing Bremværing M0015SA Buster Brennajenta NT0088N Buster Brenning T0154KD Buster Brigg N0023RT Buvær Brim N0116VV Buøy Brinca TR0042V Buøy

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 109

Bringtind M0007A Buøy Bringtind N0004BØ Bøbas Bris F0015G Bøen Bris M0038HØ Bøfjord Bris N0027BØ Bøfjæring Bris N0172BØ Bøholm Bris F0042VS Bølgen Brita H0061B Bølgen Britt M0030SA Bølgen Britt evelyn N0012L Bølgen Brittemor N0042MS Bølgen Brodd N0172F Bølgen Bror NT0018NR Bølgen Bølgen N0017BR Casper Bøme N0035ME Cathrine Bønes N0005LN Cato Børfjell M0040G Cator 1 Børhella F0013G Cavaro Børingen F0115NK Cecilie Børnes N0180V Cecilie Børresen jr T0001SK Cecilie Børøy ii N0007RT Celina Bøtind F0020P Celine Bøværing N0082SO Celinn Bøværing F0071G Cesar Bårabuen R0081K Chantelle Båragutt N0003B Charlotte Bårdfjord T0035S Charlotte Båregutt F0007G Charmi Bårholmen F0068TN Charmi Bår-samuel M0148HØ Chrisander Bår-samuel N0058BØ Chrisida Bårselvfisk F0025V Christina Båtsfjord F0036P Christina Båtskjær F0047A Christina Båtsmann N0004VR Christine Båtsmann iii T0040K Chubba Cado M0081H Cindy Cako N0005AH Cinita Camilla F0007TN Clara Camilla ST0013O Conan Camilla T0070T Conny Camp N0038RT Conquest Cantona R0068H Convoy Cape victoria T0006L Convoy Capella N0108V Corevi Capella R0014S Coygfisk Capri F0051NK Coygfisk jr

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 110

Cara alice R0016S Coygfisk jr Carapax N0140RT Cristina r Cardinal F0202NK Crystal Cardinal F0030H Dabben Cariane F0044BD Daddi Carina N0046BL Dag Carina N0105MS Dag viggo Carisa T0322T Dagfinn Carisma N0029BR Dag-mona Caro N0054VR Dag-senior Caroleva N0058F Dainora Caroline N0096Ø Dainora Caroline N0055Ø Dalbuen Caroline T0124LK Dalgård Casper Daniel Dansken F0095LB Dyfjord Dansken N0037VV Dynskjær Danøy F0010B Dypfjord Daskeladden F0082M Dypfjord Davi N0012MS Dypfjord Delfin T0004BG Dyphav Delfin M0158SM Dyrnesvåg Delfin T0039D Dyrøy Delfin N0068F Dyvåg Delfin F0057LB Dæng Delfin F0008VS Dønning Delfin F0063G Dønning Delfin F0130NK Dønning Demring T0075KF Dønning Demring M0022G Dønning ii Dennis N0017AH Dønnland Dennis N0114BØ Dønnvær Dennis olai T0055K Dåsa Dentax senior N0251V Ea Diana F0101VS Edel m. Diana F0122NK Edel maria Diana T0094K Edel vind Dimann T0026L Edelfisk Dina N0057B Edgar Dinabøen TR0007T Edgar Dino TR0030T Edgar Dixi F0024P Edith Djupaskjær N0013HR Edith helene Djupavik N0024HR Edith helene Doggen ST0018F Edna synnøve Doggi T0008SA Edvard senior Doggi N0323ME Edvind olai Doggi N0048HM Egerdal

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 111

Dolmaune N0023VV Eggland Donn N0076VV Eggumsværing Dorado R0038K Eggøy Dragen N0311V Egilson Dragon N0061SA Egon Dravn T0014TK Eidegutt Dristig N0088VA Eidem senior Dristig N0094Ø Eidsfjord Drivar F0186H Eidvågfisk Dronninga N0176V Eieværing Dronninga F0184NK Einar Druen ii N0031Ø Einar Drøm N0025ME Einar erlend Drønsbas T0212K Einar magnus Dukat T0213K Einar magnus Dunvik F0030L Einar-andre Dusja T0005LK Einarson Einarson N0021B Ellen c Eines F0086G Elli ketils Einvikbuen M0149HØ Ellie Eirik T0061T Ellinor Eirik F0150A Ellinora Eirin M0011F Elnesfisk Eistebåen F0155VS Else-k Eiværing M0037HØ Elvebuen Ekenborg N0006TF Elvine Ekko T0007BG Elvira Ekko H0025BN Elvis Ekko N0008L Embla Ekvator N0012A Embla Elan T0059T Emi Eldorado ST0007T Emil Eldorado N0183VV Emil andre Eldorado N0028Ø Emil leander Eldorado N0012HR Emilian Elena M0020MD Emilie Elena marie N0069ME Emilie Elianne N0075DA Emilie Elias N0300DA Emilie Elias T0060LK Emilie Elias F0009NK Emily Elias F0009P Emma Elida F0088TN Emma Elijenta F0200H Emma Elin M0064MD Emma Elin N0029A Emma Elin maria NT0400V Emma Elina N0164VV Emma giske

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 112

Elina F0039M Emma o Elina H0146AV Emma olava Eline T0188LK Emma sofie Eline T0178SA Emma-mari Eline T0138LK Emma-sofie Elin-toril F0004NK Emma-v Elisabeth F0027TN Emmett Elisabeth ii N0178Ø Emmy Elisabeth star N0035SG Engeløyværing Elise T0086I Engenesværing Elise N0050DA Engevik junior Elise kristin N0044ME Engøy Elise marie F0012BD Enja Elit N0110B Erato Eljan T0330K Ergo Ella F0250NK Erik andre Ella oline N0055F Eriksen senior Ellbøen TR0016F Erle Ellen F0037B Erlend Erna T0180T Fidel Eros ST0185F Filip Erovita N0039L Finn-erik Ersnes T0755T Finnes Esben anders T0024S Finnvik Eskil F0017NK Finnvikgutt Espen N0083Ø First Espen cato H0015AM Fisk Eva M0060U Fiskaren Eva M0101SM Fiskebank Eva marie M0218SM Fiskebank i Eva sofie N0221V Fiskebøen Evan T9800T Fiskefestivaler Evelyn N0179F Fiskeladden Evita M0057SM Fisken Evro M0010SA Fiskenes Ewunia T0030TK Fiskenes Exen T0122T Fisker`n Fagerheim N0003A Fiskerinnen Fagerskjær F0014B Fiskeskjær Fagervær F0065NK Fiskeskjær Faktura F0011L Fisketind Falcon F0249NK Fisketind Falk N0438V Fiskholmen Falken F0021M Fiskur Falken F0215NK Fiskur Falken N0106V Fiskørn Falken N0067HR Fiskøy Falkholmen N0143SG Fix

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 113

Falkvinge N0056BR Fjell Fanas SF0090S Fjellmøy Fandango T0149KN Fjellnes Fangst F0031VS Fjelltind Fangst N0063V Fjordbakk senior Fangst F0033N Fjordbas Fangst ST0060R Fjordbas Fangst T0012L Fjordbas Fangst F0006P Fjordbris Fangtind N0007SG Fjordbris Fant N0045BØ Fjordbris Fanten F0001P Fjordbuen Fanøyvåg F0057G Fjordbuen Fark T0021L Fjordbuen Favoritt T0198L Fjordbuen Fay VA0011F Fjordbuen Feieskjær N0013VV Fjordbøen Feirvik T0099LK Fjordcat Feskargutten TR0030NR Fjord-dønning Festus N0002AH Fjordegg Fia N0022B Fjordfangst Fjordfangst ST0035F Fram Fjordfangst T0192T Fram Fjordfisk TR0100NL Fram Fjordfisk F0049P Frammen Fjordfisk N0009FE Frango Fjordfisk M0150SM Frank Fjordfisk N0188V Frank ingar Fjordfisk T0253K Franklin Fjordglans M0003S Frants Fjordgull M0006S Frants Fjordgutt M0031SA Frants Fjordheksa N0150A Fredrik Fjordhunter N0009A Fredrikke Fjording M0073HØ Fredøy Fjordprins F0210NK Freidig Fjordsnurp M0149F Frekøy Flamingo N0111F Fremtid Flatskjær ST0001RS Frengen Flatvær N0011SG Freya Fleinbuen ST0016F Frida Flid T0007TK Frida Flink T0027TN Frida Flipper M0032EE Frida Flipper F0073M Frida k Flipper N0177B Frida linnea Flipper N0074SO Frida sofie Flipper F0700HV Fridas

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 114

Flipper 2 N0081SO Fride sofie Flo N0120L Fridtjof k Flobjørn M0152AV Frigg Floing N0074MS Frigg Flora N0002SO Friggen Flua T0003KF Frisco Fluma N0062H Frithjofson Flyfisk ST0040F Froan Flæsbuen ST0105H Frode Fløhav T0011TK Frode Fløskjær M0074HØ Fromar Fløskjær T0120T Fru janne Fløyfisk T0114T Fruholmen Follabuen N0057F Frydholmen Follabuen LM3802 Fræna vid. Skole - 2016/2 Follabuen LM3802 Fræna vid. Skole - 2017/2 Foma LM3802 Fræna vid. Skole - 2018/2 Forsøk LM3802 Fræna vid.skole - 2019/20 Forsøk N0034AH Frøgrunn Fortuna T0017BG Frøgrunn Fortuna N0006SF Frøkna Fortune M0010SM Frøy Fram T0009B Frøy Frøy M0055VN Geko Frøya T0110T Gemi Frøya N0200N General`n Frøya marie M0077G Genesis Frøyanes M0079HØ Genesis Frøyanes senior M0097G Genesis Frøybanken F0027H Georg Frøybas N0010L Gerd jorid Frøyfisk TR0002V Gerda Frøymann H0032AV Gerda marie Frøysjø F0005L Gerd-eli Frøystein N0004F Gerhard jakobsen Frøyværing M0071SA Geto Fugløybuen T0200T Giggen Fugløybuen N0055VV Gill Fugløyfalk T0591K Gill Fugløyfisk N0080F Gisløyværing Fugløyfjord NT0136V Gisund Furbåen N0197B Givær Furen N0065F Gjøa Furesund Ø0001M Glad Furøy T0005SA Gladiator Futen F0023H Glimt Fyrholm F0083M Glimt Færøyfisk F0093G Glimt

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 115

Førde N0003ME Glimt Føyken N0069Ø Glimt Gabriel R0146K Glimt Gabrielle T0027L Glimt Gabrielle T0610T Glimt Gadus jr M0088HØ Glimt Gadus neptun N0020BØ Glimøy Gadus njord N0097ME Glittertind Gadus poseidon N0010ME Glomnes Galia F0047V Gluecifer Gammel joyken T0701T Godønes Gammel tråle M0015G Godøygutt Ganas M0009G Godøytaus Gardar N0087SO Go-liner Gaugstad junior F0181HV Gorm iii Gaute H0011AV Granit Gautind F0045N Greta Geigo M0373SM Grim Geir T0180LK Grim Geir F0206NK Grimen Geir ii T0222T Grimen Geir magne F0021BD Grimsholm Geir rune N0008G Grimsholm Geirongen NT0098V Grimsholm Geitingen T0011K Grimsholm Grimsøy N0107V H nilsen Gripar T0085T H. Lindrup Grogis ST0001H H.a.h. Grotle F0004HV Haagrunn Grunnbøen N0094MS Haakon-jr Gry janne M0030SØ Haaværbuen Gryllefjord N0060L Hafbjørg Grytholm N0084B Hagtind Grønholm N0058L Haldorson Grønnholm F0065HV Halfdan jr Grønøytrål F0018G Hallingen Grøten T0501LK Hallvardson Grøtøy ST0081F Haltenfisk Gubben M0206H Haltentrål Gularøy N0017F Halvardgutt Gulle ST0012R Hamnaholm Gullfesken M0038AE Hamnasund Gullfisk F0071LB Hamnøy Gullfisk N0083VV Hanna Gullfisk 2 F0177V Hanna b Gullfjell N0052R Hanna caroline Gullholm F0016H Hanna ingeborg Gullholmen F0125H Hanna marie

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 116

Gulliver N0064BØ Hannah Gullkista N0021H Hanne Gullongen M0066AE Hanne marie Gullskjær M0100AE Hanne marie Gullskjær jr. F0048G Hanne martine Gullvik M0155AV Hans Gunn F0044VS Hans robert Gunn T0140LK Hans-ludvig Gunn anita M0050AE Hans-r Gunnar N0072H Hansvik Gunnar M0009AE Hansviken Gunnar egil F0003G Hansøy Gunnar jarl NT0076V Harald berge Gunnar k F0063M Harald johan Gunnhild N0005F Harald johan Gunn-lotte M0008VD Harald jr. Gunn-randi N0003SO Hardhaus Guratind N0039MS Hardhaus Guri marie F0142NK Hardy-gutten Guri marie M0094H Harhaug i Gustav N0105V Haringbuen Gutta N0044BR Harmfjord Gården N0083BR Harmoni Gården senior T0007SA Harmoni Gåsan M0602HØ Haro H larsen N0078H Harparen H marie T0018H Harstadværing Hartho N0130VR Havbøen Harto T0101T Havbåen Harvester M0022VN Havbåra Hasund N0077Ø Havbåra Hatland M0004VN Havbåra Hatland SF0088V Havbåra Hatleviken F0056G Havdis Hauge junior F0090BD Havdur Haugefisk N0009B Havdur Haugen M0030AE Havdønn Haugen junior F0008NK Havella Haugen senior F0076V Havella Haughei N0001R Havella Haugsjø N0010TN Havella Haugsjø N0015L Havella Haugstad N0078SG Havella Haukøy N0090Ø Havella Haukøyfjord T0078K Havella Haunes TR0001B Havfisk Hav TR0011B Havfisk Havbas T0019SK Havfisk jr

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 117

Havblikk T0041LK Havfjell Havblikk N0037TN Havflora Havblomst T0084LK Havflora Havblå T0130LK Havflora Havbris SF0212V Havflud Havbris Ø0112S Havflud junior Havbris T0004SK Havfruen Havbris N0076RT Havfrøkna Havbris N0109VR Havglimt Havbris T0006K Havglimt Havbris M0001U Havglimt Havbris T0007S Havglimt 3 Havbris N0031VR Havgløtt Havbris N0104VV Havgull Havbris T0241T Havgull Havbris M0015AE Havgutt Havbris N0011VV Havgutt Havbris ST0051F Havgutt Havbris TR0051F Havgutt Havbris jr H0266B Havheld Havbryn N0030RT Havhesten Havbryn N0135VV Havjo Havbryn F0011P Havkatt Havbryn H0095AM Havleik Havbryn H0288B Havleik Havbrått i N0007B Havleik Havbuen M0210HØ Havleik Havbuen F0086M Havliner Havbuen NT0208V Havliner Havlyn N0050RT Havørn Havmann N0051RT Havørn Havmann H0127B Havørn 2 Havmann F0029H Havørna Havmusa F0031A Havørna Havnes T0016SA Havørna Havnæringen F0070BD Havøy Havpil F0075M Havøy Havprins M0313HØ Havøy Havprins T0350S Havål Havprins ii N0028L Hazard Havpryd N0025BØ Hebe Havrand SF0009F Hedda Havrand N0080MS Hege Havsjy NT0055NR Hege Havsjø ST0026F Hege anita Havskjer T0026BG Hege theresa Havskøy i F0037LB Heia norge Havskåren F0096B Heidi

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 118

Havsnurp N0002BR Heidi Havsol T0154T Heidi Havsol N0076TN Heidi anita Havsol T0297LK Heidi kristin Havstein N0152A Heidrun Havstrand F0145NK Heimdal ii Havstraum N0021HR Heimskjær Havstål T0146LK Hekkingen Havsula N0173VV Helen Havsula N0007VV Helena Havsula R0178K Helena Havsula T0030N Helena Havsula T0180KD Helene Havsula TR0021F Helene Havsula ST0011R Heleto Havsula T0026T Helge vidar Havsula N0095MS Hell Havsulen F0094BD Hella Havsund N0098Ø Hella Havsund N0086BR Hellefisk Havsølv ST0094F Hellefisk Havterna F0077VS Hellegutt Havterna ST0011B Hellem jr Havtind N0021MS Hellodden Havtor N0058MS Hellsegga Havtun M0003F Hellskjær Havung as skolekvote 2016 N0025RT Hellskjær Havung as skolekvote 2017 F0054A Hellværing Havur T0054KN Hellværing Havørn N0032MS Hellvåg Havørn F0042G Helløy Helløy F0013HV Holmen Helmer hanssen F0013TN Holmen Helmine F0049VS Holmen Helnesværing N0017B Holmen Heløygutt M0024AV Holmen senior Heløygutt ii N0059L Holmsund Heløygutt iv N0050SO Holmøy Heløygutt v M0044SM Hopavåg Heløygutt vi NT0015V Hopen Heløygutt x H0140K Hopholm Hemmingodden jr Hopsfjord Hendanes F0174G Hopsfjord Henriette R0055K Hopvåg Henriette e N0240B Horisont Henry F0016NK Horngrunn Henry j N0029V Hornsund Hepsøfjord N0090ME Horntind

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 119

Herfindal SF0002S Hovden viking Hermann F0069G Hrønn b Hermes F0027M Htind Hermes TR0080B Huborg Hermes N0077BR Hugin Hermon T0299T Hugin Herr olsen ST0017Ø Hugnad Hersøy M0063HØ Hugnad Herøy vidergåande skule F0038P Hunter Hesten N0003BR Hurtig Hestholmen M0033MD Husar Hetleviking M0014U Husla Hevrøy M0038F Hustadbuen Hg willassen F0070V Husvær Hilde helene VA0001K Husvær Hildring F0028BD Husværsund Hildringen T0055LK Husøy Hilmarson T0018LK Husøysund Hilmarson T0022LK Husøyværing ii Hilmarson NT0019V Hydra Himmeltind A0001B Høgholmen Hinnøy F0093M Høgholmen Hitterværing F0175A Høivikbaaen Hitterø T0074H Høken Hjertøybuen N0018DA Hølabuen H-junior N0016AH Hølagutt Hjørdis M0094K Hølingen Hm senior H0032O Høtten Hoff jr N0073VV Høtten Hognefjord ST0056R Høvding Holiday prince N0010SG Høvdingen Holm ST0072F Høvik Holmbøen TR0072F Høvik Høvring F0500BD Inger victoria Håbrand N0106R Inger-ann Håbrand N0023HR Ingmundson Håflu N0026MS Ingo Håløyger N0144V Ingo Hår-båen N0285Ø Ingrid Hårek T0002KN Ingrid Hårek F0155BD Ingrid aleksandra Håskjær F0184M Ingrid majala Håtind F0015L Ingrid marie Håvard F0167NK Ingrid marie Håvard N0111VV Ingrid marie Håvard. A N0025VS Ingrid-kristine Håvard. A F0046G Ingrid-viktoria Håvtind F0045LB Ingun

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 120

Ice F0006BD Ingvaldson Ida F0095H Ingvardson Ida N0045H Ingvild Ida F0012M Ingøyværing Ida N0008VS Innvær Ida F0044G Irene Ida F0089M Irene re Ida F0103G Irina marie Ida T0183T Irina marie Ida M0039SM Iris anette Ida F0017SV Isabel Ida amalie N0022HR Isabell Ida angelica N0255Ø Isabell Ida beate T0193T Isac alexander Ida kontanse N0013R Isak olai Ida marie F0171NK Isbjørn Ida marie H0089O Isbjørn Ida synnøve N0049Ø Isbjørn Ida therese N0077R Isbjørn Ida-mari T0118S Isbåen Ida-mor N0036G Iselin Idefiks F0089NK Isica Idun T0003L Isica Idun N0091VR Islomen Idunson F0019NK Isrypa Ieva T0008KD Ivan Imarsund N0012R Ivar junior Imsa N0049VV Iversen junior Ine marie F0140LB Ivo elander Ine marita VA0019LS Ivågen Inesa N0063B J.a. senior Inga hafdis T0001H J.bergvoll Inge SF0002F J.r. marita Inger N0037LF Jaden Inger lisbeth N0005G Jakob Jakobsson F0111V Jim håvard Jalla F0083B Jim lennart Jan børre F0027P Jim levi Jan egil N0037DA Jim roger Jan gunnar N0145VV Jim-roger Jan gunnar T0032LK Jm senior Jan h F0072H Joakim Jan halvar N0134V Joakim Jan ivar F0046VS Joffre Jan oskar N0145VR Johan berg Jan robert T0121TK Johan f Jan tore T0031BG Johan h Jan åge ST0064F Johan håkon

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 121

Jana mari N0254VV Johan martin Janbu Johan martin Jane T0410LK Johan martin Janica N0008ME Johan r Janita N0073ME Johan r Janita T9301T Johan ruud Jan-kjetil F0034NK Johanna Jankris TR0060H Johanna Jann georg F0005B Johanne Jann yngve F0034H Johanne Janne F0152NK Johanne Janne-katrin N0028G Johanne Janne-lise T0005SK Johanne Janne-marie F0043A Johannes h Janne-marie F0001TN John andreas Janni F0018BD John martin Jann-roar M0020K John senior Janson N0011H John sverre Jan-tanita T0177T John yngve Janto jr N0013ME John-ivar Jan-tore T0038TK Johnny dag Jara F0010LB John-reidar Jennegga N0086VV Joker Jenni sofie N0086Ø Joker Jenny T0378T Jon åge Jenny F0011SV Jonas Jenny ST0300F Jonas Jenny 2 H0014F Jone Jenny oline N0038DA Jon-viktor Jens berg T0095LK Joppe Jens eilert T0112T Jor Jens-b N0184VV Jorunn anne Jensegutt T0205T Jorunn b Jensnes N0051F Josberg Jeppen F0049V Josefine Jill hege F0333H Josefine Jim håvard F0023NK Josefsen senior Jotind N0021RT Kaia cicilie Jr senior F0053V Kaja Jsf junior F0253NK Kaja Jsf junior F0149H Kaja marie Jsf-senior F0038TN Kallegutt Juanita H0097AV Kalsøybas Jubåen H0086AV Kalsøyjento Julian M0306H Kamaro Julian SF0007S Kamaro Julian F0179NK Kameraten Julian N0029ME Kameraten

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 122

Juliane ST0099F Kamholmen Julianne madelen F0014VS Kamilla Julie F0257L Kamilla Julie m N0012V Kamilla Julius N0050Ø Kamilla grande June F0100M Kamilla katrine June M0007HØ Kampen June T0027S Kampen June T0026S Kamø Juni F0243L Kanes Juni N0080LN Kanstadbuen Junior T0001SA Kapella Junior T0055T Kapp laila Junior F0218NK Kappa Junior T0194T Kara Junita N0178L Karat Juno T0178SK Karat Juno M0001SM Kardinal Juno AA0012T Kari Jusika TR0042F Kari Justad junior N0018MS Kari anne Jutina F0036H Karianne Juvel N0417B Karianne Juvel N0024MS Karida Juvel T0098TK Karin Jyldner F0057HV Karina Jørgen N0008FE Karina Jørn N0010AH Karina Jørn y N0018AH Karina Jørneskjær T0198T Karina Jørn-harald N0012AH Karl emil Jøsnesbuen T0019SA Karl martin Jånsky T0028N Karl oskar K.amalie T0031TK Karl robin K.r. senior T0012SL Karl skog Kai ove T0012TK Karl skog Kaia F0045NK Karl vilmar Kaia T0001S Karl wolmar Kaia T0158T Karl-johan Karlo N0071VV Kim Karlstad F0008G Kim andre Karlsøyvær F0157H Kim harald Karl-torgeir N0086VR Kim richard Karluf T0053BG Kim robin Karl-viktor N0004MS Kim roger Karmøy TR0005V Kim roger Karolene N0164BØ Kim rune Karoli N0028BØ Kima

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 123

Karoline T0381S Kimmen Karoline NT0128V Kim-roger Karoline F0240G Kindvik Karoline F0140G Kindvik ii Karoline N0092VV Kine Karoline viktoria N0033DA Kine johanne Karolius N0035DA Kine johanne Kasfjord N0049RT Kine martine Kaspara F0080V King marcus Kasper F0444NK King nordkapp Kasper F0441NK King nordkapp 1 Kasper NT0031NR Kio Kasperson T0005KD Kira Kastevik N0018VA Kirkøybuen Katharina F0049NK Kj nordkapp Katla T0011KD Kjapp Kato TR0001V Kjapp Katrine N0159V Kjartan k. Kay-erlend TR0008NR Kjell Keiko T0006H Kjell otto Keila F0006H Kjell steinar Keila N0006VA Kjelløy Keipnes 3YMB Kjetil Keltic F0059NK Kjetil Keltic F0051LB Kjæmtind Ken stian N0093ME Kjønskjær Ken-elin F0183NK Klakken Ken-michael F0010SV Klar-selin Kenneth johan F0112NK Klaudia Kent are T0190T Kleiva Kent-rune N0041L Kleppabas Kentucky M0002HD Klett Ketho H0017B Klipton Ketil F0026HV Klo Kevin F0209NK Klo Kevin N0158VV Klobuen Kf jr N0090VV Klogrunn Kgb N0151VV Klogrunn Kilbuen N0011ME Klompen Kildin N0103Ø Klotind Kilværfjord F0042LB Klubben Klubben N0006V Kransvik jr Klubbfisk N0036MS Kransvik jr Klævtind i N0067V Kransvik jr Kløvnesjenta N0021BØ Krasen Kløvnesjenta T0092LK Kravik Knappen N0033Ø Krilen Knarvik F0074V Kristian

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 124

Knausen F0007NK Kristian gerhard Knerten N0016VR Kristian michel Knerten NT0255V Kristin Knerten R0012K Kristin Knott N0092VR Kristin marita Knotten F0105NK Kristina Knottind M0187F Kristina Knudsen fisk N0017BØ Kristina Knut m N0018FE Kristina Knut o N0072BØ Kristina Knut olav R0004ST Kristina Knut p M0057AV Kristina k Kobba N0040B Kristin-anita Kobben F0064NK Kristine Kolbjørn m F0074A Kristine Kollbein N0027SO Kristine Koma T0008KF Kristine Komet T0018SK Kristine Komet F0070NK Kristine elisabeth Komet F0049LB Kristine elise Kompis H0167B Kristine johanna Konflikt T0075L Kristine w Kongsfjord F0066V Kristjan Kongsholm T0250TK Kristoffer Kongsholm N0043VV Krogh senior Kongsvard F0075G Krossanes Kontepella N0022BØ Krusholmen Konvoy N0015VR Krusning Koral M0059HØ Kråkøysund Koralen F0010H Kuling Koralen N0027B Kuling Koralhav F0104G Kuntzegutt Korall N0143VV Kurt h Korall T0400T Kurt-endre Korall ii R0001SO Kurti Korsholm F0328L Kurt-vidar Korsnes N0021R Kvalvik Korsnesjenta M0022VS Kvalvik Korsnesværingen N0102MS Kvalvik jr Korsnesværingen F0043B Kvalvik senior Krabben N0232MS Kvalvikværing Krampenes V0014L Kvalvåg Kranegutt F0126A Kvaløy Kvaløyfjord F0021TN Laksnes Kvaløygutt F0197P Lamøy Kveita H0036K Landavåg Kvikken M0011G Landkjenning Kvitbjørn F0043V Lanes

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 125

Kvitbjørn M0008HØ Langaard Kvitholmen T0016SK Langbåen Kvitholmen M0095G Langenes Kvitholmen N0302Ø Langenes Kvitholmen T0035I Langenes Kvitnakken T0095I Langenes Kvitnes ST0029AA Langholm Kvitnes TR0029AA Langholm Kværstein M0084K Langholmbuen Kya F0021G Langnes Kya F0139NK Langnes Kyahavet T0278K Langnes Kyrholm N0036BR Langnes jr Kystbas N0059Ø Langnesværing Kystbas F0038NK Langskjær Kysten M0018GS Langskjær Kystfesk N0100SO Langøy Kystfisk T0499T Langøy Kystfisk M0015S Langøy Kystfisk F0045TN Langøysund Kystfisk jr. M0147AV Langøysund Kystværing M0166AV Langøysund Kågtind ii N0056RT Lano Kåpa ST0307F Lanofisk Kårbøbas F0030TN Lapu-lapu Kåre T0043K Larissa Kåre martin F0213M Lars einar Kårøy T0008LK Lars-aina Lady aludia T0176B Lars-andreas Lady aludia N0328ME Lars-gøran Lady m F0014V Larvikguten Lagertha F0058M Latøy Lagom T0135K Launes Lagun M0054G Launes Lagun N0250V Laupstadværing Lagun N0002BL Lauvgrund Lagun N0061R Laxen Laila T0018S Lea elina Laila T0061L Leah Laila-anita F0150V Leah marie Laksberg F0057M Leander Laksen N0005Ø Leander Laksen M0012HØ Leane Laksen N0006VN Ledøy Lakshmi T0034LK Legøy Leibøen M0052S Lillann Leif harald N0011B Lille breivikbuen Leif helge F0014LB Lille båten

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 126

Leif ole F0115V Lille perle Leif-helge T0097T Lillebakk Leif-olai F0062M Lillebåen Leik F0189NK Lillebåen Leika F0010M Lillegrunn Leikny F0024KD Lillegutt Leinebris N0022DA Lillegutt Leinebris TR0076V Lilleskjær Leinebris TR0345V Lilleskjær Leinefisk N0026L Lill-grethe Leirfjordværing F0006L Lilli Leiskjær F0116SV Lilli Leisund N0008DA Lilli karine Lekabuen T0011N Lill-jenny Lekamøy T0035T Lill-nora Lekaværing F0024H Lill-tove Leknesbuen F0032H Lill-tove Lena M0072SM Lilly Lena N0003HS Lilløy Lena-elias F0056HV Lina Lene k N0011L Linas Lene mari N0048ME Linas Lene marie N0124V Linda Lene w M0075G Linda Lennart F0010KD Linda merete Lennart F0009V Linda sofie Lenøy F0013A Linda sofie Leodegar F0033V Linda sofie Leon N0214VV Linda-mari Leon olai F0037V Lindfisk Leon olai F0057V Lindfisk Leonard F0068V Lindfisk Leonora SF0001B Lindholm Lero R0078K Lindisfarne Lero SF0033S Lindisfarne Lex grande SF0012S Lindisfarne Liaholm SF0022F Lindsjø Lianes F0356M Line Libu N0157V Line Liko N0282VV Line mari Lilja N0057VR Line marie Liljen F0094V Linea Liljen SF0019B Linebas Liljen F0035NK Linefisk Liljo N0038B Ling Lill F0031NK Linn Lill rainer N0017V Linn s Linnea N0152SG Lomvi

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 127

Linnea N0038SG Lomwi Linnea NT0401NR Loppa Linn-johanne M0012G Loran Linn-pia F0012P Lorden Linn-pia ST0002A Lorine Linn-torry SF0222SU Losfisk Linskjær ST0021R Lothe Linskjær VA0050S Lotta Linus H0059K Lotte Lipella N0029G Lovisa Lisa N0049L Lovundgutt Lisa bell N0100L Lovundværing Lisa kristine T0003T Lucas Lisbeth N0085A Ludvik Lisbeth M0030K Luis Lise F0066HV Lukas Lise R0116K Lukka Lise-beate F0028VS Luna Lisjebas F0033NK Luna Lissbuen F0055LB Luna Liss-eva T0005S Luna Lister T0093K Lunde Lisøysund LH3045 Lundøy Litj skjæret F0029LB Lunheim senior Litj skjæret N0002HR Luringen Liv N0114L Lurøybas Liv gerd F0133NK Lusiu Liv oddny F0046SV Luskin Live elise M0105SM Luton Live elise T0045K Lykkeliten Lobo F0001VS Lykken Lobo N0320Ø Lykken Lobster N0018LN Lykken junior Lodek N0071V Lykkens prøve Lodek SF0220S Lyngnes Lodek N0006BR Lyngvær Lofotfisk N0012B Lyngøy Lofothav N0021ME Lyngøy Lofothav SF0015SU Lyngøy Lofotværing NT0064V Lynn mary Lofotværing F0162NK Lyra Lofotværing N0119F Lysbøen Lofotværing N0074B Lystind Loggen N0031ME Lysvold jr Loke T0028KF Lyså jr. Lomen F0015V Løkki Lomstind T0157T Løkstind Lomsøy F0039NK Lønnegga

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 128

Lomsøy V0045S Løven Løveng T0073LK Malogutt Løvskjær TR0017AA Manin M malnes R0056K Mannesbuen M. Jensen F0003HV Mantas M.ytterstad F0015HV Mantas Macabo F0045HV Mantas Mach i F0153H Mara Madeleine F0026V Marcus Madelen F0111NK Marcus Madelen F0250M Mareliusson Maggan ST0015T Maren Maggan N0042H Margaret Maggan F0030B Margareth Magna N0043MS Margrethe Magnarson N0032B Margrunn Magnarson T0011T Mari Magnhild M0043A Mari Magnus M0061AV Maria Magnus N0027SF Maria Magnus N0084A Maria Magnussen F0026G Maria andrea Magnussen F0109V Mariann Magny F0352M Mariann Maiblomsten M0020VS Mariann Maiken N0079HR Marianne Maiken-jenta T0014K Marianne Mailen T0094LK Marianne Mailena M0051SM Marianne elise Maja F0187LB Marie Maja M0042AE Marie Maja M0069MD Marie Maja 1 N0233ME Marie Maja 1 TR0001OP Marie Maja 2 F0063V Marie bang Maja iren T0275T Marie lie Maja sofie M0003M Marie steen Maka N0041F Mariell Makirild M0052HØ Marielle Malangsfjord M0134F Marilena mi Malangsgutt N0089VV Marina Malangvaag N0270SF Marina Malene N0067MS Mario Malene T0086T Marion helen Mali TR0002T Marisol Malin H0137AV Marit Malin N0010G Marit Malin T0023SD Marit marie

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 129

Malin amanda F0041LB Marita Malo H0139AV Marita Malofisk M0040AV Marita Marita M0080HØ Mathilde Marita N0035V Mathilde Marita kathrin N0050TN Mathilde Marita-helen ST0017H Mathilde Marita-o F0211V Matilde Marita-o T0211T Matilde Maritha M0001VN Mats Maritha N0067Ø Mats børge Marit-kristine N0109A Mats-erik Marius F0014BD Max Marius F0065P Max william Marius N0009TN May Marius N0021V May Marius N0075BØ May celin Marius F0010BD May lis Marjella NT0001I May vanja Marjella F0100LB Maya Marjella N0068V Mb njord Markus F0010G Mea Markus F0016A Mea Markus F0050N Mea Marlen M0118SM Mea Marlov senior N0053A Mea Marna N0064H Mea Marna N0070Ø Mea Marna F0090VS Mebas Marquez F0110NK Medtind Marte N0340VV Mefjord Marthe T0182BG Mefjord Marthe NT0010L Mehav Martin ST0400F Meholm Martin N0008B Meholmen Martin T0017LK Meibel Martin N0011SF Melita Martina M0033SM Melodi Martine N0188ME Meløybas Martyna N0051ME Meløyfjord Mary jane N0001Ø Meløyjenta Marøyskjær N0041ME Meløysund jr Marøysund N0042ME Meløyværing Maskot N0440F Meløyværing Master N0440ME Meløyværing Mathea M0112AE Mentel Mathea N0348V Mercedes Matheus ST0500F Mercur

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 130

Mathias T0135N Merethe ii Mathias T0022L Merkur Mathias NT0069F Merlin Mathilde F0035V Meskjær Mathilde F0042M Meskjær Mevær F0109LB Moen Mevær ST0028R Moen Meybell H0023BN Moffen Mhaukøy R0020K Molinergutt Mia M0069G Molnes Michelle ST0015R Mona Midnatsol ST0030F Mona Midsundjenta TR0003H Mona Midtholm TR0006H Mona Midøy H0037F Monica Midøy viking N0023H Monica Mie N0155VV Monica Mie N0073BR Monica m Mifjord N0019HR Monika Mikael T0008TK Monika Mikael N0013SG Monsbøen Mikkelsen F0089V Monsnes Milda T0039BG Monsnes Mildrid F0047M Monsun Milian T0006SA Monsun Milla N0041H Monty Milton N0027Ø Morgenstjerne Mimi N0177Ø Morgenstjerne Mina F0024VS Morild Mina marie H0149AV Morild Minibanken M0041AE Morild Minibanken N0032L Morild Minibanken ST0010Ø Morild Minibanken Ø0025F Morild Minibanken T0036K Morten Minor H0402AV Morten einar Mira T0164T Mortenvik Mira N0174VV Mortsundværing Miranda N0096VV Mortsundværingen Miro H0569B Mostein Mirre N0015MS Mot Miss crosby T0069K Mr. Ralf Mist N0071G M-svendsen Mistral T0021K Mt senior Mjosund T0209K Mt senior Mjølner N0023BR Muddværing Mjølner F0068G Mulan Mjølner N0071Ø Mulegga

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 131

Mjølner M0214HØ Muløybuen Mjølner TR0025V Mustang Mjølner 2 SF0152S Myklen Mjønes H0081AV Myling Mjåsund F0058V Myntevik Moagutt M0022F Myrbø junior Moddy N0169Ø Myrebas Myrebuen H0006B Nera Myreng TR0346V Nergård jr Myreng fisk F0035G Nero Myreværing M0104AV Nesabuen Myrfjord 5 M0071G Nesbakk Myrnes senior F0114BD Nesbuen Mystic ocean R0001TV Nesbuen Møysalen VA0087LS Nesejenta Møysalfisk N0013F Nesheim Måken N0465V Nesodd Måken F0138M Nessodd Måken N0027R Nesøyfisk Måken N0001L Nesøyfjord Måkøy N0171R Nesøyværing Måna F0054V Netto Månes T0003SK Nico Månestråle N0044V Nicoline Mårfjell SF0122B Nigardsøy Mårnes N0047SO Nike Mårsund T0371K Nike Mårøysund F0034LB Nikita Måsnes N0058V Nikita Måsøygutt N0065VV Nikko Måtind N0165VV Nikko Måøysund N0016MS Niklas Nag F0044V Nikon Nami T0023B Nils eivind Nanna kristine N0101L Nilsen jr Napp N0007NA Nimrod Nappen ST0005AA Nina Nappsgutt T0025BG Nina iren Nargtind T0097K Nina mari Nartind T0150K Nina mari Natalie F0110M Nipen Nathaniel F0201NK Nisskjær Natsha F0019V Nittaya Nautic F0260G Njardvik Naviger F0025M Njord Nella T0125L Njord Nelson ii LH2254 Njord Nemine M0115HD Njård

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 132

Nemo N0053V No problem ii Nemo T0098K Noah Nemo N0016TN Noah andre Nennik T0288T Noatun Neptun F0070VS Nobel Neptun F0037BD Nokasa Neptun N0180VV Nonstind Neptun T0053K Nonstind Neptun T0056T Nonstind Nor T0001KD Nordnes Nora T0002KD Nordnes Nora N0016G Nordnesfisk Nora F0050A Nordsild Nora T0008I Nordsild Nora N0008VN Nordstadbuen Nora M0085G Nordstar Nora ii F0040G Nordstjerna Norah VA0097M Nordsø Norbanken F0130A Nordtind Norbas F0207NK Nordtind Norbris F0236V Nordtind Norbuen N0006VV Nordtind Norbåen N0060VR Nordtind Nordaførr F0161NK Nordtur Nordaførr F0054P Nordvesten Nordblink ST0130F Nordvik Nordbuen F0001V Nordvåg Nordbøen F0109NK Nordvåg Nordegg M0185G Nordørn Nordeng M0359HØ Nordøytrål Nordfangst N0085MS Noregg Nordfisk N0108VV Noregga Nordfisk F0252NK Norfangst Nordfisk F0140M Norfjell Nordfjell T0022SD Norfjell Nordfjord N0043A Norhav Nordflu N0059A Norhav Nordflu ii N0182Ø Norhavet Nordgrunn N0054Ø Norliner Nordgrunn F0028A Norlys Nordhaug senior H0074B Normann Nordhav T0006S Normatir Nordhavet F0012KD Norodd Nordhavn N0134VV Norpynt Nordholmen N0123F Norskottind Nordholmen N0022A Norsol Nordic queen N0038A Norsol Nordic queen T0020SA Norsund

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 133

Nordlys NT0017NR Norveig Nordlys F0025TN Norwastern Nordlys N0053F Norøy Nordlys N0263VV Norøy Nordlys Notøygutt Nordlys M0037HØ Notøygutt Nordlys N0181VV Nybakk senior Nordlys F0172NK Nybakken Nordlys N0041B Nybas Nordlysfisk N0094V Nyberg Nordmannset F0087G Nybjørn Nybrott M0055HØ Nærøybuen Nybrott M0208SM Næssflu Nybrott T0022KN Nævernes Nybøen M0400AK O. Solem Nybøen N0400V O. Solem Nybåen F0065V O.b.junior Nydønning M0161AV O.husby Nydønning M0007AV Obelix Nyegga N0018F Ocean Nyfisk N0020SO Ocean Nyflø T0009T Ocean blue Ny-glimt M0068A Ocean jr Nygrund M0008G Oda Nygrunn TR0015R Oda Nygrunn N0400Ø Odane Nyhav N0466VV Odd Nyhav M0018SM Odd einar Nyhav F0087NK Odd inge Nyhav TR0018O Odd ivar Nyholm T0012KN Odd jonny ii Ny-hurtig N0052A Odd junior Nyken T0551T Odd kristian Ny-kvikk T0004T Odd lindberg Nyland N0147MS Odd roger Nyland T0044K Odd yngve Nylon N0038F Odd-arvid Nymøre F0064M Odd-egil Ny-måtind M0270AV Odden Ny-odd N0008F Oddgeir Nyskjer F0207H Oddgeir jr Nystad N0157MS Oddny Nystart N0089SO Oddvar junior Nystrøm F0016VS Odin Nystubuen F0060P Odin Nysvanen F0065BD Odin Nytelse N0051VR Odin Ny-terje N0223BR Odin

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 134

Ny-terje T0055H Odin Nyterten T0111S Odin Nytind SF0213S Odin Nytind NT0233V Odin oliver Nytind N0054BR Odin senior Ny-trofast F0067LB Oksefjord Nytun junior F0076LB Oksevåg ii Ny-viking M0053AV Olaf Ny-viking N0032Ø Olafur Nyvoll N0099Ø Olafur ii Nyvoll senior N0001SO Olagutt Nyvollgutten F0021P Olasdatter Nyvon N0022G Olaskjær Olasvåg F0088V Orion Olaug N0019HS Orion Olav N0019L Orion Olav N0046RT Orion Olav dalen N0057Ø Orion Olav dalen VA0066LD Orion Olav junior M0001SA Orion Olav nilsen LLXC Orkan Olav selvåg M0096AE Ormen raske Olav selvåg ST0015F Ormskjær Olav u TR0015F Ormskjær Olav-børre N9301G Oscar sund Oldefar N0023DA Oskar Olderfjord N0029DA Oskar Ole N0226BØ Oskar Ole andre N0115Ø Oskar s Ole einar N0007TN Oskar zahl Ole elvan N0018BØ Oslogutten Ole hartvig F0186NK Ostad senior Ole hendrik F0286NK Ostad senior Ole hendrik H0002ØN Osund Ole inge F0148H Osvaldson Ole j Osvik Ole oskar T0049S Otelie Ole oskar T0128T Oternes Olea F0217NK Oterstein Ole-arvid nergård M0001HS Otnes Olegutt N0087BØ Ottarson Ole-johan T0343T Otterøy Olemann N0100VV Ovesen jr Oline M0029SM Palma Olivia F0060LB Partner Olsen senior N0034RT Pasat Olstind N0032RT Pasat ii Oluf F0033LB Patrick

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 135

Omega T0064K Paul kjetil Omega M0174AV Paul senior Omega F0055NK Pauline Oning T0076LK Pax Onsøygutt N0070MS Peder b Onsøygutt ii M0211AE Peder j Onyx F0081M Pegasus Oppmyrbuen NT0010S Pegasus Optimist F0043HV Peik Orbit TR0015V Peik Orfjord TR0055V Peik Orfjord N0008BL Pelle Orholm T0061BG Pelle Oriana N0207MS Peon Origo T0117N Pepita Per F0022N Polarvind Per N0029R Polarvind Per arvid F0030HV Pomor Per egil N0102Ø Pomor Per gunnar N0006A Pompen Per roger F0069LB Pondus Peragutt F0102NK Pontos Peragutt ST0002F Pontus Per-egil N0023SG Poseidon Perholm N0445Ø Prestfjord Per-ivar N0052G Prikken Perla N0049LN Prima Perlemor N0003HR Proceana Perlen N0085F Propella Perlon M0034AV Prøven Perlon N0005A Prøven Pernille N0093BR Prøven Pero M0025AE Pål magnar Pero T0231LK Pål-stian Pero Pålstikk Petra Queen Petterson R0050K Quo vadis Pia F0164NK R. Vegar Pia H0265AV Rabbagutt Pilen F0001M Rabbajento Pilen R0040H Radar Pilen N0035SO Radi Pinta T0338T Radian Pion F0056BD Ragnar lodbrok Piraya N0095HR Ragnarson Pit F0077A Ragnhild Piungen N0024VA Ragnhild Pluggen T0030S Ragnhild

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 136

Plump M0135F Ragnhild Pluto T0015K Ragnhild emilie Pluto M0014AK Ragnhild kristine Pluto M0044AK Ragnhild kristine Pluto N0002Ø Ragni Pluto F0035TN Ragni elise Plutos N0078V Ragni merethe Pløy N0134Ø Rainer Polar atlantic F0084M Rakel Polargutten N0054MS Rallaren Polarhav F0148NK Rambo Polaris TR0001O Rambo Polarjo F0100NK Rambo i Polarjo F0026NK Rambo ii Polarliner F0042P Ramgrunn Polarlys M0001VD Ramoen Polarstjerna N0018V Ramona Ramona N0162BØ Reinsbåen Rampen F0062G Reipnakken Rampen T0003N Reisaværingen Ramsbøen M0144HØ Reitegutt Ramsevik N0051L Reløygutten Ramskjær F0040LB Remi Ramsøy N0180B Remi Ramsøyfjord N0115BØ Remi andre Randi T0330T Remo Randi N0010B Remskjær Randi elise F0012G Remy Randi helene NT0022V Remy Randi helene M0099HØ Remøy Randi-helen T0094KN Renato iii Rangnes T0194S Renato iii Ranita T0107LK Rennebuen Rappen T0373T Rennebåen Raptus F0008KD Repparfjord Rasa R0072K Repsøy Rasa M0093AK Resabuen Rask F0158NK Resolutt Rasken F0169NK Reven Rasken N0079Ø Richard Rasmuss F0101NK Richard j Ratto F0028SV Riddu Raunefjord F0022P Riinakaisa Rav N0075A Rikardson Rav T0027K Rikke Ravinda N0018BL Riko Ravinda M0016EE Ringo Ravn ST0007R Ringskjær

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 137

Ravnøy N0203F Ringskjær nord Raya F0018SV Ringsol Raymita M0003SR Ringsøy Rayon N0048LN Rinøy Rayon T0024H Riro Raywan F0053LB Risvik Rebbenes sr F0153LB Risvik Reform N0349V Risvær Regate VA0015M Risøy Reidar ST0033T Rita marie Reidar R0021ES Rita s Reiert LA9241 Ritidsfartøy Reinbøen UAQ459 Ritidsfartøy Reinebuen XAN285 Ritidsfartøy Reinefangst T0232T Rivalen Reinesbuen F0012H Roald jr. Reinesbuen N0004SO Roald senior Reineværing M0037G Roaldnes Reineværing M0011GS Roar Robin F0271V Ruby Robin F0124LB Rudolf sen. Robin N0004NA Runa elida Robine F0005G Runar Rocco T0089LK Rundskjær Rockhopper F0011V Rune Rockmann M0121A Runing Rodian M0119AE Rusken Roglaværing M0014SA Rusken Rognan jr F0182NK Ruth Rognegutt H0027BN Ruth Rohit N0090V Ruth kristin Roholmen ST0002OL Rydningen Rojoma N0008Ø Rypa Rokkan F0038H Rypefjord Rolf asbjørn F0064G Rystadbuen Rolf-åge N0260Ø Ryvarden Rollo N0240Ø Ryvingen Rolvsøyhav N0026SO Ræka Rolvsøyværing N0175VV Røagutt Ronja N0118LN Rødholmen Ronja VA0010FS Rødland Ronja-mathea T0271S Rødøy Ronny n N0030R Rødøyværing Ros N0014BL Røingen Rosa jade H0002B Røksund Roskjær M0134H Rørstad Rosvik T0134T Røsnes Rosøy N0007H Røsnesvåg

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 138

Rosøy N0085Ø Røstad Rosøy N0008RT Røstbanken vest Rotnesfjord N0018A Røstbanken vest Rottfisk N0031B Røsthavet Rottfisk N0067RT Røsthavet Rowenta T0024KN Røstjenta Rowenta N0026BØ Røstvær Roxy N0055RT Røstværing Roy magne A0001V Røstøy Royal N0004VN Røy Roy-anett T0006B Råholm Roy-magne TR0020V Råholm Roysen N0080B Rånes Roy-tony N0300B Rånes viking Ruben F0044HV Råsa Rubicon NT0338V Råsagutt Rubicon N0450V S johansen Rubin F0020A Safir Rubin M0004A Safir Rubin NT0040F Safir Ruby N0007N Saga Saga inez T0064T Sandvær junior Saga inez F0070G Sandøra Saga k F0005P Sandøy Sagabris N0047HR Sandøy Saga-fj N0189VV Sandøy Sagagutt AA0003T Sandøyjenta Saibma M0020AV Sandøysund Saibma H0058S Sangolt Sailor F0044LB Sanna Sailor N0043TN Sannagutt Sake NT0129V Sannajenta Sakura Sano Salarfisk F0004KD Santos Salhusværing TK0025BL Santos Salt F0003LB Sara Saltbåen F0006VS Sara Salthammer F0061LB Sara Saltind T0020L Sara karin Saltind T0024L Sara louise Samanta N0197V Sarah Samanta T0037K Sarah Samhald M0117HØ Sarah San midtbu LK3110 Sarah therese Sander T0015LK Sari Sander T0044BG Sari Sander T0007TN Sarnes Sander F0146NK Sarnesjenta

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 139

Sander F0027V Sarte Sander F0028L Saturn Sander andre F0110LB Saturn Sandergutt N0008BR Saturn Sanderman NT0138V Saturn Sandfjord jenta SF0285V Saturn Sandflæsa F0009HV Savannah Sandholmen F0043TN Save k Sandnes N0066F Scheldrupson Sandnes R0001H Scombrus Sandnesbuen N0063AH Sea-lady Sandnesbuen N0014ME Sebastian Sandnesbuen jr N0060VV Sebastian Sandra N0260VV Sebastian Sandra T0063T Sedna Sandra kristin N0087Ø Segelstein Sandra merethe T0050LK Segla Sandrian F0038M Seglstein Sandsøy T0003S Seglvik Sandvikbuen N0068VV Seibuen Sandviknes F0044TN Seida Sandvær M0026EE Seiflu Sandvær M0025EE Seiflu jr Seigutt M0066HØ Signal Seiko N0043AH Signe Seiland T0014N Signe Seingen NT0093V Sigrid kristine Seir N0061A Sigurd Seiskjær N0040ME Sigurd m Seiskjær N0257BØ Sigurdson Seivikbuen T0078T Sigvaldson Seka F0054H Sigve Selbjørnsfjord N0127L Sigve Selbjørnsfjord M0132AE Sika Selda F0095HV Silbøen Selfangst NT0011N Sild Seljefisk ST0004RS Sildjo Selma F0041V Silegg Selma SF0066G Silene Selma drøfn F0035HV Silhav Selvåg senior T0030LK Silhav Selvågbuen F0010A Silja Senholmbuen F0047LB Siljan Senior F0258NK Silje Seniorita NT0051NR Silje Seniorita M0038SM Silje t Senjafangst F0380A Silver Senjafjell NT0012NR Silver

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 140

Senjafjord R0009ST Silver ii Senjagutt N0177F Simar Senjagutten F0016B Simen Senjahav N0109RT Simen Senjaland M0004F Simen Senjaliv T0009SK Simen-h Senjaliv F0077LB Simon Senjaliv M0026AV Simon senior Senjapynt T0068K Simson Senjasund M0091U Sina Senjatun M0019K Sindre Senjaværing N0015B Sirene Sennholmen F0056V Siri elise Setter N0019AH Sirianna Shakira F0047HV Sirius Shara N0020F Sirius Sico N0062B Sirius ii Sievjan N0170V Siro Sifjord F0017LB Sissel Siggen N0035VV Sissel caroline Siglevik N0070L Siv Signal ST0016R Siv Signal N0003F Siveland Signal N0096MS Siw Signal N0113F Siw Siwa N0039F Sjønapp Siwa F0167A Sjøpia Siwa T0054N Sjøpynt Siwo F0020SV Sjøsprøyt Sjark 1 F0022SV Sjøsprøyt Sjarke VA0008LS Sjøsprøyt Sjarke M0012K Sjøstjerna Sjarken junior N0010RT Sjøstjerna Sjarken junior N0023A Sjøstjerna Sjarm ST0009O Sjøstjerna Sjohav M0278SA Sjøstjernen Sjohav ST0012H Sjøsvanen Sjøbas N0020Ø Sjøtind Sjøblink N0054RT Sjøtun Sjøblomst N0106VV Sjøtun Sjøblomst T0019T Sjøtun Sjøblomsten T0157K Sjøtun Sjøblomsten F0028LB Sjøvær Sjøblomsten SF0006A Sjøvær Sjøblomsten N0232V Sjåbøen Sjøblomsten T0129T Sjåbåen Sjøbrem T0014SA Sjånes Sjøbris N0015VA Sjåvikbuen

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 141

Sjøbris N0070R Sjåviknes Sjøbris T0008K Sjåviknes Sjøbris T0023S Sk junior Sjøbris T0068T Skaga Sjøbris F0056LB Skaganes Sjøbuen N0159Ø Skagbåen Sjøbuen N0065TN Skagen Sjøbåra ST0018R Skagen Sjødrøm M0340HØ Skagen Sjøfisk N0107VV Skagodden Sjøfisk M0023SM Skagsund Sjøflu N0011AH Skagøy Sjøglimt T0301T Skagøy Sjøgut T0023T Skagøysund Sjøgutt H0161AV Skalar Sjøgutt N0071VR Skanti Sjøgutten F0175BD Skarberg Sjøgutten F0005TN Skardholmen Sjøgutten N0048F Skare Sjøheim M0412AE Skarfisk Sjøleik N0001BØ Skarholmen Sjølill N0053BØ Skarholmen Sjøliv Skarsfjord Sjøliv N0005BG Skarstadværing Sjøliv M0071A Skarstein Sjøliv T0170K Skarstein Sjø-liv H0045AV Skarten Skarten T0515LK Skreigrunn Skartind F0026TN Skrei-tind Skarven N0019VV Skretind Skarven N0114MS Skrine Skarvholmen T0111T Skulbaren Skarvtind SF9300V Skulebas Skarvøy F0087V Skumnissen Skarøy N0152Ø Skumring Skimring N0050V Skuvingen Skipnes H0047BN Skye Skippy N0047BØ Skye Skipson F0159NK Skytten Skjeggestein M0003RA Skålvik Skjelholm M0200HØ Skårungen Skjelholm TR0010NR Skårungen Skjerm T0224T Sleipner Skjerodden T0158L Slettenberg Skjold T0027T Sletthav Skjong viking N0110L Slettholmen Skjongholm N0118L Slettholmen Skjærbuen N0100V Slettind

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 142

Skjærbuen T0001L Slettind Skjærgrunn F0082LB Slettvoll senior Skjærgrunn M0012AE Slettvåg Skjånes R0004HM Sloekspressen Skogarøy T0218T Slogmåsen Skogerøy N0030ME Smaragd Skogligut M0080SØ Smihav Skoglijenta SF0052B Smøysund Skognes T0002S Småbas i Skognes LBP427 Småbåt Skognes LG4293 Småbåt Skognes LG9426 Småbåt Skogsfjordingen LK3209 Småbåt Skogsøybuen LK5390 Småbåt Skogsøyjenta LK6722 Småbåt Skogsøyværing LN5427 Småbåt Skogøy TAG825 Småbåt Skolebåt TAN634 Småbåt Skolebåt TAQ658 Småbåt Skolefartøy TAV790 Småbåt Skolefartøy fru inger TAX573 Småbåt Skolmen TAY108 Småbåt Skolpen TAZ319 Småbåt Skomværfisk TAZ396 Småbåt Skottind TBA258 Småbåt Skottind TBA554 Småbåt Skreien VAA095 Småbåt Skreien WAB902 Småbåt Skreigrunn WAC648 Småbåt Småbåt T0015T Småvær Småbåt T0149LK Småvær Småbåt N0200BØ Snarsetværing Småbåt T0036KN Sneberg 2 Småbåt NT0169V Snefjell Småbåt N0005N Sneggla Småbåt T0002B Snetind Småbåt T0175T Snipa Småbåt T0111K Snoken Småbåt ST0021F Snoopy Småbåt N0025F Snop Småbåt F0086V Snusken Småbåt Snutan Småbåt N0009RT Snøgg Småbåt N0142VV Snøgg Småbåt M0029G Snøgg Småbåt T0039S Snøggen Småbåt F0012NK Soa Småbåt M0053SA Soffe

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 143

Småbåt N0009V Sofie Småbåt N0019V Sofie Småbåt N0046SO Sofie Småbåt T0002K Sofie Småbåt T0016L Sofus Småbåt T0012N Soiana Småbåt SF0020F Sol mar Småbåt SF0030S Sol mar Småbåt R0007KP Solagutt Småbåt R0007SO Solagutt Småbåt ST0075F Solan Småbåt N0118MS Solbjørn Småbåt F0024SV Solbris Småbåt F0034M Solbris Småbåt F0067M Solbris Småbåt N0019R Solbris Småbåt SF0044SU Solbris Småbåt T0080H Solbris Småbåt N0236Ø Solbu Småbåt N0067F Solbuen Småbåt F0092SV Soleng Småbåt F0092V Soleng Småbåt F0151NK Soleng Småbåt F0040NK Soleng senior Småbåt N0048BR Soley Småen N0048BØ Soley Småen VA0076M Solfuglen Småhaug senior T0258K Solglimt Småskjer R0045K Solglytt Småsund F0068N Solgløtt Småsund F0030BD Solheim Solheim F0088HV Spruten Solja N0046F Spurven Solmai T0007D Spurven Solnes T0016I Spurven Solrand N0020R Sputnick Solrand N0443Ø Sputnik Solringen N0051Ø Stabben Solsig T0098N Stabben Solskjær T0099N Stabben Solskjær N0020RT Stamnesværing Solskjær N0072VV Stamsundværing Solstein T0089K Stangnes Solstein T1104T Stangnes Solstrandjenta F0012TN Stangnestind Solstrålen F0069NK Star Solstrålen N0001FE Star Soltind N0118VR Star viking

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 144

Soltind ST0027H Starfish Soltind H0065B Staris Solvang N0009SF Start Solvarden M0052AV Stattegg Solveig N0050VR Stattegg Solvær Ø0005F Staulskjær Solvær H0013K Stauper Solvær F0078M Stauren Solværgutt N0027RT Stavøy Solværskjær F0095G Stef Solværøy NT0052V Stefan Solys N0040A Steffen Soløy F0027VS Steffen junior Soløy F0014A Stefjord Soløy T0203T Stein jimmy Soløy F0189H Stein o Sommarøy T0067LK Steinar Sommarøybuen M0017SM Steinarson Sondre-gutten F0089G Steinfjord Sonja F0091G Steinfjord Sonja elisabeth N0092Ø Steinfjord Sonja karine T0004K Steinnesværing Sonny marie F0008M Steinryggen Sophia N0082VV Steinryggen Soya NT0130NR Steinsøy Spansholmen F0101HV Stella polaris Spanta N0096R Sten tore Spenning T0163K Stenaline Spenning N0033V Stensvold senior Spira F0037L Stensø Spjæringen senior F0107NK Stensøy Spleis SF0042S Sterling Sprint N0059TN Stero Steven F0133HV Stormhav Stian N0002B Stormhav Stian jr N0060VA Stormleik Stian-andre N0032R Stormojenta Stig T0060K Stornes Stig arild M0010ØG Storseisund Stig harry ST0094AA Storstein Stig inge TR0096AA Storstein Stig junior H0060S Storstril Stig magnar VA0081LS Storvig Stig roar NT0124V Storvik Stig-rune Storvikbuen Stilian N0004L Storøy Stillebøen M0017HØ Storøy Stina M0074SØ Strandar

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 145

Stina N0165H Strandegga Stine N0012VV Strandflæsa Stine N0158V Strandvær Stine helen N0036F Strandværing Stine marlen N0061VV Stratos Stine maya N0001LF Straumberg Stine sofie N0016L Straumen Stjernen N0162VV Straumen Stjerntind N0096A Straumgutt Stjerntind LDNX Straumingen Stjerntind M0003HD Straumsund Stokke jr. M0013U Straumsund Storbøen N0057L Straumvang Storbåen T0080I Straumvang Stording N0335VV Straumværing Store T0055I Straumværing Storegg N0098L Straumøy Storegutt F0142G Streif Storelv F0201LB Striptind Storengbuen F0051G Strømmen Storengbuen F0055P Strømsnes Storfjordværing N0372ME Strømtind Storhav N0078VV Strømøy Storholm T0006KN Strømøy Storholm N0087ME Strømøygutt Storholm F0010NK Strønstadværing Storholmen T0072KD Strønvik Storm M0077AV Stut Storm T0207T Stutholmen Storm F0022V Støa Stormen senior F0030V Støa Stormfuglen T0098S Støagutt Stormfuglen T0142LK Støbuen Stormfuglen T0234T Stødig Stormgutt N0100B Støttfjord Stål trond T0098T Sverreson Stålholm F0045G Sverrir Sukanya F0115LB Sveta Sula F0012A Svingla Sulagutt M0022SM Svinøy Sulahav N0008AH Svinøy Sulavåg ST0111RS Swansea Sulavåg i F0062TN Swona Sulebas N0044BØ Syclon Sulegga M0006A Syltebas Sulegga F0066M Sylvester Sulegutt T0008SK Sylvester Sulingen F0101BD Sylvia

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 146

Sulværing ST0024F Sylvia Suløy M0011G Sylvia Suløy N0038Ø Synnøve Sunderøy N0010TS Synøy Sundmann N0088RA Syren Sundsbøen F0048N Sæterbøen Sundsværing F0206M Sætergutt Sunna M0044G Søkern Sunna dis H0015BN Sølvberg Sunniva F0157NK Sølvfisk ii Sunniva F0009G Sølvi Sushi T0012KD Sølvtind Sutind T0013T Sølvtind Svaberg T0011SA Sørbris Svalen M0350SM Sørbøen Svana N0211BØ Sørbåen Svana TR0002LA Sørbåen Svananes H0089K Sørhav Svanen M0018F Sørhav Svanen N0142L Sørholmen Svanen T0188S Sørholmen Svanen F0084V Søringen Svanfjell Søringen Svartøy NT0401V Sørstein Svatind AA0023T Sørvest Svavik H0001S Sørvest Svea H0002S Sørvest Svebøen N0030VR Sørvik Sveggøy N0080R Sørvik Svein johan T0734T Sørvik Svein roar N0010DA Sørviking Svendsen senior F0040H Sørværing Svensgam N0016R Sørvågsund Sverre junior F0260M Sørvågværing Sverre junior N0260MS Sørvågværing Sverre-n H0240B Sørwaag Sverreson NT0151V Sørøya Sørøyfisk ST0031O Ternen T.a senior TR0111B Ternen T.sivertsen M0011MD Ternholm Taifun N0131TF Terningen Taifun N0131VV Terningen Taifun T0020T Terningen Talvi M0010AV Ternung Talyn N0028F Thaifisk Tamara T0021TK Thale Tampen F0100G Thani Tana M0006SA The flying dutchman

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 147

Tanafjord F0200VS Thea Tanita M0202AV Thea Tanja N0041VV Thea Tanja karin N0045BR Thea Tanya ST0018T Thea Tara N0080V Thea 2 Tardis F0007V Thea dalwhinnie Taren F0062V Thea-emilie Tarrelusa F0263L Thea-emilie Tarzan N0067A Theo Tass N0117V Theo Tatind F0149NK Theo mikal Taurus A0002B Therese Taylor F0021A Therese Teineskjær T0079S Thina irene Teist M0023A Thois Teisten F0103NK Thomas Teistklub N0104MS Thomas alexander Tellus F0012B Thor Tempo NT0016VL Thoralf Tennessee F0400NK Thor-arild Tennholmen M0046AE Thorbjørn Tennholmen N0002TN Thorshavet Tennskjær ST0036O Thory Teresa T0050L Thule Terje roar F0029SV Tiira Terje viken NT0016NR Tika Terna M0047K Tiki Terna F0140NK Tiko Terna M0039MD Tilde maria Terna M0034SM Tilia Terna H0087BN Time bandit Terna F0059V Tin Terna SF0011V Tin Terna N0114VV Tina Terna T0195T Tina kristine Terna F0020LB Tinder Terne N0073MS Tindsbuen Ternen N0111VR Tindskjær Tindstø T0090TK Tor helge Tindvær iii N0012SG Tor hugo Tine F0128V Tor johan Tine merethe N0003Ø Tor jonny Tine merethe H0131AV Tor magnus Tinganes T0046T Tor werner Tinus N0052VR Tora Tiril F0030NK Tora b Tjongen N0150SO Tora b

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 148

Tjønnøyfisk T0018B Torbuen Toan N0043SO Torbåen Tobac F0034BD Tore Tobias N0029VR Tore gøran Tobias M0005A Toreson Tobias r N0206BR Torgarnes Tobias r T0441K Torgeirson Toften N0047VV Torgværing Toliko T0099T Tor-henrik Tom arne F0052TN Torhopjenta Tom frode F0111M Torild Tom lauritz N0031MS Torild Tom roger SF0085V Torill Toma N0058SO Tor-kåre Tomba T0018N Tor-m Tomina T0420LK Tor-morten Tomine N0102V Tornado Tommi mari T0090N Tornado Tommy M0009AK Tornado Tommy andre T0353T Torolv Tommy junior ST0008T Torshav Tone heidi T0050K Torshav Tone joacime T0025SA Torsken Tonebøen F0026B Torstein Tonje F0048NK Torstenson Tonje F0084G Torstind Tonje T0023K Torsvåg Tonny marie M0120AV Torvald Tono N0066BØ Tove Tony T0044N Tove marie Tonøy N0074V Toya Topas M0030EE Tramsegg Topas T0002TN Tranøyjenta Topas T0021LK Trapani Toppen F0076M Trass Tor F0037M Trellefisk Tor e H0023S Trellevik Tor einar H0011F Tressnes Tor eirik T0190LK Tressy Tor harald F0020B Trin even Tor harald N0102VV Trine Trio NT0200V Trønderkari Trio F0120LB Tråle Trio T0182T Trålfisk Trio F0186M Tubøfisk Trio T0071K Tuebas Trippel a M0010AE Tufse Triton F0054M Tulipan

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 149

Triton N0097Ø Tulipan Trollabuen N0121ME Tulipan Trolle F0123NK Tuna Trollfjell H0180K Tunfisk Trollholmen T0178K Tunfisk Trollsund ST0063F Tungvåg Trolltampen N0044L Tunskjær Trolltind T0055S Tur Tromflu N0045F Turbo Tromstind T0078BG Turid Tromstind N0015BØ Tussbøen Trond T0079LK Tussi Trond T0153T Tussøy Trond yngve M0003AE Tustnatind Trondalson N0002L Tuva Trond-anton N0016Ø Tuva Trondbuen T0011KN Tverrfjord Trondgrund N0325VA Tverrøy Tronefisk F0003P Tviburdar Trottvik F0006LB Tviburdar Troy aron ST0060T Tyfon Troy aron ST0001R Tyr Truda M0044HØ Tøffen Trygg F0052LB Tømmervik Trygg T0002H Tønsnes Trygg iii T0538T Tønsvikgutt Tryggen N0103VV Tøtta Trygvason T0045T Tårnøy Trygvason F0204NK Ukinamen Trygve N0034SO Ula Trym N0077VV Ula Trym T0001TK Ula Trym-aksel F0106NK Ulf-daniel Trægut N0050AH Ulvangsøy Trælbøen N0122F Ulvstind Trælvik F0051V Ulvøy Trænagutt T0022S Uløybuen Trænfjord F0007KD Uma Trænhavet M2018UK Ungdomsfiske Trøan TR2018UK Ungdomsfiske Trønderbas F2018UK Ungdomskvote Trønderfisk F2019UK Ungdomskvote Trønderhav N2018UK Ungdomskvote Ungdomskvote F0030VS Varangergutt Ungdomskvote F0007N Varangerjenta Ungdomskvote F0011N Varangerjenta Ungdomskvote N0056ME Vardar Unn N0068R Varden

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 150

Unn kristin N0181BØ Varden Unn kristin T0054S Varden Unni F0190V Vardøjenta Unni F0165V Vardøyfisk ii Unnur F0032LB Varfjell Unnur F0132LB Varfjell Unstad junior T0017K Varg Uran F0046A Vargen Uregutt F0069M Vargen Urholm N0008N Vargen Urkevik F0099V Várggát Urtind F0033A Vargsundværing Utflæsa F0096A Varholm Utheim M0012ØG Varing Utsikten F0002N Varjjat Utvær ST0044T Varna Utvær T0147K Varna Vaarheim ST0021T Varna2 Vaggas T0010BG Varnes Vagge T0143B Varnes Valagutt T0143LK Varnes Valco T0167T Varnes Valdimar h F0099H Varulv Valentin T0123K Varøy Valfjording T0072H Varøytind Valkyrien F0003TN Vassana Valkyrien ST0003B Vasøyfisk Valkyrien ST0001B Vasøygutt Vallsjø A0086N Vaterfjord Vally N0086V Vaterfjord Valsværing T0184K Vatnan Valtin jr ST0002H Vedøen Valværgutt M0319SM Vegard Valøy SF0029F Veibas Valøytind SF0075F Veibas Vangen M0001G Veidar Vangsbuen R0069K Veiding Vanir F0034KD Veines Vanja N0131F Veines Vanja anita F0042HV Vema Vanja anita T0891T Vengsøyværing Vanja s M0024HØ Ventura Vannøyværingen N0027SG Venus Vaquero T0009H Vera maria Varangerbuen M0072SJ Verning Verning SF0020B Veststeinen Verning N0030H Vesttind Veronica T0177K Vest-tind

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 151

Veronica N0131G Vestvarden Veronica N0134B Vestvarden Veronica T0029T Vestvåg Veronica ST0084F Vestøy Verosy T0011B Veta lucia Versla N0009F Vibeke cathrin Vesla Vibeke helene Vesla N0052V Vicki Vesla H0022ML Victoria Vesla H0084O Victoria Veslefrikk N0009Ø Victoria Veslemøy N0095V Victoria Veslemøy N0147VR Victoria Veslemøy T0040LK Victoria p Veslemøy NT0024NR Vidar viking Veslemøy R0021H Vigdis Vesleper F0903LB Viggo Vesleper F0045A Vigrunn Vesle-sissel TR0004F Vigrunn Vestaskjær H0024B Vika Vestbas T0020LK Vikabukt Vestbåen N0051A Vikafisk Vester H0019B Vikafjord Vester junior ST0006R Vikagut Vesterbøen NT0007F Vikagutt Vesterbøen T0028LK Vikagutt Vesterelvjenta F0065G Vikajenta Vesterhav F0151A Vikajenta Vesternes N0065H Vikajenta Vestfisk F0004SV Vikan Vestfisk T0035K Vikanes Vestfisk N0007BØ Vikanøy Vestflu ST0006SI Vikaskjær Vesthav TR0006SI Vikaskjær Vesthav LCHZ Vikaskjær Vesthavet N0210F Vikberg Vesthavet F0040P Viking Vestholm F0160LB Viking Vestliner H0010KM Viking Vestliner M0035AV Viking Vestpynt M0351SM Viking Vestpynt N0069F Viking Vestrevåg N0364V Viking Vestri N0450MS Viking Vestri NT0020V Viking Vestri ST0005SI Viking Vestskjer T0117K Viking Viking N0036L Vivi

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 152

Viking 2 Voldingen Viking i F0080M Voldnes Vikingbank M0014HØ Voldsundfisk Viknabuen N0304V Vollen Viknabuen M0285G Vollerosa Viknafisk M0011A Volstad Viknafjord N0015SG Von Vikskjær M0088SØ Vonar Vikskjær N0136Ø Vornesværing Vikskjær Vÿrggÿt Vikstjerna N0024RT Vytis Vikstjerna T0037LK Vækja Viktor T0447LK Væring Viktoria N0074VR Værøybuen Viktoria N0162VR Værøygutt Viktoria lif N0028VR Værøyjenta Vilde N0059SO Vågagutt Vilde T0059L Vågagutt Vilde TR0001F Vågagutt Vilde R0024B Vågan Vilde N0046B Vågar Vilija T0004H Vågar Vilja T0054H Vågar Viljar T0152T Vågar Viljar T0182K Vågar Viljen M0019M Vågar Vilkas N0122R Vågaskjær Vilma F0038BD Vågbas Vilma M0015U Vågebris Vilma F0024TN Vågen Vimax F0265NK Vågen Vingbuen N0036Ø Vågen Vingholm T0093KN Vågen Vingholm F0190NK Vågen 1 Virgo F0301NK Vågholm Virgo SF0001H Vågholm Virgo N0010TF Våglaks Virgo N0044SO Vågsbuen Viro T0256T Vågstrand Vitamin M0034F Vågøy Vito N0031V Vågøyskjær Vito N0225Ø Våje Vito N0197VV Vårbris Vito T0020SK Vårbris Vito T0067T Vårbris Vito F0147VS Vårbuen Vito F0247NK Vårbuen Vito II F0700NK Vårbuen Viva F0019G Vårheim

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 153

Vårheim N0200ME Ørna Vårheim N0253MS Ørna Vårin N0384MS Ørna Vårliner T0254T Ørnes Vårsol T0036B Ørnfløy Vårsol T0036T Ørnfløy Vårøy TR0003T Ørnholmen Wallander ii NT0064NR Ørnskjær Wanja F0007LB Ørntind Wenche F0484M Ørntind Wenche merethe T0168T Ørntind Wenche merethe F0198TN Ørnvik Wenche p N0009AH Ørnøy West coast 1 F0086LB Ørsvåg Westegg H0123AV Østerfjord Westhav M0076HØ Østgutt Westhav T0039SK Øya Wijafisk N0474Ø Øyabuen Wikerøy N0024L Øyan Wilfredson T0039LK Øyanes Williksen senior T0054T Øyanes Willyson T0078LK Øyanes Wilma T0300LK Øyanger Wilmann sen N0450VR Øyaskjær Wiol ST0018O Øyaskjær Wågøy N0096B Øyasund Wågøy jr. F0013BD Øyaværing Wågøy jr. F0026BD Øyaværing Yamaha H0048FS Øyavåg Ylva M0006AE Øyavåg Ylva marie ST0122F Øyavåg Ymse T0066LK Øybas Ytrøy T0073T Øybas Ytterøy M0003VS Øybas Yvonn M0088F Øybuen Zacapa N0151L Øybuen Zander N0080VV Øybuen jr Zenta T0960T Øybåen Zeta N0043ME Øyen Ziku F0014G Øyfisk Ægir T0065LK Øyfisk Ærling F0195NK Øyfjell Ærvik F0072HV Øyfjord Æsøybuen T0046LK Øyfjord Øksnesværing N0016F Øygutt Økssund N0020HM Øygutt Øra N0023L Øygutt Øra N0065ME Øygutt Øragutt N0202ME Øygutt Ørna T0022I Øygutt DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 154

Øyholm N0032DA Øyvågen Øykamp T0026N Øyåd Øyland F0085G Ådne Øyliner F0011TN Åfjord Øynes SF0003H Åfjord Øynes SF0006H Åfjord Øynes F0002H Åke Øyolf F0009H Åke Øysjark N0096SO Åkernes Øyskjær N0030DA Åkerskjær Øyskjær N0126VV Åkerskjær Øysol N0026AH Åkerøyværing Øysteinson T0047T Åmøy Øytind Ø0004R Årefjordfisk Øytind Ø0005R Årefjordgutt 2 Øyulf T0041T Årnes Øyulf T0083S Årnes Øyulf ST0088F Årvak Øyviking T0108S Årvikgutt Øyvær T0221T Årviksand Øyvær T0039KD Årøybuen Øyvær R0002FD Ås sjøen Øyvær N0032BØ Åsan Øyværing N0024LN Åse Øyværing R0007S Åsgutt Øyværing T0209T Åsta b Øyværing F0104LB Åsvic Øyværing N0029LN Åta Øyværing 1

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 155

7 TEMPLATE INFORMATION AND COPYRIGHT

This document was drafted using the ‘MSC Surveillance Reporting Template v2.01’.

Template version control

Version Date of publication Description of amendment

1.0 08 October 2014 Date of issue

2.0 17 December 2018 Release alongside Fisheries Certification Process v2.1

2.01 28 March 2019 Minor document change for usability

A controlled document list of MSC program documents is available on the MSC website (msc.org)

Senior Policy Manager 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]

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 156

About DNV GL Driven by our purpose of safeguarding life, property and the environment, DNV GL enables organizations to advance the safety and sustainability of their business. We provide classification and technical assurance along with software and independent expert advisory services to the maritime, oil and gas, and energy industries. We also provide certification services to customers across a wide range of industries. Operating in more than 100 countries, our 16,000 professionals are dedicated to helping our customers make the world safer, smarter and greener.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-025 – www.dnvgl.com 157