MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES CERTIFICATION

FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Public Certification Report

June 2018

Certificate Code: F-ACO-0123 Client: Finland Fishermen’s Association / Suomen Ammattikalastajaliitto R.Y. Assessment Conducted by: Acoura Marine Ltd On behalf of Acoura Jim Andrews and Giuseppe Scarcella

Acoura Version V2.1 04/01/17 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Assessment Data Sheet

FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Public Certification Report

June 2018

CAB details Acoura Marine

Address 6 Redheughs Rigg Edinburgh EH12 9DQ

Phone/Fax 0131 335 6662

Email [email protected]

Contact name(s) Fisheries Department

Client details Finland Fishermen’s Association / Suomen Ammattikalastajaliitto R.Y.

Address Jordaksentie 124, FIN-07840, Lindkoski, Finland

Phone/Fax +358 400720690

Email [email protected]

Contact name(s) Kim Jordas

Assessment Team Team Leader Jim Andrews

P1 Assessor Giuseppe Scarcella

P2 Assessor Jim Andrews

P3 Assessor Jim Andrews

Copyright © 2018 by Acoura Marine All rights reserved. No portion of this report may be reproduced in any manner for use by any other MSC Conformity Assessment Body without the express written permission of Acoura Marine, and subject to such conditions specified by Acoura Marine in any such permission.

Page 2 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery Contents 1 Glossary ...... 12 2 Executive Summary ...... 14 3 Authorship and Peer Reviewers ...... 16 Assessment Team ...... 16 Peer Reviewers ...... 17 RBF Training ...... 17 4 Description of the Fishery ...... 18 Units of Assessment (UoA) ...... 18 Units of Assessment ...... 18 Other eligible fishers ...... 19 Overlapping fisheries ...... 20 Overlapping fisheries ...... 20 Final UoC(s) ...... 20 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data ...... 21 Scope of fishery ...... 23 Overview of the fishery ...... 24 Overview ...... 24 Trawl fishery ...... 25 Herring Trap fishery ...... 28 Principle One: Target Species Background ...... 35 Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) in the Baltic Sea (Subdivisions 22-32) ...... 35 Herring ...... 40 Fishery management in the Baltic Sea ...... 52 Multiannual plan for the stocks of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks, amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 ...... 54 Multispecies considerations for the central Baltic stocks: cod in Subdivisions 25– 32, herring in Subdivisions 25–29 and 32, and sprat in Subdivisions 22–32 ...... 56 Target Species as “Key Low Trophic Level (LTL)” Species ...... 60 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background ...... 62 Primary & secondary non-target species ...... 62 Endangered, Threatened & Protected (ETP)...... 80 Habitats ...... 99 Ecosystems ...... 107 Principle Three: Management System Background...... 110 Legal & Customary Framework ...... 110 Fishery management objectives...... 118 Management systems and processes ...... 120 Monitoring and evaluation ...... 127

Page 3 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

5 Evaluation Procedure ...... 128 Harmonised Fishery Assessment ...... 128 Harmonisation activities ...... 128 Comparison of scores ...... 129 Previous assessments ...... 131 Assessment Methodologies ...... 131 Evaluation Processes and Techniques ...... 132 Site Visits ...... 132 Consultations ...... 132 Evaluation Techniques ...... 132 Risk Based Framework (RBF) Use ...... 135 Scoring elements ...... 137 6 Traceability ...... 140 Eligibility Date ...... 140 Traceability within the Fishery ...... 140 Trawl fishery UoAs ...... 140 Trap fishery UoAs ...... 141 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 142 Parties eligible to use the fishery certificate ...... 143 Point of change of ownership of product ...... 143 List of eligible landing points ...... 143 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 144 7 Evaluation Results ...... 145 Principle Level Scores ...... 145 Summary of PI Level Scores ...... 145 Summary of Conditions ...... 145 Recommendations ...... 145 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement ...... 145 Changes in the fishery prior to and since Pre-Assessment ...... 146 8 References ...... 148 9 Appendix 1: Assessment Tree ...... 163 MSC Principles & Criteria ...... 163 10 Appendix 2 Scoring and Rationales ...... 166 Principle 1: Baltic Sprat Trawl Fishery (UoA 1) ...... 166 PI 1.1.1 – Stock status ...... 166 PI 1.1.1A - key LTL ...... 166 PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding ...... 168 PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy ...... 169 PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools ...... 173

Page 4 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring ...... 175 PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status...... 177 Principle 1: Central Baltic Herring Trawl and Trap net Fisheries (Subdivisions 25–29 and 32, excluding Gulf of Riga) (UoAs 6 and 7) ...... 179 PI 1.1.1A - key LTL ...... 179 PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding ...... 181 PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy ...... 182 PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools ...... 185 PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring ...... 187 PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status...... 189 Principle 1: Bothnian Sea Herring Trawl and Trap net Fisheries (UoAs 4 and 5) . 191 PI 1.1.1 – Stock status ...... 191 PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding ...... 193 PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy ...... 194 PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools ...... 197 PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring ...... 198 PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status...... 200 Bothnian Bay Herring Trawl and Trap net Fisheries (UoAs 2 and 3) ...... 201 PI 1.1.1 – Stock status ...... 201 PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding ...... 203 PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy ...... 204 PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools ...... 206 PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring ...... 208 PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status...... 210 Principle 2 ...... 211 PI 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome ...... 211 PI 2.1.2 – Primary species management strategy ...... 215 PI 2.1.3 – Primary species information ...... 219 PI 2.2.1 – Secondary species outcome ...... 221 PI 2.2.2 – Secondary species management strategy ...... 225 PI 2.2.3 – Secondary species information ...... 230 PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome ...... 233 PI 2.3.2 – ETP species management strategy ...... 241 PI 2.3.3 – ETP species information ...... 247 PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome ...... 250 PI 2.4.2 – Habitats management strategy ...... 254 PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information ...... 258 PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome ...... 261 PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management strategy ...... 263 PI 2.5.3 – Ecosystem information ...... 267

Page 5 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Principle 3 ...... 270 PI 3.1.1 – Legal and/or customary framework (All UoAs) ...... 270 PI 3.1.2 – Consultation, roles and responsibilities ...... 275 PI 3.1.3 – Long term objectives ...... 278 PI 3.2.1 Fishery-specific objectives ...... 280 PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes ...... 281 PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement ...... 285 PI 3.2.4 – Monitoring and management performance evaluation...... 287 Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs ...... 290 Principle 1: Bothnian Bay Herring ...... 290 Principle 2 ...... 295 11 Appendix 3: Conditions of Certification ...... 296 Conditions and Client Action Plan ...... 296 Conditions 1-7: PI 2.1.3 - Primary Species Information (UoAs 1-7) ...... 296 Conditions 8-14: PI 2.2.3 - Secondary Species Information (UoAs 1-7) ...... 297 Conditions 15-21: PI 2.3.3 - ETP Species Information (UoAs 1-7) ...... 298 Evidence of consultation on conditions ...... 301 12 Appendix 4: Peer Review Reports ...... 303 Peer Reviewer A ...... 303 Peer Reviewer B ...... 324 13 Appendix 5: Stakeholder submissions ...... 334 Written submissions ...... 334 Prior to Public Comment Draft Report ...... 334 Following Public Comment Draft Report ...... 334 Verbal submissions ...... 346 Meeting with client (Finnish Fishermen’s Association) ...... 346 Meeting with Natural Resources Institute (LUKE) ...... 350 Meeting with WWF-Finland ...... 353 Meeting with Ministry of Agriculture & Forestry ...... 356 Risk Based Framework Questionnaire ...... 360 Copy of questionnaire ...... 360 Questionnaire responses ...... 361 14 Appendix 6: Surveillance Frequency ...... 378 15 Appendix 7: List of vessels & Operators in the UOCs ...... 379 Vessels in the UoC ...... 379 Operators in the UoC ...... 380

Page 6 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

List of Figures Figure 1: Map of fishing areas in the Baltic Sea showing ICES Subdivisions and the extent of European Community waters. [Source: EC 2006]...... 19 Figure 2: Finnish Catch distribution (% of total catch) of Herring (left) and sprat (right) by rectangle for 2015...... 25 Figure 3: Schematic diagram of Finnish pelagic herring trawl. [Source: FFA]...... 26 Figure 4: Photograph of pelagic trawl being deployed from one of the UoA vessels. [Source: FFA]...... 26 Figure 5: Photograph of pelagic trawl “floaters” during fishing operations. [Source: FFA]. 27 Figure 6: Photograph of typical footrope of a pelagic trawl used in the UoA. [Source: FFA]. 27 Figure 7: Spatial distribution of traps near coast and inside the archipelago around Turku (a); Rauma (b) and Vaasa (c). [Source: Pre-Assessment Report] ...... 29 Figure 8: Drawing of a typical herring trap (9m aperture height) provided by a Finnish net manufacturer. Mesh size must be at least 16mm (diagonal). [Source: FFA]...... 30 Figure 9: Picture of trap nets secured to the seabed using poles. Picture shows trap operator attending that net, and the open top of the net pound in the foreground. [Source: FFA] ..... 31 Figure 10: Photographs of a “push up” or “pontoon” fish trap at the surface. [Source: FFA]. 32 Figure 11: Diagrams of “push up” or “pontoon” trap net. Upper diagram (from (Lundin 2014)) is a plan view of the net. Lower diagram is a profile view of a herring net (provided by FFA. The pontoon is underwater when the trap is operating and is floated to the surface so that fish can be removed...... 33 Figure 12: Pictures of trap fishermen pumping fish from a trap into a fishing vessel. Upper picture shows the use of the pump to collect the fish. Lower picture shows the fish aboard the fishing vessel, and the separated water being discharged from the vessel...... 34 Figure 13: Sprat in Subdivisions 22–32. Distribution of Baltic sprat from the acoustic survey (BIAS) in the 4th quarter 2014. The sprat panel include ages between 0 and 8. (Source: ICES, 2016a). 36 Figure 14: Sprat in subdivisions 22–32. Summary of stock assessment. SSB at spawning time in 2016 is predicted (Source: ICES, 2016a)...... 38 Figure 15: Sub-basin-wide distribution of herring, Clupea harengus. (HELCOM 2013a) .... 40 Figure 16: Herring in subdivisions 25–29 and 32, excluding the Gulf of Riga, from the BIAS survey (BIAS, in millions) in the 4th quarter 2015 (Source: ICES, 2016c)...... 41 Figure 17: Herring in subdivisions 25–29 and 32 (excluding Gulf of Riga herring). Summary of stock assessment (SSB in 2016 is predicted). (Source: ICES, 2016c)...... 44 Figure 18: Herring in SD 30. Weights at age in catches ...... 47 Figure 19: Herring in Subdivision 30. Summary of stock assessment (weights in thousand tonnes). Recruitment and SSB in 2016 are predicted. Recruitment, F, and SSB have confidence intervals (95%) in the plot. Assumed values are not shaded. (Source: (ICES 2016d). 48 Figure 20: Herring in Subdivision 30. Summary of stock assessment (weights in thousand tonnes). Recruitment and SSB in 2016 are predicted. Recruitment, F, and SSB have confidence intervals (95%) in the plot. Assumed values are not shaded. (Source: ICES, 2016e). 51 Figure 21: Setup of the Baltic SMS model. Cod is the only predator, and forages on small cod, herring, sprat, and zoobenthos, which is pooled as ‘other food’ [Source: ICES 2013b].56 Figure 22: Cod stomach content, by prey item, of cod caught in Subdivision 26 in March 1992–2010 (from Patokina et al. 2011)...... 58 Figure 23: Equilibrium yield simulated in SMS for various levels of fishing mortality for cod (0.4 to 0.6, 0.05 increment), herring F (0.25 to 0.35, 0.025 increment), and sprat F (0.25 to 0.35, 0.025 increment). The graph by species shows the distribution of yields for any given F shown on the X-axis, taking into account the range of Fs for the other species. F values is when recruitment is stochastic. HCR = Fixed F...... 59

Page 7 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Figure 24: Mass balance model of carbon in the Baltic proper, the Bothnian Sea and the Bothnia Bay ecosystems. Arrows represent the flow of carbon with the arrow pointing in the direction of transfer. These flows of carbon arrows are expressed as g C m year and the stocks inside symbols are expressed as g C m. The short, grey vertical arrow at the bottom of each organism compartment represents respiration. For the pelagic producers, DOM and sediment carbon compartments, unbalanced carbon flows are indicated by a question mark. Source: (Sandberg et al. 2000) ...... 61 Figure 25: Proportion of non-target species caught in the Bothnian Sea herring trawl fishery surveys, 1980-2014: left hand graph showing percentage of the catch; right hand graph showing tonnage of fish. [Source: Raitaniemi et al. 2017]...... 65 Figure 26: Biomass trends of Bothnian Bay vendace. Black and blue lines are outputs from different models. Bmsy is estimated at 1500t. [Source: Bureau Veritas Iberia 2016] ...... 77 Figure 27: Fishing mortality trends for Bothnian Bay vendace. Green lines show estimates with low seal predation; blue lines show no seal predation. Dashed lines show Fmsy estimates under different seal predation scenarios. [Source: Bureau Veritas Iberia 2016]...... 77 Figure 28: CPUE of stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus, (mean ± SE) in pelagic trawl hauls of the Baltic International Acoustic Survey in different parts of the Baltic Sea from 1980- 2011. [Source: Bergström et al. 2015]...... 78 Figure 29: Computer generated distribution maps for Osmerus eperlanus (European smelt), with modelled year 2100 native range map based on IPCC A2 emissions scenario. www.aquamaps.org, version of Aug. 2016. Web. Accessed 19 Oct. 2017...... 79 Figure 30: Map showing parties to the ASCOBANS agreement around the Baltic Sea. [Source: ASCOBANS 2017a]...... 82 Figure 31: Breeding pair numbers of Great Cormorant in the Baltic Sea from the pan- European Cormorant Census, 2012 [Source: Herrmann et al. 2014] ...... 87 Figure 32: Population development of cormorants in the northern Baltic from 1983-2013. [Source: Herrmann et al. 2014] ...... 87 Figure 33: Number of breeding pairs of cormorants in Finland, 2007-2016. [Source: SYKE 2016]. 88 Figure 34: Abundance of cormorants by sea area around Finland, 2007-2016. [Source: SYKE 2016]. 88 Figure 35: Location of cormorant breeding colonies along the Finnish coast in the summer of 2016. [Source: SYKE 2016]...... 89 Figure 36: Distribution of harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in the Baltic Sea, based on acoustic monitoring and modelling, shown for the months of August and February. The dashed line in map (a) shows the boundary between the two summer clusters. [Source: SAMBAH 2016]...... 92 Figure 37: Map showing the location of seal conservation areas that were established by the Government of Finland in 2001. (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2007) ...... 94 Figure 38: Distribution of harbour seals, Phoca vitulina vitulina, in the Baltic Sea. [Source: (HELCOM 2013g)]...... 96 Figure 39: The number of grey seals counted in censuses for different areas of the Baltic Sea, 1990-2004. (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2007) ...... 97 Figure 40: Distribution of grey seals, Halichoerus grypus, in the Baltic Sea [Source: HELCOM 2013a]...... 97 Figure 41: Distribution of Baltic ringed seals, Phoca hispida botnica, in the Baltic Sea [Source: HELCOM 2013d]...... 98 Figure 42: Annual estimate of the Baltic ringed seal population in the Bothnian Bay, 1987- 2006. (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2007)...... 99 Figure 43: Map showing the distribution of marine habitats in the Baltic Sea. [Source: HELCOM 2016]...... 102 Figure 44: Map showing the location of marine Natura 2000 sites and HELCOM MPAs in the Baltic Sea. [Source: HELCOM 2016]...... 105 Figure 45: Map showing the location of HELCOM MPAs in the Baltic Sea and spatial distribution of Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) data for all fishing types. Note that white areas

Page 8 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

on the map may indicate both no data being available or no fishing by vessels equipped with VMS. [Source: HELCOM 2016]...... 106 Figure 46: Map illustrating the relationship between the salinity of bottom waters (shading) and the distribution of marine species (dark blue circles) and freshwater species (light blue circles) in the Baltic Sea. [Source: HELCOM 2010]...... 107 Figure 47: Representation of key ecosystem interactions in the Central Baltic Sea [Source: Tomczak et al, 2010] ...... 108 Figure 48: Diagram illustrating the major changes in the Baltic Sea ecosystem during the 20th Century. [Source: BalticSTERN 2013]...... 109 Figure 49: Map showing boundary of privately owned waters in Finland, bounded by the red lines. [Source: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland] ...... 118 Figure 50: Diagram summarising the interactions between EU institutions in the management of EU fisheries. [Source: EC 2017] ...... 123 Figure 51: VMS tracks of vessels that operate within the trawl UoAs (UOA 1, 2, 4, 6). [Source: ELY] ...... 126 Figure 52: Graphic summarising MSC Principles and Performance Indicators [Source: Marine Stewardship Council 2016] ...... 163

Page 9 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

List of Tables Table 1: Proposed Unit of Assessment for the FFA Baltic sprat fishery ...... 18 Table 2: Proposed Unit of Assessment for the FFA Baltic herring fishery ...... 18 Table 3: TAC and Catch Data: Baltic Sprat (UoA 1) ...... 21 Table 4: TAC and Catch Data: Bothnian Bay & Bothnian Sea Herring ...... 21 Table 5: TAC and Catch Data: Central Baltic Herring ...... 22 Table 6: Sprat in subdivisions 22–32. The basis for the catch options...... 35 Table 7: Sprat in subdivisions 22–32. History of ICES advice, the agreed TAC, and ICES estimates of catch. Weights in thousand tonnes (kt)...... 39 Table 8: Herring in subdivisions 25–29 and 32 (excluding Gulf of Riga herring). The basis for the catch options...... 41 Table 9: Herring in subdivisions 25–29 and 32 (excluding Gulf of Riga herring). History of ICES advice, the agreed TAC, and ICES estimates of catches. Weights in thousand tonnes (kt)...... 45 Table 10: Herring in Subdivision 30. The basis for the catch options...... 46 Table 11: Herring in SD 30. Sampling by country in 2015...... 46 Table 12: Herring in Subdivision 30. History of ICES advice, the agreed TAC, and ICES estimates of catch. Weights in thousand tonnes (kt)...... 49 Table 13: Herring in Subdivision 31. The basis for the catch options...... 50 Table 14: Herring in Subdivision 31. History of ICES advice, the agreed TAC, and ICES estimates of catch. Weights in thousand tonnes...... 52 Table 15: Reference points for Baltic demersal and small pelagic stocks outlined in the multiannual plan (Regulation EU 2016/1139; EC 2016) ...... 55 Table 16: Reference points from the SMS mode and as used in the single species advice. The “~” in front of the MSY values means “around” as no fixed value for the reference points exist in a multispecies context. [Source: ICES 2013b] ...... 57 Table 17: Summary of RBF questionnaire responses relating to non-target species in the Units of Assessment. [Source: section 13.3 of this report]...... 64 Table 18: Landings data for herring traps (pound nets and push up nets) for the period 2012-2016 (in kg), showing the percentage of each species recorded in landings. [Source: LUKE, pers. Comm., 2017]...... 67 Table 19: Landings data for Finnish pelagic trawl vessels targeting sprats for the period 2012-2016 (in kg), showing the percentage of each species recorded in landings. Rose shading indicates non-target species making up more than 5% of landings [Source: LUKE, pers. comm., 2017]...... 70 Table 20: Landings data for Finnish pelagic trawl vessels targeting herring for the period 2012-2016 (in kg), showing the percentage of each species recorded in landings. Rose shading indicates non-target species making up more than 5% of landings [Source: LUKE, pers. comm, 2017]...... 71 Table 21: Summary of the main and minor non-target species for each Unit of Assessment based on analysis of landings data (from Table 20)...... 75 Table 22: List of Regionally Extinct (RE) and threatened (CR; Critically Endangered, EN; Endangered, VU; Vulnerable) species in the Baltic Sea and their threat status. [Source: HELCOM 2013a]...... 84 Table 23: List of the ETP species considered in this assessment, summarising the basis for their selection...... 85 Table 24: Threat matrix for marine mammals in the Baltic Sea. Red shading (“H”) indicates evidence or a strong likelihood of negative population impacts ; yellow shading (“M”) indicates a strong likelihood of negative impacts at the individual level, but population impacts unclear; green shading (“L”) indicates weak evidence of negative impacts on populations or individuals. [Source: ICES 2015]...... 91 Table 25: HELCOM Red List of Baltic Sea biotopes and habitats (showing just the Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable biotopes & habitats). [Source: HELCOM 2013]. 104

Page 10 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Table 26: Table summarising the roles and responsibilities of key organisations involved in the management of Baltic Sea fisheries...... 121 Table 27: Comparison of assessment scores awarded for the LFPO Sprat Trawl Fishery and the FFA Sprat UoA...... 130 Table 28: Summary of methodology used in this fishery assessment ...... 131 Table 29: List of meetings carried out during the site visit, with date, activity and attendance. 132 Table 30: Summary of rationale for assessment of the two units of certification...... 134 Table 31: Summary of the Performance Indicators assessed using the Risk Based Framework (RBF) and the rationale for use in each case...... 135 Table 32: Scoring elements considered in this assessment...... 137 Table 33: Traceability Factors within the FFA trawl fishery UoAs (1, 2, 4, 6) ...... 140 Table 34: Traceability Factors within the FFA Trap fishery UoAs (3, 5, 7) ...... 141 Table 35: List of the main ports in Finland (from a list of over 90 ports monitored by ELY), which accounted for landings of more than 500t pa in the period 2014-16. Average annual landings of fish to each port are shown; these ports account for 96.3% of all landings in Finland. [Source: FFA]...... 144 Table 36: Final Principle Scores ...... 145 Table 37: Summary of Conditions ...... 145 Table 38: Scores for the FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery UoAs. Scores shaded green attain the unconditional pass level. Yellow shading indicates a conditional pass, and red shading would indicate a fail...... 147 Table 39: Principle 1 CA Scoring Template - Target Species ...... 291 Table 40: PSA Rationale Table ...... 292 Table 41: Productivity Susceptibility Analysis for herring, Clupea harengus, in the Bothnian Bay (copy of worksheet from MSC PSA spreadsheet)...... 294 Table 42: Surveillance programme...... 378 Table 43: List of vessels eligible to operate in the certified sprat and herring trawl fisheries. 379 Table 44: List of operators eligible to fish in the MSC certified herring trap fisheries. ... 380

Page 11 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery 1 Glossary

ASCOBANS (Bonn Convention’s) Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans in the Atlanto-Scandian and Baltic. ACOM ICES Advisory Committee ACFA ICES Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture BALTFISH Baltic Sea Fisheries Forum (established by HELCOM) BalticSTERN Baltic Systems Tools and Ecological-economic evaluation – a Research Network BITS Baltic International Trawl Survey Bpa Precautionary reference point for spawning stock biomass Blim Limit biomass reference point, below which recruitment is expected to be impaired. Bmsy Biomass reference point associated with MSY for a fish stock. CEFAS Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (UK) CFCA EU Community Fisheries Control Agency CFP EU Common Fisheries Policy CR Council Regulation EC European Commission EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EFF European Fisheries Fund ELY Elinkeino-, liikenne- ja ympäristökeskus (Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment) ETP Endangered, threatened and protected species EU European Union F Fishing Mortality Flim Limit reference point for fishing mortality that is expected to drive the stock to the biomass limit Fpa Precautionary reference point of fishing mortality expected to maintain the SSB at the precautionary reference point Fmsy Reference point of fishing mortality expected to maintain the SSB at MSY FAM MSC’s Fisheries Assessment Methodology FAO United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation HAWG ICES Herring Assessment Working Group HCR Harvest Control Rule HELCOM Helsinki Commission IBSFC International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission (ceased to exist on 1st Jan 2007) ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea ITQ Individual Transferable Quota IUU Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing LOA Length Over All (of fishing vessels LUKE Luonnonvarakeskus (Natural Resources Institute Finland) MAF Ministry of Agriculture & Forestry MAP Multi-Annual Plan MCS Monitoring, Control and Surveillance MSC Marine Stewardship Council MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield NEAFC The North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission NEA North East Atlantic NGO Non-Governmental Organisation OSPAR Oslo-Paris Convention (Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic) PI MSC Performance Indicator

Page 12 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PO Producer Organisation RAC Regional Advisory Council RSW Refrigerated Sea Water SAWG ICES Stock Assessment Working Group SI Scoring Issue (MSC) SSB Spawning Stock Biomass SLU Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences) TAC Total Allowable Catch UoC Unit of Certification UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea VMS Vessel Monitoring System VPA Virtual Population Analysis WKBALT ICES Benchmark Workshop on Baltic Multispecies WKPELA ICES Benchmark Workshop on Pelagic stocks WGBFAS ICES Baltic Fisheries Assessment Working Group WGECO ICES Working Group on the ecosystem effects of Fishing Activities WGMME ICES Working Group on Marine Mammal Ecology WGRED ICES Working Group on Ecosystem Description WGWIDE ICES Working Group on Widely Distributed Stocks WWF World Wide Fund for Nature

Page 13 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery 2 Executive Summary

» This report provides details of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) assessment process for the Finland Fishermen’s Association Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery. The assessment process began on 1st February 2017 and was concluded by 25th June 2018.

» A comprehensive programme of stakeholder consultations were carried out as part of this assessment, complemented by a full and thorough review of relevant literature and data sources.

» A rigorous assessment of the fishery against the MSC Principles and Criteria was undertaken by the assessment team and a detailed and fully referenced scoring rationale is provided in the assessment tree provided in section 10 of this report.

» The Eligibility Date is the date of certification, 25h June 2018. The assessment team for this fishery assessment comprised of Jim Andrews who acted as team leader and primary Principle 2 & 3 specialist; Giuseppe Scarcella who was primarily responsible for evaluation of Principle 1.

Description of the Units of Assessment » This report considers seven Units of Assessment, differentiated from one another by fish species, stocks, and fishing methods: » There are two target species of fish (herring, Clupea harengus and sprats, Sprattus sprattus). » The herring fishery spans 3 herring stocks (Central Baltic, Bothnian Sea, Bothnian Bay); there is just one sprat stock. » The sprat fishery under assessment is prosecuted using pelagic trawls. » The herring fishery under assessment is prosecuting by two fishing methods: pelagic trawls, and coastal fish traps.

» The client has issued an announcement about certificate sharing. The UoA comprises members of the FFA and other eligible fishing organisations that agree to comply with any practices upon which certification relies.

Fishery strengths » The sprat and herring stocks in the Baltic Sea are regularly surveyed by Baltic coastal states and are subject to annual assessment by ICES. All the target fish stocks have therefore scored well against MSC Principle 1.

» The available evidence is that all the UoAs have very little impact on marine habitats, non-target species, Endangered Threatened and Protected (ETP) species and ecosystems. There is, however, some uncertainty about the exact level of interaction between the UoAs (particularly the trap UoAs) and both non-target and ETP species. As a result of this, the UoAs have all scored well against most of the Performance Indicators in Principle 2, apart from those concerned with quantifiable impacts on non- target fish species and ETP species.

» There is a well-founded and robust fisheries management framework in place based on the EU Common Fisheries Policy, and which is implemented in Finland by

Page 14 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Government Institutions with clear duties and responsibilities. This has resulted in the UoAs all scoring well with respect to Principle 3.

Fishery weaknesses » The key weakness identified in the UoAs considered in this fishery assessment is the lack of quantitative information describing the interaction of each UoA with non-target fish and ETP species.

Determination » On completion of the assessment and scoring process, the assessment team concluded that the fishery should be certified for a period of 5 years, subject to annual surveillance audits.

Conditions & Recommendations » The fishery scored well against most Performance Indicators but returned scores of less than 80 for three Performance Indictors for all even UoAs (these PIs were all concerned with information about catch composition of primary and secondary species, and the extent of interactions with ETP species). This has resulted in 21 conditions of certification (conditions for 3 performance indicators for 7 Units of Assessment).

Acoura Marine Ltd. confirms that prior to carrying out this assessment it was determined that the FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery meets the entry criteria set by MSC (i.e. it is considered to be “within scope”).

Page 15 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery 3 Authorship and Peer Reviewers Assessment Team All team members listed below have completed all requisite training and signed all relevant forms for assessment team membership on this fishery.

Assessment team leader: Jim Andrews

Primarily responsible for assessment under Principles 2 & 3

Jim Andrews has over 20 years’ experience working in marine fisheries and environmental management. His previous experience includes running the North Western and North Wales Sea Fisheries Committee as its Chief Executive from 2001 to 2005, and previously working as the SFC's Marine Environment Liaison Officer. During this time, he was responsible for the regulation, management and assessment of inshore finfish and shellfish stocks along a 1,500km coastline. He has an extensive practical knowledge of both fisheries and environmental management and enforcement under UK and EC legislation. Jim has formal legal training & qualifications, with a special interest in the policy, governance and management of fisheries impacts on marine ecosystems. He has worked as an assessor and lead assessor on more than 20 MSC certifications within the UK, in Europe and in India since 2007. In 2008 he worked with the MSC and WWF on one of the pilot assessments using the MSC Risk Based Assessment Framework (RBF). Jim has carried out numerous MSC Chain of Custody assessments within the UK.

Dr Giuseppe Scarcella

Primarily responsible for assessment under Principle 1.

Giuseppe Scarcella is an experienced fishery scientist and population analyst and modeller, with wide knowledge and experience in the assessment of demersal stocks. He holds a first degree in Marine Biology and Oceanography (110/110) from the Unversità Politecnica delle Marche, and a Ph.D. in marine Ecology and Biology from the same university, based on a thesis "Age and growth of two rockfish in the Adriatic Sea". After his degree he was offered a job as project scientist in several research programs about the structure and composition of fish assemblage in artificial reefs, off-shore platform and other artificial habitats in the Italian Research Council – Institute of Marine Science of Ancona (CNR-ISMAR). During the years of employment at CNR-ISMAR he has gained experience in benthic ecology, statistical analyses of fish assemblage evolution in artificial habitats, fisheries ecology and impacts of fishing activities, stock assessment, otholith analysis, population dynamic and fisheries management. During the same years he attended courses of uni- multivariate statistics and stock assessment. He is also actively participating in the scientific advice process of FAO GFCM in the Mediterranean Sea. At the moment he is member of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries for the European Commission (STECF).

He is author and co-author of more than 30 scientific paper peer reviewed journals and more than 150 national and international technical reports, most of them focused on the evolution of fish assemblages in artificial habitats and stock assessment of demersal species. For some years now, Dr Scarcella has been working in fisheries certification applying the Marine Stewardship Council standard for sustainable fisheries, currently concentrating on Principle 1 of the Standard. Furthermore, Dr Scarcella holds the credential as Fishery team leader (MSC v2.0).

Page 16 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Peer Reviewers Peer reviewers used for this report were Andrew Brand and Bert Keus. A summary CV for each is available in the Assessment downloads section of the fishery’s entry on the MSC website and these are reproduced below.

Dr Andrew Brand - Dr Andy Brand worked for the University of Liverpool for 40 years on the academic staff of the Port Erin Marine Laboratory, Isle of Man, retiring in 2006 as Director of the Laboratory. During this time, he developed large research programmes on the biology, ecology, aquaculture and fisheries of bivalve molluscs, especially scallops, and on the environmental impact of scallop dredging. Andy has had extensive fishery management and environmental assessment consultancy experience, including contracts with government departments and industry, and has been a member of ICES Working Groups on herring, scallops and ecosystem effects of fishing. In addition to work in the Irish Sea, he has advised on scallops and fisheries management in Alaska, Argentina, Australia, Bermuda, Chile, Ireland, France and the Philippines. He is now an Honorary Senior Fellow of the University of Liverpool and works as an independent shellfisheries consultant. He has recent experience as an Assessor, Auditor and Peer Reviewer for Marine Stewardship Council certifications of scallop, mussel, oyster, various clam and herring fisheries in Wales, Isle of Man, the Faroes, Ireland, Denmark, Holland, Spain, India, Japan, USA and Canada.

Andy has passed MSC training and has no Conflict of Interest in relation to this fishery.

Bert Keus - Bert Keus is an independent consultant based in Leiden, the Netherlands. He holds degrees in biology and law, and has previously held the position of Head of the Environmental Division of the Dutch Fisheries Board, and research fellow with the fisheries division of the Agricultural Economics Research Institute of Holland (LEI-DLO). Over the years 2003 and 2004 he managed fishing and processing companies in the Gambia handling fish from industrial and artisanal fisheries, and he maintains his contacts with the Gambian seafood industry. In addition, however, he has long association with the shellfish fisheries of the Wadden Sea and neighbouring areas of northwest Europe, and he has been involved in efforts to achieve MSC certification of the North Sea brown shrimp fishery – acting as technical advisor to this multi-stakeholder initiative, and sitting on the project’s management board. Through this work and several other MSC certifications he has become particularly familiar with the MSC certification process (and indirectly with the GASS/DD assessment methodology). His research work on fish biology and population dynamics is widely published, and between the years 1998 and 2003 he was a Member of the European Sustainable Use Specialist Group, Fisheries Working Group of IUCN.

Bert has passed MSC training and has no Conflict of Interest in relation to this fishery.

These Peer Reviewers have been selected because they have expertise relevant to both herring fisheries and the Baltic Sea which enables them to ensure the scores and rationales given by the assessment team have taken account of all the available information and can be scientifically justified. RBF Training Jim Andrews and Giuseppe Scarcella have been fully trained in the use of the MSC’s Risk Based Framework (RBF) and have used this assessment approach in several MSC assessments.

Page 17 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery 4 Description of the Fishery Units of Assessment (UoA)

Units of Assessment Acoura Marine Ltd confirms that the fishery is within scope of the MSC certification sought following the assessment as defined below. The geographic areas referred to are shown on a chart in Figure 1.

4.1.1.1 UoA1: Sprat trawl fishery There is a single Unit of Assessment for the FFA sprat trawl fishery. This is defined in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Proposed Unit of Assessment for the FFA Baltic sprat fishery

Species: European sprat (Sprattus sprattus) Stock: Baltic Sea (ICES Subdivisions 22-32) Geographical area: ICES Subdivisions 22-32 Harvest method: Pelagic trawl Client Group: Finland Fishermen’s Association / Suomen Ammattikalastajaliitto R.Y. Other Eligible Fishers: Other trawl operators in the Baltic Sea based on agreement of code of conduct and contribution to costs (to be agreed).

This Unit of Assessment was used as it is compliant with client wishes for assessment coverage and is in full conformity with MSC criteria.

4.1.1.2 UoA 2-7: Herring fisheries There are 6 Units of Assessment for the FFA herring fishery. These are distinguished from one another by their stock (Bothnian Bay, Bothnian Sea and Central Baltic), and the harvest method (pelagic trawl and fish trap). The Units of Assessment are defined in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Proposed Unit of Assessment for the FFA Baltic herring fishery

Species: Herring (Clupea harengus) Stock: Bothnian Bay (ICES Bothnian Sea (ICES Central Baltic (ICES Subdivision 31). Subdivision 30). Subdivisions 25, 26, 27, 28.2, 29, 32). Geographical area: Bothnian Bay Bothnian Sea Central Baltic Unit of Assessment 2 3 4 5 6 7 Harvest method: Pelagic Fish trap Pelagic Fish trap Pelagic Fish trap trawl trawl trawl Client Group: Finland Fishermen’s Association / Suomen Ammattikalastajaliitto R.Y. Other Eligible Other trawl operators in the Baltic Sea based on agreement of code of Fishers: conduct and contribution to costs (to be agreed).

These Units of Assessment were used as they are compliant with client wishes for assessment coverage and are in full conformity with MSC criteria.

Page 18 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Figure 1: Map of fishing areas in the Baltic Sea showing ICES Subdivisions and the extent of European Community waters. [Source: EC 2006].

Other eligible fishers The certification that is considered is for Finnish fishers targeting herring and sprat in ICES subdivisions 25-32 (excluding the Gulf of Riga (Subdivision 28.1)) using trawl and trap nets. This fishery operates under the EU Common Fisheries policy as do the fisheries of other EU member states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Germany, Denmark and Sweden). Trap nets operate in the coastal zones for which there are special access rules favouring the Finnish fishers and other fleets do not have access to these waters. Hence the ‘other eligible fishers’ are confined to trawl fleets.

Other eligible fisheries include a group of Finnish trawl fisheries for herring and sprat in 25- 32. These trawlers are not member of the Client’s organisation and about 30% of the total Finnish herring & sprat TAC is taken by this group of trawlers. This can vary year by year. This group of trawlers includes fishing vessels based in Åland and vessels owned by Estonian companies. These vessels operate under the Finnish flag and have quota issued by the

Page 19 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Finnish authorities. Thus, they follow the Finnish law and regulations. The catches are from the geographical area in the Unit of Certification.

There are trawl fisheries in other EU countries for herring and sprat that exploit the same stocks and work under the EU CFP as do the Finnish fleets. However, in principle these carry a different flag and are subject to other national management systems and therefore are not eligible although in many respects the fundamental conditions under which the fisheries operate are identical. These include:-

• Swedish fisheries in 25-32 • Estonian fisheries in 25-29 + 32 • Latvian fisheries in 25-29 • Lithuanian fisheries 25-29 • Polish fisheries in 25-29 • German fisheries in 25-29 • Danish fisheries in 25-29

Several of these fleets also fish for herring in the Western Baltic (ICES Subdivision 22-24) which is not part of the herring UoA. There is a Russian fishery in 26 and 32 which exploits some of the same stocks as do the Finnish fisheries, but which operate under a different management system and therefore is not eligible for inclusion in the assessment.

A description of these fisheries is contained in the most recent ICES Working Group report on Baltic Fisheries Assessment (ICES 2016a).

Overlapping fisheries A description of these fisheries is contained in the most recent ICES Working Group report on Baltic Fisheries Assessment (ICES 2016a).

Overlapping fisheries As noted above, there are several trawl fisheries that overlap with the trawl fishery UoA. The coastal fisheries along the Finnish coast have no overlap with other fisheries. Final UoC(s) (PCR ONLY) The final Unit of Certification for this fishery is as defined below. This has not changed throughout the process. Alternatively provide rationale for why this has changed.

Page 20 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data The TAC and Catch data for each of the stocks in the UoAs are summarised in the tables below.

Table 3: TAC and Catch Data: Baltic Sprat (UoA 1)

TAC Year 2016 Amount 202,320t

UoA share of TAC* Year 2016 Amount 12,243tt

UoC share of total TAC* Year 2016 Amount 12,243t

Total green weight catch by Year (most 2016 Amount 10,450t UoC recent)

Year (second 2015 Amount 9,686t most recent)

Notes * This is the TAC following swaps with Sweden, Germany and Latvia totalling 898t.

Table 4: TAC and Catch Data: Bothnian Bay & Bothnian Sea Herring

TAC Year 2016 Amount 120,872t

UoA share of TAC* Year 2016 Amount 131,579t*

Trawl Fishery (UoC2 & 4)

Total green weight catch by Year (most 2016 Amount 72,627t UoC recent)

Year (second 2015 Amount 63,112t most recent)

Trap Fishery (UoC3 & 5)

Total green weight catch by Year (most 2016 Amount 1,733t UoC recent)

Year (second 2015 Amount 2,136t most recent)

Notes * The TAC for 2016 includes 32,480t of unfished herring TAC carried forward from 2015 in accordance with EU Regulation 2072/2015.

Page 21 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Table 5: TAC and Catch Data: Central Baltic Herring

TAC Year 2016 Amount 177,505t

UoA share of TAC Year 2016 Amount 40,904t

Trawl Fishery (UoC6)

Total green weight catch by Year (most 2016 Amount 20,673t UoC recent)

Year (second 2015 Amount 19,808t most recent)

Trap Fishery (UoC7)

Total green weight catch by Year (most 2016 Amount 848t UoC recent)

Year (second 2015 Amount 981t most recent)

Page 22 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Scope of fishery Acoura Marine considers that the UoAs described above are within the scope set out in the MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements v.2.0 at §7.4 et seq.

Specifically:-

• Target taxa §7.4.1.1 – the fishery does not target amphibians, reptiles, birds or mammals. • Destructive fishing practices §7.4.1.2 – no destructive fishing practices (explosives or poisons) are used. • Controversial unilateral exemptions §7.4.1.3 – the fishery is not subject to any “controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement”. • Controversial disputes §7.4.2 – there are mechanisms in place for resolving disputes between the fishery and the management system. • Enhanced fishery §7.4.3– this is not an enhanced fishery. • Introduced Species Based Fisheries §7.4.4 – neither herring nor sprats are introduced species. • Inseparable or practically inseparable catches §7.4.13 – there are no non- target IPI species in the UoAs.

The fishery is therefore eligible for assessment against the MSC Standard.

Page 23 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Overview of the fishery

Overview In terms of its value, Baltic herring and sprat are the most important catch species in commercial fishery. Other important catches include vendace, European whitefish, cod, pikeperch, perch and salmon. Nearly a third of the herring catch is caught in the Bothnian Sea and less than a fifth in the Finnish Archipelago Sea.

Most of the Baltic herring catch and almost all of the sprat catch is used as fodder. The fishing of Baltic herring and sprat is highly concentrated; a small number of fishing vessels bring in most of the catch.

The UoC covers all fishing operators targeting herring and sprat in the areas described in section 4.1.1, and having membership in the Finnish Fishermen´s Association, using trawl and fish-trap as harvesting methods and operating under Finnish and EU management regime.

The Unit of Assessment includes in addition fishing vessels that are not members of the Finnish Fishermen´s Association but operating under the Finnish flag and having quota issued by the Finnish authorities and following the Finnish law and regulations.

The Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Russia, Poland, Germany, Denmark and Sweden) are all involved in fishing herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea, Table 3, but vessels not operating under Finnish flag are not part of the UoA.

There are separate TACs for the following units of assessment:-

- Herring in the Bothnian Bay and the Bothnian Sea (Subdivisions 30+31). - Herring in the Central Baltic Sea and Gulf of Finland (Subdivisions 25, 26, 27, 28.2, 29 and 32). - Sprat in the Baltic Sea (Subdivisions 22-32).

The spatial distribution of the Finnish catches in 2015 of herring and sprat is available in Figure 2.

Page 24 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Figure 2: Finnish Catch distribution (% of total catch) of Herring (left) and sprat (right) by rectangle for 2015.

Trawl fishery

Both herring and sprat trawl fisheries use pelagic trawl gear. In the Baltic herring fishery, pelagic trawl fishery exploits younger part of the Baltic herring stock and mid-water trawling is directed to more adult part of the stock Pelagic trawling is used to exploit Baltic herring stocks in the Baltic Main Basin, the Archipelago Sea, the Gulf of Bothnia and the Gulf of Finland.

Only a few vessels target sprat directly and sprat is the main by-catch in Baltic herring fishery. In recent years, there has not been any by-catch of cod in pelagic trawl fishery. Usually Baltic herring fishing is conducted as a single trawling. In autumn, early winter, and spring pelagic pair trawling is used for industrial purposes. Many pelagic trawlers transfer between the Bothnian Bay (SD 31) and the Bothnian Sea (SD 30), the Bothnian Sea and the Åland Sea (SD 29), and between the Gulf of Finland (SD 32) and the Åland Sea depending on fishing possibilities and ice cover during the winter. Mid-water trawls are used both for Baltic herring and cod. The main target is Baltic herring.

During the site visit the assessment team made very specific queries about the type of gear used in the Finnish herring and sprat trawl fisheries because ICES Working Group reports have historically reported that “demersal” trawl gear is used in the Finnish herring trawl fishery (see, for instance, ICES 2016a at page 41). It became apparent during discussions with LUKE scientists that the Finnish term for a mid-water pelagic trawl and for a demersal trawl are interchangeable and had resulted in a misunderstanding in the LUKE reports to ICES. LUKE have subsequently confirmed that they will remedy this misunderstanding in future reports to ICES (Raitaniemi 2017).

A schematic diagram of the trawl type used in this fishery is shown in Figure 3. The trawls are typically deployed from single vessels, but some of the smaller trawlers in the UoA also fish as pairs using the same type of gear. Photographs of the trawl being shot from a vessel and towed behind it are shown in Figure 4 & Figure 5. The trawls used in the herring fishery are of a light construction, and are not designed to contact the seabed (see Figure 6).

Page 25 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Figure 3: Schematic diagram of Finnish pelagic herring trawl. [Source: FFA].

Figure 4: Photograph of pelagic trawl being deployed from one of the UoA vessels. [Source: FFA].

Page 26 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Figure 5: Photograph of pelagic trawl “floaters” during fishing operations. [Source: FFA].

Figure 6: Photograph of typical footrope of a pelagic trawl used in the UoA. [Source: FFA].

Page 27 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Herring Trap fishery Herring traps are made of netting and fixed to the seabed in shallow coastal waters. The trap consists of a funnel shaped net which leads to either a box-shaped net trap known as a “pound” or a submerged “pontoon trap”. The overall size of the trap may vary between locations (according to water depth and the prevailing conditions).

Trap nets are deployed at locations and at times to favour the capture of the target species; this is also facilitated by the design of the net. Herring nets are typically smaller and simpler in construction than the nets used to catch salmon and whitefish, and are set in deeper water than perch nets (a description of different types of Baltic fish traps is provided in Lundin 2014). Herring traps are set in areas where herring congregate to spawn in the spring.

Locations where herring traps are used in the different UoAs are shown in Figure 7 below. Most of the herring traps are set around islands in the Archipelago Sea in the mouth of the Gulf of Finland, around the port of Turku.

There are some regional and technical variations in trap design in Finland. A short description of the types of net used in the trap fishery is provided below.

Page 28 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Figure 7: Spatial distribution of traps near coast and inside the archipelago around Turku (a); Rauma (b) and Vaasa (c). [Source: Pre-Assessment Report]

4.5.3.1 Pound trap nets Most of the traps used in the Finnish herring trap fishery are of the traditional “pound” trap net design. These traps comprise of a “leading” net and a funnel shaped “adapter” which leads through a narrow aperture to a rectangular fish “pound” in which the fish become trapped (see Figure 8). The net mesh size is set under EU legislation (EC 2005) and must be at least 16mm (diagonal measurement). Typically, the traps use an internode (knot to knot) length of 13mm for the “wings” of the net and 12mm for the pound (equating to a diagonal mesh size of 26mm and 24mm respectively.

In the Archipelago Sea area, where most of the herring trap fishery takes place, the traps are secured to the seabed using poles that are driven into the soft seabed (Figure 9). The poles may be up to 10m long, depending on the water depth.

Page 29 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

(a) Side view (Veden pinta = sea surface; Meren pohja = seabed)

(b) Plan View

Figure 8: Drawing of a typical herring trap (9m aperture height) provided by a Finnish net manufacturer. Mesh size must be at least 16mm (diagonal). [Source: FFA].

Page 30 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Figure 9: Picture of trap nets secured to the seabed using poles. Picture shows trap operator attending that net, and the open top of the net pound in the foreground. [Source: FFA]

In the Bothnian Bay and Bothnian Sea some traps may be secured to the seabed using steel anchors and ropes rather than using poles. This anchorage method can be used on sand, gravel and mixed stone seabeds. Around 10% of traps are anchored using this method. The overall net design is the same as the trap nets secured with poles, but with a horizontal net “lip” on the inside of the pound which is otherwise open at the surface.

Depending on the size of the trap there are typically between 20 and 45 poles or anchors used to secure the trap.

Page 31 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

4.5.3.2 Pontoon / Push Up Traps In addition to the traditional nets which use a “pound” to trap fish, two operators have started using “push up” traps (also known as “pontoon” traps). These traps have a similar design of lead and funnel net to the conventional trap designs, but differ in having a submerged pound. The key advantage of this design is that it allows seal exclusion devices to be used, which minimise depredation losses and also seal bycatch.

The pontoon net uses a cylindrical fish trap which typically has two chambers, separated by a net funnel with seal exclusion device at its opening. The trap chambers are supported on a floating pontoon frame, with hollow plastic floats that can be flooded (causing the pontoon and trap to sink below the surface) and then filled with compressed air (to recover the trap to the surface). Herring pontoon traps feature a long sock-shaped net which fills with fish as the chamber is lifted. The fish are recovered from this net either by pumping them aboard a vessel or using a crane (Lundin 2014).

Photographs of this trap type in use are shown in Figure 10 and a schematic diagram of the gear is provided in Figure 11.

Figure 10: Photographs of a “push up” or “pontoon” fish trap at the surface. [Source: FFA].

Page 32 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Figure 11: Diagrams of “push up” or “pontoon” trap net. Upper diagram (from (Lundin 2014)) is a plan view of the net. Lower diagram is a profile view of a herring net (provided by FFA. The pontoon is underwater when the trap is operating and is floated to the surface so that fish can be removed.

4.5.3.3 Trap net fishing operations All types of trap net (whether secured with poles or anchors, and whether using a traditional “pound” or a “push up” net) are temporarily anchored. Nets, poles and anchors are all removed from the sea in wintertime. It is an offence to leave the equipment in the sea over the winter, and sea ice would cause permanent damage to any equipment over the winter.

Each operator can only deploy their trap with the permission of the riparian owner, and they are required to register the trap location with ELY.

Fish are recovered from the traps using pumps (Figure 12). There is no sorting of fish: all of the fish are recovered from the net and pumped on to the fishing vessel and landed to nearby ports. The vessels used in the fishery are small open vessels with no icing or refrigeration facilities, so catches have to be landed quickly to avoid spoilage.

Page 33 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Figure 12: Pictures of trap fishermen pumping fish from a trap into a fishing vessel. Upper picture shows the use of the pump to collect the fish. Lower picture shows the fish aboard the fishing vessel, and the separated water being discharged from the vessel.

Trap net fishing in Finland covers a variety of trap net types for Baltic herring, Baltic salmon and European whitefish (Coregonidae). When targeting these other species, the fishermen use larger meshed fish traps, a different trap configuration and different location. The herring traps are not, therefore, used to catch other fish species.

The trap net fishery for Baltic herring is conducted mainly during the spawning season in spring and early summer (May-June), targeting spawning Baltic herring. The fishermen that use traps to fish for herring may also fish for other species (such as perch, pike perch, whitefish, salmon) at other times of the year with the trap types appropriate for the different target species.

The vessels used by trap fishermen are typically small open boats, and the catch is stored on deck. Trap net locations are located within 10-30 minutes steaming time of points of landing, so that fish can be landed without spoiling. Fish caught in the trap are not sorted before landing – there is no discarding from the fishery.

Page 34 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Principle One: Target Species Background Principle 1 of the Marine Stewardship Council standard states that:

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

Principle 1 covers all fishing activities on the entire stocks of sprat and herring in the central Baltic Sea and on the entire stocks of herring in the Bothnian sea and Bothnian Bay - not just the fishery undergoing certification. However, the fisheries under certification would be expected to meet all management requirements, such as providing appropriate data and complying with controls, therefore demonstrably not adding to problems even if the problems will not cause the certification to fail.

The stock status of the four stocks taken into consideration in the present report are historically evaluated in the framework of ICES on an annual basis. It is worth of note that in 2017 herring stocks in subdivisions 30 and 31 were merged into one stock during a benchmark (ICES 2017a, 2017b). However, in the present report the two stocks are considered separately in the framework of Principle 1, because during the scoring meetings the outcomes of WKBAL (2017) were not available.

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

Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) in the Baltic Sea (Subdivisions 22-32) The assessments of Baltic sprat are coordinated through ICES in the Assessment Group WGBFAS and the most recent report from this group is ICES (ICES 2016a). ICES provides annually advice on the fishing possibilities for the coming years, the advice is found in the ICES advisory Book 8 (Baltic Sea), (ICES 2016b). The basis for the advice and the stock status is summarised in Table 6.

Table 6: Sprat in subdivisions 22–32. The basis for the catch options.

4.6.1.1 Baltic Sprat Biology and life cycle Sprat is one of the most abundant fishes in the Baltic Sea food chain and is found in almost all areas of the sea (except in the Bay of Bothnia, ICES 31; Figure 13).

Page 35 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Figure 13: Sprat in Subdivisions 22–32. Distribution of Baltic sprat from the acoustic survey (BIAS) in the 4th quarter 2014. The sprat panel include ages between 0 and 8. (Source: ICES, 2016a).

Salinity restricts reproduction to the open part of the sea and in the western part of the Gulf of Riga and in the western and central parts of the Gulf of Finland.

Baltic sprat does not form a homogenous interbreeding stock. However, no clear-cut sprat populations have been discerned in the Baltic and the Baltic sprat is by ICES assessed as a single stock. Seasonal distribution of sprat depends on its biological cycle (reproduction, feeding and wintering). For all-the-year-round habitation sprat needs a very large volume of water where the salinity, oxygen and temperature conditions are appropriate. Sprat shoals do not occur below of the 1-1.5 cm3 dm-3 oxygen concentration. Under normal conditions (at temperatures above 2-3ºC) sprat keeps above the isoline of oxygen concentration of 2 cm3·dm-3. Sprat avoids regions of vernal diatom bloom and of the blue-green algal bloom in summer. Sprat feeding shoals are mostly the largest in the warm surface water of the high- energy zone with very rich primary and zooplankton production in the zone of coastal slope and upwelling. Sprat reproduction is confined to the same area. Young sprat dwell in the productive near-coast areas.

Baltic sprat attains sexual maturity at the age of 1-4 (mainly 2-3) years. It spawns in batches. The eggs are spawned at salinities of at least 5-6 psu and the optimum temperature range for embryonic development is 6-12ºC. The main spawning areas of sprat in the Baltic Sea are the open part of the sea, the western and central parts of the Gulf of Finland, the western part of the Gulf of Riga, the Arkona Basin and the Kiel and Mecklenburg Bights. The spawning season starts in the bottom layer of the SW part of the sea, in the Bornholm and Gdansk area in February-March and lasts until August. In northward areas, spawning begins progressively later. In the Gotland area, spawning extends from April to August. Sprat eggs are found up to the southern part of the Bothnian Sea but in the Aland Sea and Bothnian Bay no larvae have been caught. After the first wintering young sprats keep into upper water layers than adults, to the depths of 40-50 m in the southern part and to 75 m in the northern part of the sea.

In the Baltic Sea food chains sprat transfer energy from zooplankton (Temora spp., Acartia spp. etc.) to predatory fishes, marine mammals, etc. The most common food items of 30 mm long and longer (incl. adult) sprat are calanoids – especially Temora longicornis throughout

Page 36 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

the year, Pontoporeia spp and mysids at the beginning of winter, Pseudocalanus mainly in winter, Eurytemora and Acartia mainly in summer and autumn. In summer cladocerans (Bosmina spp, Evadne spp and Podon spp) also occur in the food.

There are sexual differences in sprat’s growth. On the average, the females are longer and heavier than the males of the same age. In the NE Baltic, the difference in the total length ranges from 0.1 cm in the 0-group sprat to 0.4-0.5 cm in the 4-8-year-old individuals. Clear periodic and regional differences occur in sprat growth in the Baltic Sea. During the period 1960-1990 the growth gradually accelerated. The 4-7-year old sprats of the 1975-year class were on the average 1.4 cm longer than the individuals of the of the 1959-year class at the same age. In the Baltic Sea the growth rate of sprat decreases from the western areas towards east and north. Age composition of sprat stock depends on the abundance of its year classes and variation of its mortality rate. In catches the share of 8-year-old sprat rose from 0% in 1961 to 50-60% in 1966-1967 to drop to 5-6% in 1977-1978. The oldest sprat caught in the Baltic Sea SW of the Åland Islands had 21 winter rings on its otolith.

The main predator of sprat in the Baltic Sea is cod. It consumes chiefly sprat of the length group from 6 to 12 cm. The impact of cod on sprat stock is clearly different in various parts of the sea.

Variation in the sprat year class abundance is wide but the number of strong generations comparatively limited. Compared with herring, the sprat stock is much more unstable in the Baltic Sea.

4.6.1.2 Assessment of Baltic Sprat The Baltic sprat is assessed by ICES as a single stock. The sprat assessment was benchmarked in 2013 and the present assessment of sprat in spring 2016 has been conducted following the procedure agreed during the benchmark, i.e. an XSA based analytical assessment based on age compositions from the catches and abundance acoustic survey information. The most recent assessment is presented by ICES (ICES 2013a) and the corresponding advice on fishing opportunities by ICES (ICES 2016a). The benchmark ICES (2013a) reviewed the assessment data and methodology with particular focus on the tuning-series included, the degree of misreporting, natural mortality, weight and age and maturity. Two assessment models were evaluated, XSA and SAM, and it was decided to run both models in parallel until the next benchmark, using XSA as the primary model and SAM as the secondary model. Area-specific assessments were performed and showed similar trends to the combined area assessment. WKBALT, ICES (2013a) suggested a format for multispecies advice for the eastern Baltic, which included a description of the most important species interactions, advice on natural mortality, biomass by guild, and the proportion of large fish. The assessment methodology was modified to include temporally variable natural mortality in the assessments of herring and sprat. For sprat the Spawning-Stock Biomass (SSB) has declined from a historical high in the late 1990s but remains above the MSY Btrigger and has increased in 2016. The fishing mortality (F) has fluctuated between FMSY and Flim in recent years, and in 2015 was slightly above FMSY. Among the recent year classes of 2009–2015 only the 2014-year class is strong (Figure 14). Historically the assessment has shown a retrospective pattern, with a tendency to underestimate the SSB and overestimate the fishing mortality. The historical variations in the assessment are to some extent related to the revisions of predation mortalities from cod, used as input in the assessment model. Natural mortality (M) in this year’s assessment was estimated differently from previous years: In the current assessment, the natural mortalities from 2012 onwards were based on the regression of M against the SSB of eastern Baltic cod, whereas in previous assessment years

Page 37 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

they were assumed equal to the value of M in 2011 from a multispecies assessment model [hereafter SMS; (ICES 2013b)]. The change of procedure is due to no updated multispecies values being available after 2011 because an analytical assessment for eastern Baltic cod is lacking ongoing collection of cod stomach contents data will improve the data basis for estimating natural mortality.

Figure 14: Sprat in subdivisions 22–32. Summary of stock assessment. SSB at spawning time in 2016 is predicted (Source: ICES, 2016a).

If there is a desire to take actions that may improve cod condition, then ICES recommend that a spatial management plan is developed for the clupeid fisheries. The abundance of cod in subdivisions 25–26 is high compared to other areas in the Baltic and the cod condition is considered to be limited due to food availability. Sprat and herring are important food items for cod (especially sprat), but the present high biomass of the two prey stocks is mainly distributed outside the distribution area for cod. Any fishery on the two prey-species in the main cod distribution area (subdivisions 25–26) will potentially decrease the local sprat density, which may lead to increased food deprivation for cod. The relative catch proportion of sprat in the main cod distribution area has since 2010 increased from 37% of the total catch to 45% in 2015. Any increase in fishing pressure on sprat in the main cod distribution area may deteriorate the feeding condition for cod as prey availability decreases. Restrictions on sprat catches taken in the main cod area should be established. Redistribution of the fishery to the northern areas (subdivisions 27–32) may also reduce the density-dependent effect, i.e. increase growth for the clupeids in the area. ICES received information from the EU fishing industry that the provision for interspecies flexibility (EU 2013) has not been used by most nations. The exception is the Danish sprat fishery in 2015, where bycatches of herring could be accounted for against the sprat quota. The total bycatch of herring in this fishery was 1097.2 t which corresponds to 4% of the total catch of sprat by this fleet. This bycatch is included as herring in the catch statistics and included in the herring assessment. Table 7, reporting the historical data of sprat catch advice, agreed TAC and ICES catch, evidences that from 2006 the catches were below the TAC, with the exception of 2009 and

Page 38 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

2015. Moreover, from the same table is possible to observe that since 2012 the predicted catch corresponding to advice were in general agreement with the agreed TAC. Baltic sprat has been assessed also in the framework a the study commissioned by OCEANA in 2016 (Froese et al. 2016). According to the analyses carried out using surplus production model to estimate fisheries reference points in a maximum sustainable yield (MSY) framework, the current biomass is below BMSY (B/BMSY = 0.66). However, such outcomes are not considered in the following P1 scoring tables considering the preliminary nature of the analyses.

Table 7: Sprat in subdivisions 22–32. History of ICES advice, the agreed TAC, and ICES estimates of catch. Weights in thousand tonnes (kt).

Page 39 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Herring The Baltic Sea herring is a pelagic species distributed throughout the Baltic Sea (see Figure 15). Herring tend to spend the day close to the seabed and the night near the surface. Herring lay their eggs on the seabed, typically in areas of gravel and also attached to seagrass (or even fishing nets). Spawning may take place from spring to late autumn.

Figure 15: Sub-basin-wide distribution of herring, Clupea harengus. (HELCOM 2013a)

ICES recognise several different herring stocks in the Baltic Sea, which are considered in turn below.

4.6.2.1 Herring (Clupea harengus) in Subdivisions 25–29 and 32 (Central Baltic Sea, excluding Gulf of Riga) The assessments of Central Baltic herring are coordinated through ICES in the Assessment Group WGBFAS and the most recent report from this group is ICES (ICES 2016a). ICES provides annually advice on the fishing possibilities for the coming years, the advice is found in the ICES advisory Book 8 (Baltic Sea), ICES (ICES 2016c). The basis for the advice and the stock status is summarised in Table 8.

Page 40 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Table 8: Herring in subdivisions 25–29 and 32 (excluding Gulf of Riga herring). The basis for the catch options.

4.6.2.1.1 Central Baltic Herring Biology and life cycle Herring is one of the most abundant fishes in the Baltic Sea food chain and is found in almost all areas of the Baltic Sea (Figure 16). The following paragraph about herring biology and life cycle applies also to the next section on herring in Bothnian Sea and Bothnian Bay.

Figure 16: Herring in subdivisions 25–29 and 32, excluding the Gulf of Riga, from the BIAS survey (BIAS, in millions) in the 4th quarter 2015 (Source: ICES, 2016c).

The stock comprises mainly spring-spawning herring and a small autumn-spawning population. Spring-spawning occurs at the coast with a temporal gradient from south to north. After spawning, individuals migrate to the deep basins for feeding. In addition, migrations between subareas of the Baltic have been observed (Aro, 1989). Since 2005, the stock has been managed together in units SD 25–27, 28.2, 29 and 32 (EC and Russian quotas). Central Baltic herring Stocks have fluctuated in the past - as have many stocks of pelagic teleost in response to both natural variations in the environment and human exploitation. Herring lay their eggs in dense beds on the sea bed and need specific gravely substrates to spawn. In the Baltic herring also spawn on vegetation. This makes herring particularly susceptible to anthropogenic activities affecting the sea bed such as offshore oil and gas industries, gravel extraction and eutrophication causing oxygen depletion. Adult fish are pelagic and are found mostly in continental shelf seas to depths of 200 m deep. Especially for the autumn spawners, the larval stage may be extended and passive drift may bring them to nursery areas that are far away from the spawning grounds. Juveniles tend to occur in shallower water, quite separate from the adults, and they move into deeper waters

Page 41 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

after two years. Herring form large shoals, with diurnal vertical migration patterns through the water column. During the day, herring shoals tend to remain close to the sea bottom or in deep water to a depth of 200 m, and they move towards the surface at dusk and disperse over a wider area during the night. These diurnal vertical movements may be related to the availability of prey items or to the stage in their maturation cycle. Herring deposit their egg masses on gravel and maerl habitats, and geographically the spawning grounds tend to be well-defined, although the intensity of spawning varies and over time some areas may be deserted and new ones be occupied. The habitats of juveniles and adults are primarily pelagic, and many hydrographical features (e.g. temperature, depth of the thermocline, degree of mixing, proximity of frontal systems), as well as abundance and composition of the zooplankton on which they feed affect the distribution. Although herring can attain a maximum length of 40 cm, most adult fish are in the range of 20 30 cm. On average, more than 60% of the 2- year-olds and 95% of the 3-year olds are mature. Although the maximum lifespan exceeds 10 years, most herring are less than 7 years. Growth is fairly rapid until reaching maturity and then slows down as the fish start reproducing. The concepts of age and year class are a bit problematic in herring, because of the extended spawning season of autumn spawners from September to January. Herring scientists generally refer to the number of rings seen in otoliths, which means that all autumn spawners and spring spawners from one spawning season are combined in one cohort of 0-ringers, 1- ringers, etc. Herring are demersal spawners, depositing their sticky eggs on coarse sand, gravel, shells and small stones, all the members of a shoal spawning over a relatively short time period. The fish congregate on traditional spawning grounds, many of which are on shoals and banks and in relatively shallow water, approximately 15-40 m deep. Each female produces a single batch of eggs per year, releasing a ribbon of eggs that adheres to the substratum, and the male sheds milt while swimming a few centimeters above the female. The resulting egg carpet, which can be 4 9 layers thick, may cover an area of up to one hectare. The number, size and weight of eggs produced by an average sized female vary between stocks. For example, an average sized female (27.5 cm, 175 g) from the Downs stock (see below under stock structure) produces 42,000 eggs per annum (240 eggs per gram body weight) whereas a comparably sized fish from the Buchan stock may produce 67 000 eggs (380 eggs per gram). It may take up to two weeks for the eggs to hatch, depending on sea temperature, and, after hatching, the pelagic larvae rise to surface waters where they are transported by the prevailing water currents. Most autumn spawned herring larvae drift in an easterly direction, towards the important nursery grounds in the coastal waters, and they metamorphose in the spring at a length of approximately 4.8 5.0 cm. Larval drift is however variable, and in some years many larvae may not reach the traditional nursery areas. Observed shifts in the position of some spawning areas may be related to changes in the abundance and distribution of their planktonic food resources, which in turn are affected by hydrographical and environmental changes. After spending their first few years in coastal nurseries, two-year-old herring move offshore into deeper waters, eventually joining the adult population in the feeding and spawning migrations. These migration patterns, developed as juveniles, are generally regarded as being relatively constant over periods of several years despite environmental variation. The pelagic larvae, which are 8-10 mm at hatching, feed on copepods and other small planktonic organisms. Calanoid copepods are the predominant prey items during the early juvenile (< 3 cm) stage of life, but euphausiids, hyperiid amphipods, juvenile sandeels, Oikopleura spp., and fish eggs are also eaten, with larger herring also consuming predominantly copepods with small fish, arrow worms and ctenophores as an aside. Although fish eggs are unlikely to represent an important food resource for the herring, the mortality induced may affect survival of the early stages of these species and thus recruitment.

Page 42 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Herring represent an important prey for many predators, including cod and other large gadoids, dogfish and sharks, marine mammals and sea birds.

4.6.2.1.2 Assessment of Central Baltic Herring The Central Baltic herring is assessed by ICES as a single stock. The assessment was benchmarked in 2013 and the present assessment of sprat in spring 2016 has been conducted following the procedure agreed during the benchmark, i.e. an XSA based analytical assessment based on age compositions from the catches and abundance acoustic survey information. The most recent assessment is presented by ICES (ICES 2016a) and the corresponding advice on fishing opportunities by ICES (ICES 2016c). During the benchmark (ICES 2013a), the data used for the Central Baltic herring assessment were reviewed with particular focus on the tuning-series included, the degree of misreporting, natural mortality, weight and age and maturity. Two assessment models were evaluated, XSA and SAM, and it was decided to run both models in parallel until the next benchmark, using XSA as the primary model and SAM as the secondary model. Spawning-stock biomass (SSB) decreased until 2001 and then increased, and it has been above MSY Btrigger since 2007. Fishing mortality (F) increased until 2000 and then decreased, remaining below FMSY since 2011. The 2014-year class (recruitment in 2015) is estimated to be the fourth highest of the whole time-series. (Figure 17). Herring in the central Baltic is composed of a number of local populations differing in growth parameters. Among the factors influencing the future mean weight-at-age of the stock is recruitment success for the individual populations. Separate trial assessments for different populations conducted in 2013 (ICES 2013a), however, showed only a limited impact of this complex stock structure on the perception of the overall stock dynamics. Preliminary investigations indicate that western Baltic spring-spawning herring (Division 3a and subdivisions 22–24) and central Baltic herring (subdivisions 25–29 and 32, excluding Gulf of Riga herring) are mixing in subdivisions 24–26 (Gröhsler et al., 2013). However, this is not taken into account in the current assessment. Species misreporting of herring has occurred in the past; this is presently considered to be negligible. Assessments have generally shown an overall upwards revision in SSB and a downwards revision in fishing mortality. However, this does not hold for the last assessment. Natural mortality (M) in this year’s assessment was estimated differently from previous years. In the current assessment, the natural mortalities from 2012 onwards were based on the regression of M against the SSB of eastern Baltic cod, whereas in previous assessment years they were assumed equal to the value of M in 2011 from a multispecies assessment model (SMS; (ICES 2013a)). The change of procedure is due to no updated multispecies values being available after 2011 because an analytical assessment for eastern Baltic cod is lacking. As discarding is considered negligible for this stock, the EU landing obligation should not influence the future perception of this stock.

Page 43 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Figure 17: Herring in subdivisions 25–29 and 32 (excluding Gulf of Riga herring). Summary of stock assessment (SSB in 2016 is predicted). (Source: ICES, 2016c).

Under the EU landing obligation, which entered into force in 2015, up to 9% interspecies quota transfers are allowed for stocks that are considered to be within safe biological limits (EU 2013) - Article 15). Quota transfers were not considered in this catch advice. This should be monitored closely to ensure that catches of herring do not increase above the ICES advised catch. To achieve FMSY exploitation, any transfer under this regulation should be accounted for in setting the TAC. A mixture of central Baltic herring (subdivisions 25–27, 28.2, 29, and 32) and the Gulf of Riga (Subdivision 28.1) herring is caught in the central Baltic Sea. The assessment and the advice consider that the central Baltic herring stock is caught both in and outside the central Baltic Sea. The TAC (sum of the EU and Russia autonomous quotas) is set for herring caught in the central Baltic management area, which includes also a small amount of Gulf of Riga herring caught in the central Baltic Sea but excludes central Baltic herring caught outside the central Baltic Sea. The TAC value proposed for the central Baltic area is based on the advised catch for the central Baltic herring stock, plus the assumed catch of the Gulf of Riga herring taken in the central Baltic, minus the assumed catch of herring from the central Baltic stock taken in the Gulf of Riga. The values of the two latter are given by the average over the last five years: • Central Baltic herring assumed to be taken in the Gulf of Riga in 2017 (Subdivision 28.1) is 4,574 t (average 2011–2015); • Gulf of Riga herring assumed to be taken in Subdivision 28.2 in 2017 is 223 t (average 2011–2015). Following the ICES MSY approach catches in 2017 should be no more than 216 kt. The corresponding TAC in the central Baltic management area for 2017 would be calculated as 216 kt + 0.223 kt – 4.574 kt = 211.649 kt. Activities that have a negative impact on the spawning habitat of herring should not occur, unless the effects of these activities have been assessed and shown not to be detrimental. ICES received information from the EU fishing industry that the provision for interspecies flexibility (EU 2013) - Article 15) has not been used by most nations. The exception is the Danish sprat fishery in 2015, where bycatches of herring could be accounted for against the

Page 44 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

sprat quota. The total bycatch of herring in this fishery was 1097.2 t, corresponding to 4% of the total catch of sprat by this fleet. This bycatch is included as herring in the catch statistics and included in the herring assessment. Table 9, reporting the historical data of central Baltic herring catch advice, agreed TAC and ICES catch, evidences that from 2004 the catches were below the TAC, with the exception of 2010 and 2012. Moreover, from the same table is possible to observe that since 2012 the predicted catch corresponding to advice were in general agreement with the agreed TAC. Central Baltic herring has been assessed also in the framework a the study commissioned by OCEANA in 2016 (Froese et al. 2016). According to the analyses carried out using surplus production model to estimate fisheries reference points in a maximum sustainable yield (MSY) framework, the current biomass is close to BMSY (B/BMSY = 0.96). However, such outcomes are not considered in the following P1 scoring tables taking into account the preliminary nature of the analyses.

Table 9: Herring in subdivisions 25–29 and 32 (excluding Gulf of Riga herring). History of ICES advice, the agreed TAC, and ICES estimates of catches. Weights in thousand tonnes (kt).

4.6.2.2 Herring (Clupea harengus) in Subdivision 30 (Bothnian Sea) The assessments of Bothnian Sea herring are coordinated through ICES in the Assessment Group WGBFAS and the most recent report from this group is ICES (ICES 2016a). ICES provides annually advice on the fishing possibilities for the coming years, the advice is found

Page 45 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

in the ICES advisory Book 8 (Baltic Sea), ICES (ICES 2016d). The basis for the advice and the stock status is summarised in Table 10.

Table 10: Herring in Subdivision 30. The basis for the catch options.

4.6.2.2.1 Bothnian Sea Herring Biology and life cycle No particular difference in the biology of Bothnian Sea herring are observed in comparison of with the Central Baltic Sea herring. The data of Finnish catches at age are available for years 1973–2015 and these have been used to apply to the Swedish catches as well except in years 1987, 1989–1991, 1993 and 2000–2015. These years the Swedish catches were mostly allocated according to Swedish catch sampling. In 2015 Swedish unsampled catches were allocated InterCatch according to Finnish sampling from respective fisheries. Finnish and Swedish sampling of the catches are shown in Table 11. . Table 11: Herring in SD 30. Sampling by country in 2015.

The most common age class in numbers in the 2015 catches was the age-group 1 and largest in biomass was the age-group 9+.

Mean weight at age in the catches was assumed similar to the mean weight in the stock. The average weight at age decreased for all ages since about 1990 (Figure 18) but stabilized in the beginning of the 2000. The weights at age decreased in all age-groups except in age 6 in year 2015. Constant maturity ogives have been used for period 1973–1982. Since 1983 the

Page 46 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

proportions mature at age have been annually updated from the samples taken before spawning time. Updated maturity ogives for 1973–2015 are available in (ICES 2016a). There is generally high variability in maturity ogives among years, which causes some noise in assessments. The annual variation in age-group 2 is usually quite large. The sensitivity of the variability in maturity ogives from year to year was evaluated in the benchmark assessment in 2012 and it was concluded that there were no grounds for discontinue to update the maturity ogives annually (ICES 2012).

Figure 18: Herring in SD 30. Weights at age in catches

Natural mortality rate 0.20 has been used for all the age groups in all years in the stock assessment runs; respectively the proportion of natural mortality before spawning has been assumed to be 0.33 and fishing mortality before spawning 0.15 for all the years and ages (ICES 2016a).

Although the predation of seals, cormorants and cod on herring do not seem to have had a major impact on the total stock estimates, the development of the populations of these predators should be followed and their impact reanalyzed at latest when the increase of the predators or the development of herring stock dynamics implicate possible effects. Particularly the effects of seals need special attention (ICES 2016a).

From Finnish commercial catches, 73 length-samples and 53 age-samples were taken in 2015, and 14 length-samples and 6 age-samples from the Swedish fisheries. In total in 2015, 28 485 herring were length-measured from commercial catches and 4094 aged from both commercial catches and surveys (ICES 2016a).

An acoustic survey was initiated in 2007 in the Bothnian Sea. The biological samples for ages from the surveys in 2007–2015 have been annually used for 3rd and/or 4th quarter ALK’s for length distributions from commercial sampling and mean weights at age in the input data (ICES 2016a).

4.6.2.2.2 Assessment of Bothnian Sea Herring The Inter-Benchmark-Process for the assessment of herring in SD 30 was performed in February-April 2013 (ICES 2013a) and consequently a state-space assessment model (SAM) was accepted to be the model used for the assessment of herring in SD 30.

Page 47 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

2016 assessment was supposed to be originally an update assessment. However, the settings were slightly changed for the better by the model developer, assuming same catchabilities for ages 5 and above that gave systematic age-specific residuals pattern for those ages. The model was extended such that all ages have separate catchabilities. To stabilize the model estimation, it was chosen to use the same fishing mortality for ages 7 and above, which configuration gave a satisfactory residual pattern.

The spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has been above MSY Btrigger since 1987 and has been increasing since 1999. Fishing mortality (F) has been mostly below FMSY although it was slightly above in 2012–2014. Recruitment has increased over time (Figure 19).

Figure 19: Herring in Subdivision 30. Summary of stock assessment (weights in thousand tonnes). Recruitment and SSB in 2016 are predicted. Recruitment, F, and SSB have confidence intervals (95%) in the plot. Assumed values are not shaded. (Source: (ICES 2016d).

The assessment results still show considerable uncertainties. It is anticipated that as the acoustic survey time-series becomes longer the stability of the assessment will improve. There is uncertainty about the stock structure of herring in subdivisions 30 and 31. The herring stocks in subdivisions 30 and 31 are currently assessed separately, but they are managed by a common TAC. Adding up the catch advice for the two stocks in 2017 results in a total herring catch of 134 556 t + 6 442 t = 140 998 t in subdivisions 30 and 31 in 2017. A combined TAC may pose a risk and not adequately protect the smaller stock. However, the recent development of both stocks and the current low fishing effort in Subdivision 31, suggest a low risk of overexploitation of the smaller stock. Table 12, reporting the historical data of Bothnian Sea herring catch advice, agreed TAC (30+31) and ICES catch, evidences that from 1991 the catches were below the TAC, with the exception of 2014. Moreover, from the same table is possible to observe that since 2010 the predicted catch corresponding to advice were in general agreement with the agreed TAC.

Page 48 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Bothnian Sea herring has been assessed also in the framework a the study commissioned by OCEANA in 2016 (Froese et al. 2016). According to the analyses carried out using surplus production model to estimate fisheries reference points in a maximum sustainable yield (MSY) framework, the current biomass is above BMSY (B/BMSY = 1.56). However, such outcomes are not considered in the following P1 scoring tables taking into account the preliminary nature of the analyses.

Table 12: Herring in Subdivision 30. History of ICES advice, the agreed TAC, and ICES estimates of catch. Weights in thousand tonnes (kt).

4.6.2.3 Herring (Clupea harengus) in Subdivision 31 (Bothnian Bay) The assessments of Bothnian Bay herring are coordinated through ICES in the Assessment Group WGBFAS and the most recent report from this group is (ICES 2016a). ICES provides annually advice on the fishing possibilities for the coming years, the advice is found in the ICES advisory Book 8 (Baltic Sea), (ICES 2016e). The basis for the advice and the stock status is summarized in Table 13. The ICES framework for category 3 stocks was applied (ICES 2016f). The SSB trend from the exploratory stock assessment is used as the index of stock development. The advice is based on a comparison of the two latest index values (index A) with the three preceding values (index B), multiplied by the recent advised catch. The index is estimated to have decreased by less than 20% and thus the uncertainty cap was not applied when calculating the catch advice. The stock status relative to candidate reference points is unknown. Considering that the fishing effort has been decreasing since the 1980s and is considered to be low (Figure 20), no additional precautionary buffer was applied.

Page 49 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Table 13: Herring in Subdivision 31. The basis for the catch options.

4.6.2.3.1 Bothnian Bay Herring Biology and life cycle No particular difference in the biology of Bothnian Bay herring are observed in comparison with the Central Baltic Sea herring.

The separation into coastal and open sea components is not applied to this spring spawning herring population although different spawning groups have been presented (Ehnholm 1951). The autumn spawning herring described by Sjöblom (1966) is at a very low level. The spawning of the spring spawning herring starts late in May and the spawning is over in late July. Spawning occurs in the coastal areas starting in the shallowest areas and shifting with a rising water temperature to deeper waters. The spawning occurs along the whole coastline although there are some areas, which are preferred. The feeding migration starts soon after spawning, and coastal spawning groups intermix during feeding period in the open sea area of the Bothnian Bay. The main feeding areas are the slopes of the Bothnian Bay Basin and the outer Archipelago. The feeding migration occurs mainly along the coast to the south and north and there seem to be some connections to the Bothnian Sea and to the Quark (Otterlind 1962), which is a transition area. Mixing of the Bothnian Bay stock and the Bothnian Sea (Sub- division 30) stock occur, but on annual basis the amount has been regarded small. However, the growth rates of herring in these areas are very similar to each other. Herring growth in the Bothnian Sea is considered density dependent, and in the Bothnian Bay, herring growth rate has been very similar as in the Bothnian Sea. Thus, there may be a closer relationship or continuum between these areas than earlier thought. The migration pattern on both sides of the Bothnian Bay have been observed to be similar (Aro, 1989).

The feeding migration occurs mainly inside the Bothnian Bay. There is to a certain extent an exchange between the Swedish and Finnish coastal stocks especially near the Quark (Otterlind 1962). The mixing of Bothnian Bay stock with Bothnian Sea stock has been regarded small, but the growth rate of herring in the Bothnian Bay is very similar to that in the Bothnian Sea, which suggests a closer relationship.

4.6.2.3.2 Assessment of Bothnian Bay Herring No surveys are conducted for the herring in Bothnian Bay. Two CPUE data series are used, one from the Finnish trawl fishery and one from the Finnish trap net fishery. The indices of fishing effort in the trawl fishery are based on the trawling hours of these fleets, and in the trap net fishery on the number of trap nets. The trawling hours and the number of trap nets have decreased dramatically since the 1980s. From 2000, the number of trawling hours in SD 31 has been fairly stable. Since the year 2000, when essential changes are not regarded to have occurred in the trawl fishery, a gradually increasing trend can be seen in the trawl CPUE. The advice is based on an exploratory assessment as an indicator of SSB. The uncertainty of this index is not available. The methods applied to derive quantitative advice for stocks without an analytical assessment are expected to evolve as they are further developed and validated.

Page 50 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The herring stocks in subdivisions 30 and 31 are currently assessed separately, but they are managed by a common TAC. Adding up the catch advice for the two stocks in 2017 results in a total herring catch of 134 556 t + 6 442 t = 140 998 t in subdivisions 30 and 31 in 2017. A combined TAC may pose a risk and not adequately protect the smaller stock. However, the recent development of both stocks and the low fishing effort currently in Subdivision 31 suggest a low risk of overexploitation of the smaller stock. The exploratory assessment shows that the spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has increased since 2008. The fishing mortality (F) has had an overall increasing trend since 2010. Recruitment since 2010 has been above average, except for 2013. (Figure 20).

Figure 20: Herring in Subdivision 30. Summary of stock assessment (weights in thousand tonnes). Recruitment and SSB in 2016 are predicted. Recruitment, F, and SSB have confidence intervals (95%) in the plot. Assumed values are not shaded. (Source: ICES, 2016e).

Table 14, reporting the historical data of Bothnian Sea herring catch advice, agreed TAC (30+31) and ICES catch, evidences that since 2006 the predicted catch corresponding to advice were in general agreement with the agreed ICES catch, with the exception of the period 2011-2014. The RBF was used for PI 1.1.1 of this stock because it was determined that there are no reference points in place for the stock, either derived from analytical stock assessments or using empirical approaches. Bothnian Bay herring has been assessed also in the framework a the study commissioned by OCEANA in 2016 (Froese et al. 2016). According to the analyses carried out using surplus production model to estimate fisheries reference points in a maximum sustainable yield (MSY) framework, the current biomass is below BMSY (B/BMSY = 0.70). However, such outcomes are not considered in the following P1 scoring tables taking into account the preliminary nature of the analyses.

Page 51 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Table 14: Herring in Subdivision 31. History of ICES advice, the agreed TAC, and ICES estimates of catch. Weights in thousand tonnes.

Fishery management in the Baltic Sea Main fisheries and stocks in the Baltic Sea is rather limited. The main Baltic fisheries consist of fisheries targeting pelagic species (namely herring and sprat) and in fisheries targeting demersal species, primarily cod but also some flat fish species, (notably plaice), often in association. Some further Baltic fisheries are also designed to target, more specifically, salmonids. In fisheries terms, a stock is a given population of a species that forms a reproductive unit with limited spawning interaction with another population, and which may hence be used as a specific management unit. Sprat is considered as one single stock in the entire Baltic Sea. However, herring is distributed in several separate stocks. The main herring stock is found in the eastern Baltic basin. There are smaller herring spawning stocks in the Bothnian Sea, the Bothnia Bay, the Gulf of Riga and the Western Baltic (this latter one migrating, to feed, into the Skagerrak and the Eastern North Sea). Concerning demersal species, the cod stock in the Eastern Baltic is considered to be different to the Western Baltic cod stock.

Fisheries are managed through a combination of different approaches, some of a general scope (e.g. rules on fisheries control or on national fleet capacity ceilings), and others of more regionalised application.

Regarding the Baltic area, one of the main measures to manage many Baltic fish stocks consists of setting maximum fishing possibilities. Total Allowable Catches (TACs) and quotas are set annually by the Council for 10 different stocks concerning five species, namely herring

Page 52 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

(4 stocks), sprat (1 stock), cod (2 stocks), plaice (1 stock) and salmon (2 stocks). The latest TACs and quotas were adopted in November 2016, fixing for 2017 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks in the Baltic Sea (EU 2016).

Depending on where and what they fish for, fishermen are also subject to specific technical rules (see notably Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005; (EU 2005)) for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound. These set, among other things, specifications on the gear which may be used or on size limits for certain fish species. Size limits are also applicable for salmon and plaice. Pelagic species such as sprat or herring are not subject to fish-size limit restrictions. Additionally, since 2007, Baltic cod is also subject to a specific multiannual management regime. This Regulation (No 1098/2007; (EU 2007)) establishes absolute limits on mortality rates for the two Baltic cod stocks and establishes a procedure for the setting of annual TACs, including maximum limits for inter-annual variation either to increase or decrease fishing possibilities). It also provides for some specific measures (notably areas and periods with restricted fishing activities) and establishes a fishing effort regime for some types of cod fisheries (based on vessel size, gear used, areas and period), associated with specific provisions regarding controls and inspection of cod fisheries. Fisheries management in the Baltic Sea must also adapt to the new objectives of the reformed CFP, notably the achievement of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) exploitation rates (where possible in 2015, and at the latest in 2020 for all stocks), and the gradual elimination of discards (namely in this regard the obligation since January 2015 to land all catches of given species (in practice those which are the subject of the main fisheries in the Baltic)). The new CFP Basic Regulation (No 1380/2013; (EU 2013)) also provides that multiannual plans must include, among other things, time-framed and quantifiable targets (such as fishing mortality rates and/or spawning stock biomass), and that such plans should where possible cover multiple stocks and fisheries (notably in the case of mixed fisheries or where the dynamics of stocks relate to one another).

The state of Baltic fish stocks is influenced by many different factors including environmental ones (such as regional temperature and water salinity) and human ones (fishing being the most important). From an environmental point of view, successful spawning of cod requires minimal levels of salt and oxygen in water. These levels may vary and may not be reached in the eastern part of the Baltic in particular, depending on the influx of fresh water from the rivers and on the inflow of saline, oxygenated water from the North Sea. Similarly, water temperature may have strong influence on the efficient reproduction of sprat (better in warmer conditions). Notwithstanding such physical factors, Baltic fish species interact among themselves, particularly as they are reciprocal predators. Cod are large fish eaters and they feed on sprat, and partly also on herring. That said, sprat and herring may feed on cod eggs. The level of fishing of a given stock may therefore also have an impact on the fishing possibilities for the other interacting stocks.

As far as Baltic fisheries are concerned, the European Commission considered that the current management regimes do not allow sufficient predictability concerning the proper conservation of the stocks, or concerning fishing opportunities (i.e. economic possibilities) for fishermen. For pelagic stocks, the main management tool of annual TACs and quota-exploiting those stocks, amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 (EU 2005) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 (EU 2007).

The Commission proposed a new regulation for a multispecies multiannual plan for the Baltic Sea – (and outlined in the following section) – in order: − to cover, in a single management plan, the three main fished species distributed in eight stocks in the Baltic Sea, namely two for cod, five for herring and one for sprat, with the aim to achieve and maintain MSY for these stocks. The plan would also cover, and ensure the conservation of, some flat fish species also caught when fishing for cod, herring or sprat;

Page 53 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

− Where possible, to set for each of these stocks some management reference points, namely a target range of fishing mortality (an expression of the rate at which fish are removed from the stock by fishing) in line with the MSY principle as from 2015, and a minimum level of the spawning stock biomass (total amount/weight of fish which are of an age to reproduce) which fishing management measures should strive to conserve; − To set some specific control and enforcement provisions, as well as to set a regular six-yearly evaluation of this multiannual plan; − To set some specific rules with regard to the implementation of the landing obligation (discard ban – another key component of the reformed CFP), and to the delegation of powers in this regard; − To set provisions on the possibilities, also framed in the new CFP, for regional cooperation among Member States with a direct management interest in this geographical area, notably in developing a joint recommendation for measures the Commission may adopt under delegated powers.

In this latter regard, the Commission also proposed that the EP and Council should delegate their powers regarding the adoption of any specific measure for conservation in case of a threat to stocks of flatfish species (namely plaice, flounder, turbot and brill) which can be fished in the Baltic in association with the three species subject to the multiannual plan. The Commission further envisages the setting of a general framework under which it would be given delegated powers to adopt fisheries technical measures, notably to protect juvenile or spawning fish, with the aim of achieving the MSY objective for the relevant stocks of cod, herring and sprat and the precautionary conservation objective of flatfish species fished in association with them. By covering all major stocks in a single management plan, fisheries management measures (notably reference points) could be designed to take better account of the interactions between the different species (and possibly fisheries). Bringing the herring and sprat stocks under a multiannual management plan would also provide a basis for more predictability of pelagic fisheries, contributing to better business planning and stability of supply.

The associated repeal of the existing plan covering Baltic cod only (Council Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007; EU 2007), would also put an end to some existing cod fisheries management measures, particularly the fishing effort limitation which consists of limiting fishing periods for certain gear and the closing of certain areas to cod fishing. This would contribute towards simplifying the legislative environment and a reduction in administrative burdens on Member States and the fishing industry. In terms of other expected impacts, reduced fishing opportunities might initially result in short-term profit reductions for fishermen, possibly also with slight repercussions on the fish processing industry or consumers. However, the restoration of the status of fish stocks would ensure long-term benefits for both the fisheries and the stocks.

Multiannual plan for the stocks of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks, amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 As anticipated in the previous section, a multiannual plan for the demersal and pelagic fisheries in the Baltic Sea was adopted in July 2016 (Regulation EU 2016/1139; EC 2016). Article 15 prescribes that this plan be evaluated in 2019. Regulation 2016/1139 introduced ranges of fishing mortalities (targets) and conservation reference points for SSB (safeguards) inter alia for the Baltic sprat stock. Fishing opportunities shall be fixed depending on both intra- and inter-specific stock dynamics.

Page 54 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

However, in order to limit variations in fishing opportunities between consecutive years TAC variation is limited to not more than 20%. If, scientific advice indicates that the spawning stock biomass of any of the stocks concerned is below the minimum spawning stock biomass reference point all appropriate remedial measures shall be adopted to ensure rapid return of the stock concerned to levels above the level capable of producing MSY. In particular, fishing opportunities for the stock concerned shall be fixed at a level consistent with a fishing mortality that is reduced below the range set out in Annex I of the Regulation. Where, on the basis of scientific advice, the Commission considers that the conservation reference points set out in Annex II no longer correctly express the objectives of the plan, the Commission may, as a matter of urgency, submit a proposal for the revision of those conservation reference points. The annexes I and II of this plan define references points for Baltic demersal and small pelagic stocks as outlined Table 15.

Table 15: Reference points for Baltic demersal and small pelagic stocks outlined in the multiannual plan (Regulation EU 2016/1139; EC 2016)

Page 55 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

This plan is implemented for 2017 and later years and will be evaluated again in 2019. The reference points are in accordance with the ICES calculations, see ICES (2016a).

Multispecies considerations for the central Baltic stocks: cod in Subdivisions 25–32, herring in Subdivisions 25–29 and 32, and sprat in Subdivisions 22–32 ICES in 2013 (ICES 2013b) provided multispecies advice on fisheries for some ecosystems and encouraged managers to apply such an approach to the central Baltic Sea. ICES (2013b) focused on the most obvious interactions between commercially exploited fish stocks in the area (Figure 21) and does not attempt to provide a full food-web model.

Figure 21: Setup of the Baltic SMS model. Cod is the only predator, and forages on small cod, herring, sprat, and zoobenthos, which is pooled as ‘other food’ [Source: ICES 2013b].

The main result of the present multispecies analysis for the central Baltic was that, compared to the single-species approach, it could be possible to increase the sum of the sustainable yields in tonnes of the three species combined; the growth of individual fish would be improved if multispecies interactions were taken into account when setting target Fs. However, cod yields will remain about the same, whereas the probability of low cod spawning-stock biomass (SSB) will increase. Multispecies considerations indicated a multitude of solutions, all being biologically sustainable. The societal choice between these must be based on social and economic considerations and informed by social and economic impact assessments. These results were derived assuming that there was full spatial overlap for all three stocks. The geographical overlap of cod and clupeid stocks was currently small, with cod found mainly in the south (Subdivision 25) and clupeids in the north (Subdivisions 28–29 and 32). The current difference in distribution of cod and clupeids implied that: − an increase in F on cod will not necessarily result in increasing Baltic-wide clupeid stock sizes (and hence will not increase clupeid yields); − a reduction of clupeid F in Subdivision 25 is likely to improve growth and condition of cod as well as reduce cannibalism; − an increase in clupeid F in northern areas (Subdivisions 27–32) is unlikely to negatively affect the major cod stock component distributed in southern areas (Subdivisions 25–26); − an increase in sprat F in northern areas (Subdivisions 27–32) is likely to improve the growth rates of the clupeid stocks; and − an increase in cod F may imply higher probability of low cod SSB.

Page 56 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The values of presented reference points can change in the near future since there are many process functions in the species dynamics, both in terms of population numbers, spatial distributions, and body growth, which have not been sufficiently evaluated. The MSY reference points are sensitive to changes in density-dependent effects, cannibalism, and environmental drivers that affect recruitment and body growth.

The single- and multispecies FMSY are similar, though BMSY of cod may vary by up to a factor 1.74 (Table 16). This difference is mainly due to cod cannibalism taken into account in the multispecies model. It should be noted when examining FMSY that no value of FMSY can be considered precautionary until a formal harvest control rule has been evaluated in a management strategy evaluation framework. Table 16: Reference points from the SMS mode and as used in the single species advice. The “~” in front of the MSY values means “around” as no fixed value for the reference points exist in a multispecies context. [Source: ICES 2013b]

Management of fisheries for cod has an impact on fishing opportunities for sprat and herring, and vice versa; management of the clupeid fisheries influences the food availability for cod, and thereby indirectly, cod yield. If the cod stock is large, the yield of herring and sprat will be reduced. Spatial management of the herring and sprat fisheries may influence the growth of individual fish of cod and possibly also on clupeids, and thus the potential yield Extensive multispecies and ecosystem research has been performed in the Baltic in the past 30 years. ICES, together with several institutes around the Baltic, has invested substantially in the research on multispecies interactions, ecosystem functioning, and integrated assessment. Currently, several multispecies and ecosystem models exist for the Baltic Sea (for an overview cf. (ICES 2009). One of them, the stochastic multispecies model (SMS), was chosen for a more detailed scrutiny in 2012 by ICES in cooperation with the EU STECF. The MSI-SOM (Holmgren et al. 2012) was also presented during the ICES Benchmark Workshop on Baltic Multispecies (ICES 2013a) as a complementary model. However, as this model has not yet been benchmarked by ICES, the results are not presented as basis for advice, but model results are available (ICES 2013b). In 2012 a “Study on stomach content of fish to support the assessment of good environmental status of marine food webs and the prediction of MSY after stock restoration” was funded by EU to run until November 2014. Sampling has been started on BITS surveys. The three stocks considered are cod in Subdivisions 25–32, herring in Subdivisions 25–29 and 32 (excl. Gulf of Riga), and sprat in Subdivisions 22–32. Cod is a predator on herring, sprat, and juvenile cod (Figure 22). This predation by cod forms the main interactions among these stocks and is the only type of interaction considered in the quantitative analysis (SMS) below.

Page 57 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Figure 22: Cod stomach content, by prey item, of cod caught in Subdivision 26 in March 1992– 2010 (from Patokina et al. 2011).

There are also other aspects of interactions related to these three stocks which are presently not included in the SMS model, the most important being: 1) the variation in spatial overlap between the three stocks, 2) inter- and intraspecific competition for food between and within the two clupeid stocks, 3) cod growth in relation to amount of food available, and 4) herring and sprat predation on cod eggs and clupeid food competition with cod larvae. Figure 23 presents the main results of the SMS model updated and reviewed at the ICES Workshop on Baltic Multispecies in 2012 and presented in WKBALT in 2013 with updates of data from the benchmark. For more specific model settings please look at WKBALT 2013 (ICES 2013a). Each column and row in Figure 23 relates to a different species. Thus, the right column depicts the yield of sprat on the y-axis under different target fishing mortalities on cod (top), herring (middle), and sprat (bottom) on the x-axis. Solid black lines represent the median yield at the given target fishing mortality across all combinations of target F on other species. Boxes represent the range of yields derived when excluding the bottom 25% and the top 25% ranked yields. Whiskers represent the range of yields derived when excluding the bottom 5% and the top 5% ranked yields. A wide box and whiskers implies that the yield of that species is heavily influenced by fishing pressure on species other than the one depicted on the x-axis. In contrast a narrow range suggests that the yield is relatively insensitive to variations in fishing pressure on species other than that on the x-axis. For example, the median yield at a target fishing mortality of 0.5 for cod across all included combinations of target F for herring and sprat is 77,000 tonnes of cod, 170,000 tonnes of herring, and 225,000 tonnes of sprat. The ranges of yields derived, with the bottom 25% and top 25% ranked yield (the boxes) and selecting a target fishing mortality for cod of 0.5, are 74,000 to 79,000 tonnes for cod, 160,000 to 190,000 tonnes for herring, and 170,000 to 230,000 tonnes for sprat. The narrow range of variation for cod under cod fishing pressure (top left, box covers the median +/-4% at F = 0.5) indicates that cod yield is relatively insensitive to fishing pressure on the other species. Conversely, the wider variation for herring

Page 58 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

under changes in herring F (centre plot, box covers the median+/-8% at F = 0.25) indicates that yield for this species is sensitive to fishing pressure on the other species. The elements in the diagonal from the top left corner to the bottom right corner are similar to the way yield as a function of target F is represented in single-species advice. Hence, they represent the change in yield of the specific species that we can obtain by changing the target fishing mortality on that species. Off-diagonal elements represent the effects of species interaction. For example, the change in median yield of herring as cod target fishing mortality is increased shows the effect of the resulting lower cod stock, which then eats less herring, resulting in higher average yields of herring. Furthermore, the change in mean yield of cod as sprat target fishing mortality is increased shows the effect of the resulting lower sprat stock, which leads cod to eating less sprat and more cod, resulting in lower average yields of cod.

Figure 23: Equilibrium yield simulated in SMS for various levels of fishing mortality for cod (0.4 to 0.6, 0.05 increment), herring F (0.25 to 0.35, 0.025 increment), and sprat F (0.25 to 0.35, 0.025 increment). The graph by species shows the distribution of yields for any given F shown on the X-axis, taking into account the range of Fs for the other species. F values is when recruitment is stochastic. HCR = Fixed F.

Page 59 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Target Species as “Key Low Trophic Level (LTL)” Species Herring (Clupea harengus) and sprat (Sprattus spratus) are clupeids and as such candidates for classification as Key Low Trophic Level species (LTL) in an MSC assessment (CR Box SA 1). The ecosystem is described in ICES (2008). (Sandberg et al. 2000) analysed carbon flow through the food webs in the three main areas of the Baltic Sea; the Baltic Proper, Bothnian Sea and Bothnian Bay. The overall carbon flow was highest in the Baltic proper, somewhat lower in the Bothnian Sea and much lower in the Bothnian Bay. The only clear differences in food web structure between the basins was that the average trophic level was lower for demersal fish in the Bothnian Sea and higher for macrofauna in the Bothnian Bay, compared to the other basins. The models presented in Figure 24 do not include the top level of birds and marine mammals, however, the diet of many of the birds is from the macrofauna compartment (e.g. mussels). The seal populations are low compared historical experience around 1900. The Baltic Sea ecosystems are not stable but there have been several regime shifts over the recent 50 years. Whether these are introduced by human impact or by environmental changes is discussed in several studies (Strandmark et al. 2015). For the purpose of evaluating whether the herring and sprat takes the role as key LTL species it suffices to note that the relative importance of the pelagic and demersal fish compartments changes over time and any conclusion may be subject to change after yet another regime shift. Figure 24 suggests that about 50% of the carbon flow to the demersal fish (as the top predator) is through from the pelagic fish compartment for the Baltic Proper while the flow is minimal for the Bothnian Sea and the Bothnian Bay. While there are other pelagic fishes in the Baltic Sea than herring and sprat these two species dominate the pelagic fish compartment and for the purpose of judging whether the species qualify as ‘Key LTL’ species the pelagic fish compart is assumed to be synonymous with ‘herring-sprat’ and in the North with the herring as the sprat biomass is small in subdivision 30 and non-existent in subdivision 31. MSC CR Section SA 2.2.9 defines the Key LTL criteria as: It is one of the species types listed in Box SA1 and in its adult life cycle phase the stock holds a key role in the ecosystem, such that it meets at least two of the following sub criteria i, ii and iii. i. A large proportion of the trophic connections in the ecosystem involve this stock, leading to significant predator dependency; ii. A large volume of energy passing between lower and higher trophic levels passes through this stock; iii. There are few other species at this trophic level through which energy can be transmitted from lower to higher trophic levels, such that a high proportion of the total energy passing between lower and higher trophic levels passes through this stock (i.e., the ecosystem is ‘wasp-waisted’). Standard ecosystem models of the Central Baltic ecosystem indicate that the herring and sprat are holding positions in the ecosystem meeting criteria (i) and (ii) as cited above. Hence Central herring and sprat are classified as Key LTL species. For the Bothnian Sea and the Bothnian Bay the transport of carbon between the pelagic fish and the demersal fish compartments is minimal and herring in Bothnian Sea and in the Bothnian Bay are not classified as Key LTL species.

Page 60 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Figure 24: Mass balance model of carbon in the Baltic proper, the Bothnian Sea and the Bothnia Bay ecosystems. Arrows represent the flow of carbon with the arrow pointing in the direction of transfer. These flows of carbon arrows are expressed as g C m year and the stocks inside symbols are expressed as g C m. The short, grey vertical arrow at the bottom of each organism compartment represents respiration. For the pelagic producers, DOM and sediment carbon compartments, unbalanced carbon flows are indicated by a question mark. Source: (Sandberg et al. 2000)

Page 61 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Principle Two: Ecosystem Background Principle 2 of the Marine Stewardship Council standard states that: Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends.

The information presented in this section is provided to support the rationale set out for the Principle 2 Performance Indicators. Principle 2 of the MSC Standard has 5 components: • Retained non-target species • Bycatch species (discarded non-target species) • Endangered, Threatened or Protected (ETP) species • Habitats • Ecosystems This section considers the information available about the potential effect of the fishery on each of these Principle 2 components in turn. We also describe the information available about the status of the components and the management arrangements that are in place to mitigate or regulate adverse impacts.

With the introduction of MSC FCR v2.0, the cumulative impact on Principle 2 components of other MSC-certified fisheries within the UoA has to be taken into account. For instance, if there are other MSC-certified fisheries within the UoA that catch the same non-target species and impact the same habitats and ecosystems as the fishery under assessment, the cumulative impact of all of the MSC-certified fisheries has to be taken into account1.

Primary & secondary non-target species

4.7.1.1 Definitions Under MSC CRv.2.0 (Marine Stewardship Council 2014a), primary species are defined as those species that are in scope but not target (P1) species “where management tools and measures are in place, intended to achieve stock management objectives reflected in either limit or target reference points”. Secondary species are then defined by the MSC as fish/shellfish species that do not meet the definition of ‘primary’ species, or species that are out of scope of the program but where the definition of endangered, threatened or protected (ETP) species is not applicable (SA3.1.1, Marine Stewardship Council 2014).

For primary and secondary species, a ‘main’ designation is then given where either i) “the catch of a species by the UoA comprises 5% or more by weight of the total catch of all species by the UoA”, ii) “the species is classified as ‘less resilient’ and the catch of the species by the UoA comprises 2% or more by weight of the total catch of all species by the UoA”, or iii) in cases where a species does not meet the 2% or 5% designated weight thresholds, a species is main if the total catch of the UoA is exceptionally large, such that even small catch proportions of a P2 species significantly impact the affected stocks/populations (Marine Stewardship Council 2014a).

1 Fisheries that have already been certified do not have to consider cumulative impacts of any newly certified UoA until the first surveillance audit following certification of the new fishery.

Page 62 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

4.7.1.2 Information about non-target catches in the UoAs Several sources of information have been considered by the assessment team in the assessment of the impact of the UoAs in this fishery on non-target species. These sources are the anecdotal information presented by stakeholders at the site visit; catch data presented by LUKE scientists; and landings data collected by LUKE. Each source of information is considered in turn below.

4.7.1.2.1 Qualitative information During the course of the site visit and in subsequent discussions with stakeholders from the industry, Government, scientists and WWF (see section 13.2 of this report and e-mail correspondence with LUKE scientists (Raitaniemi et al. 2017)) a view has consistently been expressed that the catch of non-target species are negligible in the Finnish herring trawl fishery, the sprat trawl fishery and the herring trap fisheries.

The client reported that there can be a small catch of bream (Vimba vimba) in the early part of the trap fishing season (April – early July), but that the overall catch is much less than 5% of total catches over the fishing season. Occasional catches of salmon and whitefish may also occur in the trap fishery, but are reported to be very rare (these species are targeted using traps with a different configuration that is better suited to their capture (Lundin 2014)). Likewise, perch are also caught in fish traps, but the traps used for perch are smaller and set in shallower water closer to the shore than herring traps.

Two stakeholders responded to the RBF questionnaire that was circulated to all stakeholders, and which sought views on the catch of non-target species in the fishery. These responses are reproduced in section 13.3 of this report, and summarised in Table 17. During the site visit the team discussed the catch of non-target species with stakeholders. The information provided is documented in section 13.2 of this report. In summary, some concerns were raised about catches of European whitefish (Coregonus sp) both in trawls and trap fisheries by the client and by WWF-Finland. Scientists at LUKE indicated that this was an historical issue, as a result of restrictions on fishing activity in freshwater during the spring, and also changes in fishing practices

Page 63 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Table 17: Summary of RBF questionnaire responses relating to non-target species in the Units of Assessment. [Source: section 13.3 of this report].

Unit of Assessment Respondent

Federation of Fisheries Finnish Fishermen’s Association

1 – Sprat trawl fishery - Very limited; some individual cod.

2 – Bothnian Bay Vendace (Coregonus albula) European whitefish (Coregonus herring trawl Roach (Rutilus rutilus) sp).

3 – Bothnian Bay European whitefish (Coregonus sp). - herring trap Salmon (Salmo salar) Bream (Vimba vimba) Vendace (Coregonus albula)

4 – Bothnian Sea - Salmon (Salmo salar) herring trawl

5 – Bothnian Sea Smelt (Osmerus eperlanus) Salmon (Salmo salar) herring trap Roach (Rutilus rutilus) Brown trout (Salmo trutta) Perch (Perca fluviatilis) Smelt (Osmerus eperlanus) Roach (Rutilus rutilus) Perch (Perca fluviatilis) Pike perch (Sander lucioperca)

6 – Central Baltic - Very limited; some individual cod. herring trawl

7 – Central Baltic - European whitefish (Coregonus herring trap sp) Salmon (Salmo salar) Brown trout (Salmo trutta) Smelt (Osmerus eperlanus) Roach (Rutilus rutilus) Perch (Perca fluviatilis) Pike perch (Sander lucioperca)

Page 64 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

4.7.1.2.2 Quantitative information There is no system in place for routine monitoring of catches (as opposed to landings) from the trawl or trap fisheries. This is because, in the absence of any controls that would require fish to be discarded (such as minimum sizes for fish), and because all of the fish caught are marketable, there is no incentive to discard any fish. Instead of monitoring the catches aboard vessels at sea from a few vessels, the Finnish authorities monitor landings of fish from all vessels at the ports along the coast.

Some data on catch composition are available from the scientific trawls carried out during LUKE stock assessments. These data, as well as the landings data, provide quantitative information about the composition of the catch from the different UoCs. The data are summarised briefly here.

4.7.1.2.2.1 Catch data Catch data are available from scientific trawling activity conducted by LUKE as part of their work on stock assessment. Some catch data have from these trawls have been made available to the assessment team by scientists from LUKE (Raitaniemi et al. 2017).

LUKE report that that the herring fishery in the Bothnian Sea (ICES subdivision 30) catches predominantly herring, with a small catch of sprats and 3-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Over the period 1980-2014, sticklebacks made up less than 0.9% of the catch during surveys in the Bothnian Sea (see Figure 25). Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) are reported to typically form 3-6% of the catch in the pelagic trawl fishery in the Bothnian Sea.

Figure 25: Proportion of non-target species caught in the Bothnian Sea herring trawl fishery surveys, 1980-2014: left hand graph showing percentage of the catch; right hand graph showing tonnage of fish. [Source: Raitaniemi et al. 2017].

LUKE also report that during stock surveys in the Central Baltic (subdivisions 29 & 32) sticklebacks form a smaller proportion of the catch than seen in the Bothnian Sea.

4.7.1.2.2.2 Landings data During the site visit the assessment team met with scientists from the Institute of Natural Resources (LUKE) in Helsinki. LUKE confirmed that the organisation monitors all landings of fish to ports along the coast of Finland. All fishermen operating in Finland are registered, and more than 1,400 fishermen reported their landings in 2016 (LUKE 2017a).

Information on the composition of landings by all fishing methods in the Bothnian Bay, Bothnian Sea and Central Baltic were provided to the assessment team by LUKE and is also

Page 65 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

available from the LUKE database (LUKE 2017b). These data suggest that there is a considerable catch of non-target species in the trawl and trap fisheries in the different UoAs.

After scrutinising the data carefully and following correspondence with the both LUKE and the client for the fishery, it has become apparent that the LUKE database does not distinguish between different trawl and trap fisheries in the different areas, which creates a misleading view of the catch composition from the different herring and sprat métiers under assessment. For instance, “trap” fishing in all areas includes the catch of salmon in salmon traps (and other fish in traps set specifically to catch these fish).

At the request of the assessment team, LUKE interrogated their landings database to extract the data that are associated with the targeted sprat trawl fishery and the targeted herring trawl and trap fisheries. The assessment team has cross-checked these data against the overall LUKE landings for each métier and UoA, and find that these account for over 95% of all recorded landings of the target species, and are thus considered to be representative of the fishery catch composition. The data are considered by métier and UoA below.

4.7.1.2.2.2.1 Trap landings LUKE data for trap landings from both herring pound nets and pontoon nets are summarised in Table 18. These data indicate that herring made up over 99% of landings from traps in the Central Baltic and Bothnian Sea Units of Assessment. In the Bothnian Bay, herring made up over 96% of landings, with vendace the only significant other component in landings (an average of 2.45% per year over the past 5 years).

Page 66 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Table 18: Landings data for herring traps (pound nets and push up nets) for the period 2012-2016 (in kg), showing the percentage of each species recorded in landings. [Source: LUKE, pers. Comm., 2017].

Landings (kg) Unit of ICES Sub- Species Assessment division 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Mean (p.a.) 3 (Bothnian 31 Herring 299,544.07 298,670.42 356,564.53 121,548.00 178,071.00 250,879.60 Bay) % 94.84% 91.86% 98.27% 99.06% 99.52% 96.09% Smelt 534.38 162.36 6.24 0 10 142.59 % 0.17% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.05% Vendace 13,166.38 13,813.46 4,304.92 446.00 280.00 6402.15 % 4.17% 4.25% 1.19% 0.36% 0.16% 2.45% Other species 2,589.44 12,480.60 1,976.24 704.00 561.00 3662.25 % 0.82% 3.84% 0.54% 0.57% 0.31% 1.40% Total 315,834.26 325,126.84 362,851.92 122,698.00 178,922.00 261,086.60 5 (Bothnian 30 Herring 4,821,798.16 4,365,359.81 5,278,378.73 4,454,876.00 3,380,714.00 4,460,225.34 Sea) % 99.88% 99.04% 98.57% 99.74% 99.16% 99.26% Smelt 1,580.83 11,692.67 32,957.97 750.00 660.00 9,528.29 % 0.03% 0.27% 0.62% 0.02% 0.02% 0.21% Vendace 279.70 3.10 12.35 1.00 1.00 59.43 % 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Other species 4,028.68 30,568.98 43,773.86 10,978.00 27,975.00 23,464.90 % 0.08% 0.69% 0.82% 0.25% 0.82% 0.52% Total 4,827,687.36 4,407,624.55 5,355,122.91 4,466,605.00 3,409,350.00 4,493,277.97

Page 67 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Landings (kg) Unit of ICES Sub- Species Assessment division 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Mean (p.a.) 7 (Central 25-29 & Herring 2,335,050.51 2,660,621.00 2,521,977.46 2,013,087.00 1,323,439.00 2,170,835.00 Baltic) 32 % 99.97% 99.93% 99.98% 99.98% 99.98% 99.97% Sprat 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 2.00 % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Smelt 13.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.67 % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Vendace 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Other species 732.86 1,894.66 547.58 309.00 278.00 752.42 % 0.03% 0.07% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.03% Total 2,335,796.71 2,662,515.66 2,522,528.04 2,013,406.00 1,323,717.00 2,171,592.68

Page 68 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

4.7.1.2.2.2.2 Trawl fishery landings LUKE have provided landings data for vessels on trips targeting either sprat or herring. It should be noted that these data are taken from all landings to Finnish ports, including vessels from outside the UoC. The data have been summarised to present landings data over the past 5 years, which are described below.

4.7.1.2.2.2.2.1 Sprat trawl fishery landings Landings data for trawl trips targeting sprats are summarised in Table 19. They show that over the period 2012-16, sprats made up more than 70% of the landings from all of the UoAs when the vessels were targeting this species, averaging over 76% of landings for the past 5 years; the only other significant component of the landings were herring (averaging nearly 24%). Negligible landings of “other species” were reported by LUKE over the past 5 years.

4.7.1.2.2.2.2.2 Herring trawl fishery landings Landings data for trawl trips targeting herring are summarised in Table 20. They show that over the period 2012-16, herring made up more than 90% of the landings from all of the UoAs when the vessels were targeting herring.

In the Bothnian Bay (UoA3), herring made up more than 99% of the landings from the herring trawl fishery, with a small proportion of vendace (averaging 12.6t pa over the past 5 years). A small quantity of smelt were landed (0.77t pa), along with an average of 1.6t per year of “other species” (amounting to 0.04% of landings from the fishery).

In the Bothnian Sea (UoA5), herring comprised over 97% of landings from the targetted herring fishery. Just over 2,739t of sprat were landed from the herring trawl fishery, which is 2.86% of the total landings. Some smelt (1.4t pa) were reported in the landings, along with 3.3t of “other species” (reported by LUKE to be mostly 3-spined sticklebacks in this area).

In the Central Baltic (UoA 7), herring made up just over 90% of landings from the targeted fishery. Sprat were the most abundant non-target species in the landings (around 2,161t pa, 9.88% of landings). A small quantity of smelt (90.2kg pa) and 158kg of “other species” (again most likely to be 3-spined sticklebacks) were also reported in the landings.

Page 69 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Table 19: Landings data for Finnish pelagic trawl vessels targeting sprats for the period 2012-2016 (in kg), showing the percentage of each species recorded in landings. Rose shading indicates non-target species making up more than 5% of landings [Source: LUKE, pers. comm., 2017].

Unit of ICES Sub- Landings (kg) Species Assessment division 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Mean (p.a.) 1 (Central 25-29 & 32 Sprat 3,577,232.00 5,985,788.00 5,712,369.00 5,369,566.00 7,325,563.00 5,594,103.60 Baltic) % 72.78% 79.67% 72.64% 75.04% 78.45% 76.04% Herring 1,337,730.00 1,527,482.00 2,151,907.00 1,785,974.00 2,011,915.00 1,763,001.60 % 27.22% 20.33% 27.36% 24.96% 21.55% 23.96% Smelt - - - - 1.00 0.20 % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Vendace ------% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Other species 50.00 - - - - 10.00 % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Total 4,915,012.00 7,513,270.00 7,864,276.00 7,155,540.00 9,337,479.00 7,357,115.40

Page 70 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Table 20: Landings data for Finnish pelagic trawl vessels targeting herring for the period 2012-2016 (in kg), showing the percentage of each species recorded in landings. Rose shading indicates non-target species making up more than 5% of landings [Source: LUKE, pers. comm, 2017].

Unit of ICES Sub- Landings (kg) Species Assessment division 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Mean (p.a.) 2 (Bothnian 31 Herring 4,856,797.97 4,126,123.88 4,237,740.73 4,261,637.00 4,068,634.00 4,310,186.72 Bay) % 99.79% 99.59% 99.63% 99.82% 99.40% 99.65% Sprat - - 500.00 - - 100.00 % 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Smelt 750.00 3005.00 10.00 0.00 100.00 773.00 % 0.02% 0.07% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% Vendace 8410.18 11014.84 13929.47 5736.00 24086.00 12635.30 % 0.17% 0.27% 0.33% 0.13% 0.59% 0.29% Other species 1,255.20 3065.08 1442.92 2014.00 300.00 1,615.44 % 0.03% 0.07% 0.03% 0.05% 0.01% 0.04% Total 4,867,213.35 4,143,208.80 4,253,623.12 4,269,387.00 4,093,120.00 4,325,310.45 4 (Bothnian 30 Herring 88,546,152.09 94,150,051.20 92,154,644.00 90,816,269.00 99,379,824.00 93,009,388.06 Sea) % 97.50% 97.41% 97.07% 98.43% 95.47% 97.13% Sprat 2,266,353.00 2,496,569.00 2,779,349.00 1,442,238.00 4,714,733.00 2,739,848.40 % 2.50% 2.58% 2.93% 1.56% 4.53% 2.86% Smelt 5,000.00 - - 2,000.00 - 1,400.00 % 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Other species 420.00 8,177.00 100.00 3,100.00 5,001.00 3,359.60 % 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Total 90,817,925.09 96,654,797.20 94,934,093.00 92,263,607.00 104,099,558.00 95,753,996.06

Page 71 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Unit of ICES Sub- Landings (kg) Species Assessment division 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Mean (p.a.) 6 (Central 25-29 & 32 Herring 13,406,899.00 12,750,824.38 21,798,472.00 26,133,717.00 24,468,829.00 19,711,748.28 Baltic) % 85.97% 92.27% 91.47% 90.52% 89.80% 90.12% Sprat 2,188,717.00 1,068,052.40 2,033,516.00 2,736,191.00 2,778,884.00 2,161,072.08 % 14.03% 7.73% 8.53% 9.48% 10.20% 9.88% Smelt - - 250.00 - 201.00 90.20 % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Other species - 696.00 25.00 8.00 62.00 158.20 % 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Total 15,595,616.00 13,819,572.79 23,832,263.00 28,869,916.00 27,247,976.00 21,873,068.76

Page 72 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

4.7.1.2.3 Catches in other MSC-certified fisheries within the UoA There are two other MSC-certified fisheries within the UoA that may catch and land the non- target species caught in this fishery. These are considered below.

4.7.1.2.3.1 NKF Bothnian Bay Vendace Trawl Fishery This fishery was certified in 2015 (Bureau Veritas Certification 2015). The most recent surveillance report was published in October 2016 (Bureau Veritas Iberia 2016). It reports catches of 1,553t of vendace from this fishery in 2014 and 2015. The population status of this species is considered further in section 4.7.1.4.1 of this report.

The most recent surveillance report for this fishery provided information in catch composition from this trawl fishery. It was reported that vendace made up 90.6% of the catch, followed by herring (5.4%), with no other species making up more than 2% of the catch. Landings data provided a similar view of catch composition, with vendace making up over 93% of the catch between 2012-15 and herring less than 6.3% of the catch over this period (Bureau Veritas Iberia 2016).

These data from the vendace fishery corroborate the view that the Bothnian Bay pelagic trawl fisheries are “clean”, and that landings data are an appropriate proxy for catch data.

4.7.1.2.3.2 LFPO Pelagic Sprat Trawl Fishery This fishery was certified in 2017 (Bureau Veritas Iberia 2017). The Latvian sprat fishery overlaps to some extent with the Finnish sprat fishery in the Central Baltic Sea.

As well as considering landing data, the LFPO assessment considered fishery-independent catch samples. Landings data were very similar to those seen in the Finnish Sprat fishery. Summarising the independent catch data, the assessment report found that the sprat made up over 88% of the catch, and herring 11% of the catch. The remainder of the catch was made up of relatively few cod (142 individuals in 648t of catch sampled), flounder (154 individuals), lumpfish (2 individuals) and Lamprey (2 individuals).

These data corroborate the view that the Central Baltic pelagic trawl fishery is also “clean”, with very few non-target species recorded in either the catch or landings.

4.7.1.3 Categorising non-target species The MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements (FCR) categorise non-target species as either “primary” or “secondary”. Within each category there are sub-categories of “main” and “minor” non-target species. The criteria for determining these different categories are summarised in section 4.7.1.1 of this report. The MSC FCR requires that non-target species are categorised as part of the assessment process (see FCR at SA3.1.1).

Qualitative information and stakeholder interviews suggested that there could be a range of non-target species caught in the UoAs, particularly in the Bothnian Sea and Central Baltic trap fisheries (Table 17). Upon further investigation it became apparent that while the trap fisheries in these areas may catch a range of species, there are quantitative data from the LUKE fishery landings database which show that the only non-target species landed from the trawl and trap fisheries in any quantity are smelt and vendace.

LUKE also provided evidence showing a small catch of 3-spined sticklebacks during research trawls in the Central Baltic and Bothnian Sea areas. Given the physiology and range of this species (Bergström et al. 2015), it is reasonable to consider that it is also likely to be caught in the Bothnian Bay trawl fishery.

Page 73 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

There are no quantitative data showing any landings of the other species mentioned by stakeholders.

The assessment team therefore considers that the species that meet the MSC definition of a “primary” species are herring, sprat and vendace. The species that meet the MSC definition of a “secondary” species are smelt and 3-spined stickleback. All of the species apart from herring and sprat are considered to be “minor” non-target species, as they make up less than 5% of landings (which are considered to be representative of catch composition).

The conclusion of this part of the assessment is shown in Table 21 below.

Page 74 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Table 21: Summary of the main and minor non-target species for each Unit of Assessment based on analysis of landings data (from Table 20).

Unit of Assessment Non-target species UoA Métier Target ICES Primary Secondary Species Subdivision Main Minor Main Minor

1 Trawl Sprat 22-32 Herring (Clupea harengus) - Smelt (Osmerus eperlanus) 3-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus)

2 Trawl Herring 31 - Vendace (Coregonus - Smelt (Osmerus eperlanus) albula) 3-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus)

3 Trap 31 - Vendace (Coregonus - Smelt (Osmerus eperlanus) albula)

4 Trawl 30 Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) - - Smelt (Osmerus eperlanus) 3-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus)

5 Trap 30 - Vendace (Coregonus - Smelt (Osmerus eperlanus) albula)

6 Trawl 25-29, 32 Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) - - Smelt (Osmerus eperlanus) 3-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus)

7 Trap 25-29, 32 - - - Smelt (Osmerus eperlanus)

Page 75 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

4.7.1.4 Primary non-target species Primary non-target species are those for which reference points have been set. The only species for which reference points have been sent in the Central Baltic, Bothnian Sea and Bothnian Bay are herring, sprat, cod, salmon and vendace (ICES 2013b, 2014, 2016d, 2016e, 2016c, 2016b, 2016g, 2016h, 2016i, SLU 2015).

Cod and salmon are caught using different fishing gear to the pelagic trawls and herring traps under assessment; they are reported by LUKE to be rarely caught in any of the UoAs and are not evident in the landings data.

Catches of vendace in herring fisheries are also considered bye LUKE to be highly unlikely because vendace are a freshwater species and herring live in brackish water. Evidence is available to show that vendace catches in the Bothnian Bay and Bothnian Sea are made mainly by Swedish vessels in the northern and western areas (SLU 2015), which contrasts to the pattern of fishing activity for herring and sprats.

As noted in section 4.5.1 of this report, sprats are mainly caught in the Central Baltic but may also be caught in herring trawls in the Bothnian Sea (up to 3-6% of the catch in trawl surveys). The status of sprats in the Baltic Sea is reviewed in section 4.6.1 of this report.

4.7.1.4.1 Vendace (Coregonus albula) in the Bothnian Bay The Bothnian Bay vendace trawl fishery has been assessed against the MSC standard and was certified in 2015. The most recent surveillance audit report for the Swedish vendace fishery in the Bothnian Bay provides an account of the latest information available about the status of this stock.

The vendace stock in the Bothnian Bay is assessed by the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) in accordance with ICES guidelines (see for instance SLU 2015). The stock assessment uses fishery-dependent information (catch sampling) and also an independent hydro-acoustic survey.

The latest stock assessment indicates that the Bothnian Bay vendace stock biomass is above the Bmsy estimate of 1,500t (see Figure 26). Revised models of fishing mortality indicate that there is a declining trend of fishing mortality, and that under the most likely scenario of seal predation, F is just close to Fmsy (see Figure 27).

Page 76 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Figure 26: Biomass trends of Bothnian Bay vendace. Black and blue lines are outputs from different models. Bmsy is estimated at 1500t. [Source: Bureau Veritas Iberia 2016]

Figure 27: Fishing mortality trends for Bothnian Bay vendace. Green lines show estimates with low seal predation; blue lines show no seal predation. Dashed lines show Fmsy estimates under different seal predation scenarios. [Source: Bureau Veritas Iberia 2016]

SLU consider that the vendace stock is currently high but declining, and that F is close to or a little above Fmsy. A 4% reduction in vendace catches in the targeted fishery was recommended for 2016, which would result in an annual catch of 1,488t for the fishery.

Page 77 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

4.7.1.5 Secondary non-target species Secondary non-target species are those for which no reference points have been defined. This is generally an indication that limited data are available about the stocks concerned; as a consequence the MSC Risk-Based Framework may need to be used to assess stock status.

There is a wide range of information available about the history of coastal fisheries in the Baltic Sea and the current distribution and abundance of marine, freshwater, estuarine and migratory fish in the area (see, for instance Ojaveer et al. 2010, Lajus et al. 2013, Bergström et al. 2015, Mustamäki and Mattila 2015, HELCOM 2017).

There appears to be only two secondary non-target species that are landed in any quantity from any of the UoAs. These are the 3-spined stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus, which is considered likely to be caught in all of the trawl UoAs; and the smelt, Osmerus eperlanus which is landed from all of the UoAs

The information available describing the status of these species is considered below.

4.7.1.5.1 3-spined stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus A review of the current status of this species in the Baltic Sea has recently been published, using data from the Baltic International Acoustic Survey (BIAS) pelagic trawl hauls (Bergström et al. 2015). This study found that there has been a striking increase in abundance and range of stickleback in the Baltic Sea during the past two decades in BIAS trawl hauls; and that there had been a similar increase in the abundance and range evident from analysis of fish caught in cooling water intakes of nuclear power stations. A time series of catches in the BIAS trawls is shown in Figure 28.

Figure 28: CPUE of stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus, (mean ± SE) in pelagic trawl hauls of the Baltic International Acoustic Survey in different parts of the Baltic Sea from 1980-2011. [Source: Bergström et al. 2015].

The stickleback stock in the Bothnian Sea (ICES Subdivision 30) was estimated at 8,000 tonnes in the 1991 BIAS survey and is now considered to be 160,000t (Bergström et al. 2015).

Page 78 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The stickleback biomass in the Central Baltic (ICES Subdivision 27) is reported to have increased exponentially and is estimated to now be around 10% of the pelagic fish biomass; large parts of the Baltic are considered to be dominated by sticklebacks (Ljunggren et al. 2010).

4.7.1.5.2 Smelt, Osmerus eperlanus Smelt are a small, anadromous fish species with a distribution along the north-west European coast. When in marine waters they remain near to the coast, and spawn in fresh water. The distribution range of smelt is shown in Figure 29.

Figure 29: Computer generated distribution maps for Osmerus eperlanus (European smelt), with modelled year 2100 native range map based on IPCC A2 emissions scenario. www.aquamaps.org, version of Aug. 2016. Web. Accessed 19 Oct. 2017.

Fish monitoring projects conducted in the Baltic Sea show that smelt are widely distributed in coastal areas throughout the Baltic (Adjers et al. 2006, HELCOM 2012).

There are no stock assessments for this species. Life history data for smelt are available and are summarised in FishBase (Fishbase 2017).

4.7.1.5.3 European whitefish, Coregonus spp. The assessment team note that the European whitefish species (Coregonus spp.) occur in throughout the UoAs, and that these species (or the species complex, since taxonomy is uncertain) are potentially very vulnerable to fishery impacts. Concerns about the impact of the Bothnian Bay vendace trawl fishery were raised by WWF in the assessment of that fishery against the MSC standard (Bureau Veritas Certification 2015), and the assessment team has thus considered the risks that the UoAs under assessment may pose to European whitefish.

The migratory European whitefish (C. lavaretus / C. maraena) is listed as endangered (EN) in Finland (Rassi et al. 2010) and also as endangered in the HELCOM Red List of Baltic Species (HELCOM 2013b). The sea-spawning whitefish is listed as vulnerable (VU) in Finland. The causes for the decline of the migratory whitefish are attributed to changes in riverine fish

Page 79 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

populations, particularly the increased abundance of pikeperch (Haakana and Huuskonen 2012, Vainikka et al. 2017).

The available evidence from the LUKE trawl and trap fishery landings database are that there are negligible catches of European whitefish in the Finnish trap and trawl fisheries for herring and sprat. The client and LUKE both reported that European whitefish are very rarely caught in herring traps and trawls, and this assertion is supported by the landings data (see section 4.7.1.2.2.2 of this report).

The low catches of whitefish in the UoAs under assessment may be due to fishing and management measures in place. Studies of trap fisheries elsewhere in the Baltic sea report that the design and location of herring and whitefish traps are significantly different (Lundin 2014), which minimises whitefish catches in the herring trap fishery. The private ownership of inshore waters which results in the exclusion of trawling from nearshore areas (see section 4.8.1.4 of this report) where migratory whitefish are more abundant may help to reduce catches of whitefish in the trawl fishery.

Endangered, Threatened & Protected (ETP)

4.7.2.1 Definition and identification of ETP species in the UoAs Endangered, threatened or protected (ETP) species are defined by the MSC (SA3.1.5, (Marine Stewardship Council 2014b) as species that are: i) Recognised by national ETP legislation, ii) Listed on Appendix I of 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 UoA under assessment is not endangered), iii) Listed in any binding agreements concluded under the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), or iv) Classified as ‘out-of scope’ (amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) that are listed in the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Redlist as vulnerable (VU), endangered (EN) or critically endangered (CE).

4.7.2.1.1 ETPs in National legislation The national ETP legislation in Finland is described on the Government’s “Environment.fi” website (Environment.fi 2017). In brief, the principal national ETP legislation in force in Finland is the Nature Conservation Act 1996 (Government of Finland 1996) which sets out a framework for protecting wildlife in Finland and also transposes the EU Habitats Directive and Wild Birds Directives (EC 1992, 2009a) into Finnish law, enabling the creation of Natura 2000 sites and also requiring the protection of all of the species listed in the Annexes of these Directives. These species include, inter alia, all species of wild birds; all species of cetaceans and pinnipeds; and also several fish species including salmon (Salmo salar) in freshwater; sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus); Allis shad (Alosa alosa); and twaite shad (Alosa fallax).

Chapter 6 of the Nature Conservation Act protects all species of birds and mammals not specifically listed as game species or unprotected species. Species other than mammals or birds, and plants, can be protected by a separate decree. The Nature Conservation Decree (Government of Finland 1997) lists 62 animal, 131 vascular plant and 13 moss species that are legally protected.

According to the Nature Conservation Act, any naturally occurring species in Finland whose survival in the wild is at risk can be declared a threatened species. Annex 4 of the Nature Conservation Decree contains a list of threatened species. This list is based on the Red List

Page 80 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

of Finnish Species. It does not include threatened species subject to the Hunting Act, the Fishing Act, or species which only occur in Åland.

The Nature Conservation Decree lists 2,124 threatened species, 680 of which are under strict protection. Causing damage to or destroying a habitat important to the survival of a species under strict protection is also prohibited if the land where it takes place has been notified by the ELY Centre.

The list of endangered species in Appendix 4 of the Nature Conservation Decree includes the ringed seal (Phoca hispida botnica / Pusa saimensis); Saimaa ringed seal (Phoca hispida saimensis); and otter (Lutra lutra). A consolidated version of this Act including the latest amendments to the lists of protected species is available on line (FINLEX 2017).

There are no records from the fishery indicating that any of the species listed in the Nature Conservation Act or Nature Conservation Decree are caught in either the herring or sprat trawl fisheries or in the herring trap fishery.

4.7.2.1.2 EU Legislation The main EU legislation in force for the protection of ETP species is set out in two Directives: the “Habitats Directive” (92/43/EC) and the “Wild Birds Directive” (2009/147/EC) (EC 1992, 2009a). The species protected in these Directives are listed in Directives which assign varying levels of protection, dependent on the conservation status of each species. The Habitats Directive, for instance, sets out protection measures for 1,000 different terrestrial and aquatic species. For instance, Annex IV of the Habitats Directive lists species that require strict protection.

The species listed in this EU legislation which are considered to be vulnerable to capture in the Bothnian Bay, Bothnian Sea and Central Baltic UoAs are:- • Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) • Harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) • Grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) • Baltic ringed seals (Phoca hispida botnica) • Cormorants (Phallacrocorax carbo sinensis)

In 1998 the EC introduced measures to protect cetaceans from marine fisheries (EC Regulation, 88/98 subsequently amended by Regulations 812/2004 and 809/2007 (EC 2004, 2007)). Whilst principally directed at drift net fisheries, these measures also apply to trawl fisheries. They require, inter alia, that observers are carried on fishing vessels of more than 15m overall length to monitor cetacean by-catch, and that Member States establish appropriate means for recording bycatch incidence.

4.7.2.1.3 CITES Appendix I listing The assessment team has reviewed Appendix I of CITES on-line, and none of the species reported to be caught and retained in the fishery are listed in Appendix I of CITES (CITES 2017).

It is noted that the provisions of EU Council Regulation 338/97 which implements CITES requirements in Europe are implemented into enforceable domestic legislation in the ss44 of the Finnish Nature Conservation Act (Government of Finland 1996, EC 1997).

4.7.2.1.4 Binding agreements under the Convention on Migratory Species The binding agreements made under the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species (CMS) (also known as the “Bonn Convention”) are listed on the CMS website (CMS 2017). The only agreement that is relevant to the UoAs in this fishery is the Agreement on the

Page 81 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Conservation of Small Cetaceans in the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas ASCOBANS), which is briefly described below.

4.7.2.1.4.1 ASCOBANS (Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans in the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas) The Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans in the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas (ASCOBANS) was concluded in 1991 and came into force in 1994; in February 2008 it was extended into the North East Atlantic (ASCOBANS 2017a). The objective of ASCOBANS is to achieve and maintain a favourable conservation status for small cetaceans.

Finland has been a party to the ASCOBANS agreement since 1999, and submits annual national reports to ASCOBANS detailing information on measures taken to contribute to ASCOBANS objectives (ASCOBANS 2017b, 2017c). The most recent report described the role the Finland has taken in the SAMBAH acoustic monitoring project (see section 4.7.2.4.2 of this report), and that the new Fisheries Act 2015 now requires that fishermen immediately report any seal or harbour porpoise by-catches to LUKE.

Figure 30: Map showing parties to the ASCOBANS agreement around the Baltic Sea. [Source: ASCOBANS 2017a].

In 2009 the parties to ASCOBANS agreed to a recovery plan for the Baltic Sea, known as the “Jastarnia Plan” (ASCOBANS 2016). The plan lists recommendations and mitigation actions to protect cetacean species (for instance by reducing bycatch in fisheries towards zero and minimising the impacts of anthropogenic noise).

Page 82 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

4.7.2.1.5 Out of scope species on IUCN Redlist The assessment team has reviewed the IUCN Redlist of endangered species online (IUCN 2017)

The threat status of Finnish species is evaluated every ten years, most recently in 2010. The results of the assessment are published in the Red List of Finnish Species, listing Regionally Extinct, Threatened, Near Threatened and Data Deficient species using IUCN criteria (Rassi et al. 2010).

Among the Finnish species assessed as vulnerable or endangered in the 2010 Red List are European whitefish and salmon. Neither of these species are “out of scope”, nor are they listed as threatened or protected species in domestic legislation. They are therefore not considered as ETP species but have been considered as non-target species in this fishery (see section 4.7.1).

In addition to the IUCN and Finnish redlists, there is also a HELCOM Red List of Baltic Sea species in danger of becoming extinct, also compiled using IUCN criteria as its basis (HELCOM 2013c). The HELCOM Red List is reproduced at Table 22. A full list of the status of all species in the Baltic Sea is also available (HELCOM 2013c).

Page 83 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Table 22: List of Regionally Extinct (RE) and threatened (CR; Critically Endangered, EN; Endangered, VU; Vulnerable) species in the Baltic Sea and their threat status. [Source: HELCOM 2013a].

4.7.2.1.6 Reports of ETP species capture from the fishery Stakeholders interviewed during the site visit considered that direct interactions with “out of scope” species were unlikely in the trawl fishery, and that the only species likely to interact with the trap fishery were seals (harbour seals and harp seals occur in the UoA areas) and cormorants; however it was reported that the level of interaction with birds and pinnipeds was negligible.

Page 84 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The status of these ETP species and the information available about direct effects (capture in fishing gear) and indirect effects (competition for resources) is considered below.

4.7.2.1.7 Harmonisation The only overlapping MSC-certified fishery that uses similar fishing gear to the UoAs under assessment is the Latvian FPO sprat trawl fishery (Bureau Veritas Iberia 2017). This fishery identified sea lamprey, harbour porpoise, grey seals and common seals as ETP species.

4.7.2.1.8 Conclusion Having considered all of the available information, including interviews with stakeholders during the site visit, and after reviewing all of the relevant legislation, the ETP species that are considered to be at risk from either direct or indirect impacts with the UoAs under assessment are summarised in Table 23 below.

Table 23: List of the ETP species considered in this assessment, summarising the basis for their selection.

Species Legislation CMS “Red List” Agreements Status

Common name Nature EU EU Birds ASCOBANS IUCN HELCOM Conservation Habitats Directive Act 1996 Directive

Fish

Allis shad Y Annex II, - - LC NA1 (Alosa alosa) V

Birds

Cormorant Y - Article 1 - LC LC Phallacrocorax carbo sinensis

Marine Mammals

Harbour porpoise Y Annex II, - Y VU VU / CR2 (Phocoena IV phocoena)

Harbour seals Y Annex II, - - LC LC / VU3 (Phoca vitulina) IV

Grey seals Y Annex II, - - LC LC (Halichoerus grypus) IV

Baltic ringed seal Y Annex II, - - VU VU (Phoca hispida IV botnica)

Notes 1 NA = Not Applicable: HELCOM do not consider it appropriate to classify the status of this species in the Baltic Sea. 2 The western Baltic harbour porpoise population is considered Vulnerable; the Central Baltic population is considered Critically Endangered. 3 The southern Baltic harbour seal population is considered to be of Least Concern; the Kalmarsund population (between the Swedish mainland and the island of Oland) is considered to be vulnerable.

Page 85 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The status of each of these species and information about their interaction with the UoAs is considered below.

4.7.2.2 Fish Only one species of fish meets the definition of ETP species set out in the MSC FCR. This is the Allis shad, considered below.

4.7.2.2.1 Allis shad (Alosa alosa) The status of Allis shad (“Pilkkusilli” in Finnish) in the Baltic Sea has recently been reviewed by HELCOM (HELCOM 2013d), and is summarised below.

The Allis shad is an anadromous fish that is very rare in the Baltic Sea, and is considered to have always been rare in the Baltic since it was first recorded in 1855. It is not known to reproduce in the Baltic Sea, and the population estimated to be found in the Baltic does not exceed 2% of the European population. For these reasons HELCOM consider it inappropriate to categorise the status of this species in the Baltic Sea.

Although pelagic fisheries are identified as a potential threat to the Allis shad, there are no reports of catches of this species from the UoAs being considered.

4.7.2.3 Birds

4.7.2.3.1 Cormorants (Phallacrocorax carbo sinensis) The fisheries under assessment have two potential effects on cormorants: an indirect effect through competition for fish; and a direct effect resulting from either entanglement in fishing gear or through population control.

A review of the current status of the Great Cormorant, Phallcrocorax carbo sinensis is provided in a HELCOM “Environment Fact Sheet” (Herrmann et al. 2014) which draws on information from a wide range of sources. This review reports that the population of this species was exterminated in several Baltic countries in the 19th century, but has recovered in the 20th century as a result of protection measures and also controls on the use of DDT and PCBs which can adversely affect bird reproduction. The most recent pan-European cormorant census in 2012 showed a population of around 160,000 breeding pairs (Figure 31).

Page 86 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Figure 31: Breeding pair numbers of Great Cormorant in the Baltic Sea from the pan-European Cormorant Census, 2012 [Source: Herrmann et al. 2014]

The status of the cormorant population in the northern Baltic is illustrated in Figure 32 below. The Finnish cormorant population has grown rapidly from the first record of a breeding pair in 1996 to over 17,000 breeding pairs in 2012. The most recent survey in Finland (SYKE 2016) indicates a slowing of the growth of the cormorant population which is now estimated at just over 25,000 breeding pairs (Figure 33). In some areas there has been a downward trend, possibly a result of predation by white-tailed eagles (Figure 34). The location of breeding colonies is also monitored by SYKE (Figure 35).

Figure 32: Population development of cormorants in the northern Baltic from 1983-2013. [Source: Herrmann et al. 2014]

Page 87 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Figure 33: Number of breeding pairs of cormorants in Finland, 2007-2016. [Source: SYKE 2016].

Figure 34: Abundance of cormorants by sea area around Finland, 2007-2016. [Source: SYKE 2016].

Page 88 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Figure 35: Location of cormorant breeding colonies along the Finnish coast in the summer of 2016. [Source: SYKE 2016].

In the shallow coastal waters where cormorants forage for food, there can be competition between cormorants and coastal fisheries for the same fish stocks (Östman et al. 2013). This study found that in Swedish waters of the Baltic Sea, cormorant predation may decrease catches in fisheries, and that cormorants feed on herring smaller than harvested in commercial fisheries.

The relationship between cormorant populations and fisheries was reviewed between 2004- 2008 in a project called “INTERCAFE” (Interdisciplinary Initiative to Reduce Pan-European Cormorant-Fisheries Conflicts). Several final reports haven been produced by INTERCAFE, including a review of cormorant status at the continental scale; a field manual for research; a “Cormorant Management Toolbox” for reducing cormorant problems in European fisheries; and also a review of social, cultural and legal perspectives on cormorant-fisheries conflicts. All of these are freely available on the INTERCAFE website (INTERCAFE 2017).

The INTERCAFE project examined cormorant-fishery interactions in the Gulf of Finland as one of its case studies, and the findings are reported in the INTERCAFE Final Report (van Eerden et al. 2012). In brief, the key finding in this area was that in coastal waters where cormorants forage for fish the abundance of marine fish is in decline and the abundance of cormorants is increasing. These two opposing trends are not thought to be directly related – marine fish are in decline as a consequence of environmental changes (notably decreasing salinity and also fishing pressure on larger fish species); and the abundance of cormorants has increased as a result of improved protection and the creation of nature reserves.

Page 89 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

In coastal areas of Finland and in particular the Archipelago Sea, concerns remain about the potential effect of cormorants on the abundance of coastal fish. This issue was discussed with the FFA, LUKE scientists, WWF Finland, and MAF officials during the site visit for the fishery assessment (see interview records in section 13.2 of this report).

Shooting of cormorants is permitted outside the breeding season under Article 9(1) of the EU Birds Directive (EC 2009a). Records of the number of birds shot are reported by HELCOM (Herrmann et al. 2014), and indicate that around 10-20,000 birds are shot in the Baltic Sea area annually, and that 95 cormorants were shot in Finland in 2011.

The management measures in place for addressing concerns about conflicts between cormorants and fisheries also allow for fishermen affected by cormorants to apply to the Southwest Finland Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment (ELY Centre) for permission to either scare the birds away, or to prick cormorant eggs in the nest during the breeding season when the birds are otherwise protected. Permission was granted to scare birds away their breeding colonies in the vicinity of a pikeperch fishery in a small part of the Archipelago Sea in 2012; and also to allow egg pricking in the same area in 2010. The licence limited the management actions to scaring Cormorants away from the colonies before egg-laying. This took place in three small colonies and was unsuccessful in one case. In 2010, a similar licence was issued, applying to four small colonies in the same area; additionally egg-pricking was carried out in one of the colonies which contained 325 nests.

4.7.2.4 Marine mammals As with birds, marine mammals may have two types of interaction with the UoAs in this fishery: a direct impact resulting from physical interactions with fishing gear (accidental capture or entanglement); and an indirect impact resulting from competition for the same food resource. Both potential impacts are considered for the ETP species identified in the UoAs.

4.7.2.4.1 Information sources The threat to different marine mammal species associated with different human activities has recently been evaluated by the ICES Working Group on Marine Mammal Ecology (ICES 2015). This review considered both direct and indirect effects. The results of this review are summarised in the table below.

Page 90 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Table 24: Threat matrix for marine mammals in the Baltic Sea. Red shading (“H”) indicates evidence or a strong likelihood of negative population impacts ; yellow shading (“M”) indicates a strong likelihood of negative impacts at the individual level, but population impacts unclear; green shading (“L”) indicates weak evidence of negative impacts on populations or individuals. [Source: ICES 2015].

Note: there is an error in the line for “removal of non-target species (marine mammal bycatch). The threat to harbour porpoise and ringed seal is “High” and should be shaded red.

Some data are available about marine mammal interactions from the UoAs.

Anecdotal reports from the client, LUKE scientists and MAF indicated that there were very limited interactions with marine mammals. Fishermen are required to report such interactions, and the incidence of reporting is very low.

A summary of the status of each marine mammal that could be impacted by the UoAs in this fishery is presented below.

Page 91 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

4.7.2.4.2 Cetaceans

4.7.2.4.2.1 Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) The harbour porpoise is a small cetacean, and the only cetacean species found in the Baltic Sea all year round. It is primarily a coastal species but regularly ventures up rivers and has been seen hundreds of kilometres from the sea (ASCOBANS 2017d).

In the 19th and early 20th centuries harbour porpoise were recorded in the Gulf of Bothnian Bay and Gulf of Finland, but the population has declined considerably since then. The recent decline in the harbour porpoise population in the Baltic Sea has been documented by HELCOM, with a fall from 28,000 individuals in 1994 to 11,000 in 2005 (HELCOM 2013e).

The most recent assessment of the abundance and status of harbour porpoise in the Baltic Sea was presented in the Static Acoustic Monitoring of the Baltic Harbour Porpoise (SAMBAH) report published in 2016 (SAMBAH 2016). This study used passive acoustic monitoring methods to assess the abundance and location of harbour porpoises in the Baltic Sea. The results of this work are summarised in Figure 36 below. The Turku University of Applied Sciences in Finland was one of the partners in this study.

The SAMBAH study concluded that there are two distinct harbour porpoise populations in the Baltic Sea: one population (of approximately 20,000 animals) in the south-western Baltic Sea (the “Belt Seas”); and a much smaller population of around 500 animals in the Central Baltic Sea, extending into the Gulf of Finland and as far as the Archipelago Sea. Harbour porpoise were not found in the Bothnian Sea or Bothnian Bay (Figure 36).

With respect to IUCN population status, the Central Baltic harbour porpoise sub-population is considered to be Critically Endangered; the Baltic Sea subpopulation is considered to be Vulnerable (HELCOM 2013e).

Figure 36: Distribution of harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in the Baltic Sea, based on acoustic monitoring and modelling, shown for the months of August and February. The dashed line in map (a) shows the boundary between the two summer clusters. [Source: SAMBAH 2016].

Page 92 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The SAMBAH report and the most recent HELCOM review have considered the potential impacts of human activities on the Baltic Sea harbour porpoise populations, highlighting in particular the status of the smaller Central Baltic population. The main issues that were identified in these reports were historical hunting in the late 19th century; pollution; the impact of mechanical noise (principally from infrastructure projects and fast boats); and also from bottom-set gill and tangle nets (HELCOM 2013e, SAMBAH 2016). In a study of harbour porpoise bycatch in the Belt Sea, pelagic trawls accounted for less than 1% of bycatches in the Kattegat, and were not recorded at all in the Skagerrak or Baltic Sea around Gotland (Berggren 1994).

The SAMBAH report considered that fish traps could provide a method for mitigating the impacts of coastal gill net fisheries on harbour porpoise, citing recent work demonstrating that fish traps studied off the Swedish coast had no cetacean, bird or pinniped bycatch (Königson et al. 2015, SAMBAH 2016).

Harbour porpoises are subject to international protection under the Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans in the Atlanto-Scandian and Baltic (ASCOBANS), and area also protected within EU waters under the EC Habitats Directive (ASCOBANS 1992, EC 1992).

4.7.2.4.3 Pinnipeds (Seals) There are three seal species that are found in the UoA areas and which could interact with pelagic trawl and trap fisheries: harbour seals (Phoca vitulina vitulina); grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) and Baltic ringed seals (Phoca hispida botnica). The status of each of these species is briefly reviewed in sections 4.7.2.4.3.1-4.7.2.4.3.3 of this report. Some aspects of their management in Finland are briefly reviewed below.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) in Finland has produced a management plan for seals in the Baltic Sea (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2007). This plan has two parts. The first part considers the status of ringed and grey seals; summarises the legislation in place for their protection at the international, EU and national level; and reviews the threats to seal populations. The second part sets out objectives and measures for their future management. The main objective of the plan is “…to ensure that seals remain a permanent component of the marine environment and its diverse community, and that they remain a valuable natural resource which can be utilised in a sustainable way.” (note that “utilisation” in this context means limited hunting and ecotourism).

The management regime for seal conservation in Finland includes regulation of hunting for seals. Under the Hunting Act 1993 (Government of Finland 1993) Baltic ringed seals, grey seals and harbour seals are listed as “Game animals” which can be hunted under an appropriate licence; however in 2011 harbour seals were listed as protected at all times. The Hunting Act allows a derogation from these controls to be granted by the Finnish Wildlife Agency in the case of preventing damage to fisheries (at §41a (1)). Similar legislation is in force in the province of Åland.

The Government of Finland established 7 seal conservation areas in the Finnish Baltic in 2001, covering around 19,000ha (Figure 37). These are principally located at grey seal haul-out sites. Within these areas hunting is prohibited and the only fishing methods permitted are those that are not harmful to seals (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2007, HELCOM 2013f). The province of Åland has also designated a similar seal conservation area which restricts access in order to prevent disturbance to seals.

Page 93 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Figure 37: Map showing the location of seal conservation areas that were established by the Government of Finland in 2001. (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2007)

In addition to the seal conservation areas there are 140 marine Natura 2000 sites in the Finnish Baltic Sea, of which 66 may be important seal habitats. Twelve of the Natura 2000 sites in mainland Finland specifically list grey seals as a conservation feature (which is therefore protected in these areas as an Annex II species in the EU Habitats Directive), and 5 of these sites also list ringed seals. The Finnish province of Aland has 14 Natura 2000 sites that list grey seals as a conservation feature.

The Finnish Government has put in place mechanisms for compensating fishermen for any damage caused to their nets and catches by seals caused by the increasing abundance of seals. A state-subsidised insurance scheme is in place to provide compensation for loss or damage to fishing gear caused by seals; compensation has been paid for the loss of catches in the past (claims of €7.47M were submitted in 2000-01); more recently the favoured approach for addressing the problem has been through assistance for purchasing selective and seal proof trap nets, which was initially progressed in Finland in 2001 through a derogation from EU rules and subsequently has been subsidised by the EU European Fisheries Fund (in the period 2002-05, subsidies of €2.5M were applied for the purchase of 250 seal-proof trap nets).

The threat posed to seal populations by fishing was reviewed in the MAF seal management plan, and has been assessed by other researchers. The bycatch of grey seals in all fishing métiers in the Baltic Sea was examined in the early 1990s, and coastal gill nets appeared to account for most of the seal bycatch, with a significant catch in coastal trap fisheries and negligible catch in pelagic trawl fisheries (Berggren 1994). Since that time, “seal proof” traps that incorporate “seal exclusion devices” (SEDs) in their design have been developed and

Page 94 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

proved to be very effective at reducing adult seal bycatch to very low levels (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2007, Lundin 2014, Königson et al. 2015), though it is noted that juvenile seals may be small enough to squeeze between the SEDs and become trapped.

A study of a bycatch mitigation device termed a “seal sock” in fyke nets used to catch whitefish, vendace, salmon and brown trout in the Bothnian Bay demonstrated that seals that are able to access the water surface to breathe can survive capture in fish traps where the fish chamber is submerged (Oksanen et al. 2015). The herring traps used in the UoA have a fish chamber that is open to the surface (see Figure 9). This may mitigate impacts of the herring trap UoAs on seals.

There is acknowledged to be no reliable estimate of seal bycatch in Baltic fisheries, and statistical approaches to analysis of bycatch data are being used to try to improve understanding of this issue. The bycatch of seals in gill net and set net fisheries in the coastal waters of the Central Baltic, Gulf of Riga, Gulf of Finland and Gulf of Bothnia has been examined recently (Vanhatalo et al. 2014). This study found that gill nets accounted for the majority of seal bycatches. Out of a total reported by-catch of 284 grey seals in the trap fisheries in this area, 50 seals were reported in Finnish waters. This study took account of likely patterns of under-reporting to conclude that the total by-catch of grey seals in the study area was likely to be around 2,000 individuals per year.

4.7.2.4.3.1 Harbour / Common seals (Phoca vitulina vitulina) The status of harbour seals (also known as Common Seals (“kirjohylje” in Finnish)) in the Baltic Sea has been reviewed recently by HELCOM and ICES (HELCOM 2013f, ICES 2015). The key findings of these reviews are summarised below.

ICES report that the harbour seal is found in two populations in the Baltic, one around Kalmar Sound on the Swedish east coast and one in the southwestern Baltic with haul outs in southern Sweden and Denmark (see Figure 38). The Kalmar Sound population has suffered a dramatic decline from an estimated 5000 to about 200 seals in the 1970s, caused by hunting and probably impaired reproduction caused by pollutants. Since the mid-1980s, the population has grown at an annual rate of ca. 9%. In 2013, 900 seals were counted during the moult, a number that does not include seals at sea during the survey. In the southwestern Baltic the historical abundance is unknown, but definitely much greater than the 168 seals counted in the first systematic survey in 1988. In 1988 and in 2002, the population was hit by the Phocine Distemper Virus epizootic. The impact of the 1988 epizootic is unknown and approximately one third of the population died in the 2002 epizootic. Except for this, the population has grown by a rate of around 10% since 1988 and 1563 seals were counted in 2013, a number that does not include seals at sea during the survey.

Page 95 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Figure 38: Distribution of harbour seals, Phoca vitulina vitulina, in the Baltic Sea. [Source: (HELCOM 2013g)].

HELCOM report that, applying IUCN criteria, the Kalmarsund subpopulation is considered to be Vulnerable and the Southern Baltic subpopulation is considered to be of Least Concern.

The range of the harbour seal is at the south-eastern end of the Baltic sprat trawl fishery area (UoA1) and the Central Baltic herring trawl fishery (UoA 6). It doesn’t overlap with the areas fished by the Bothnian Sea or Bothnian Bay trawl fisheries (UoAs 2 & 4); nor does the range of this species overlap with any of the trap fisheries (UoAs 3, 5, 7).

4.7.2.4.3.2 Grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) The status of grey seals (“harmaahylje” in Finnish) in the Baltic sea has recently been reviewed by ICES and HELCOM (HELCOM 2013f, ICES 2015). The key findings of these reviews are summarised below.

The ICES WGMME report indicates that there is a single grey seal population in the Baltic Sea (ICES 2015). Grey seals are found mainly in the Central Baltic and Gulf of Bothnia (Figure 40). The grey seal population in the Baltic Sea was estimated to be over 100,000 individuals at the start of the 20th century and to have fallen to around 2,000 individuals in the late 1970s as a result of hunting and pollution. The population subsequently started to recover in response to controls on pollution and hunting (Figure 39). In 2012, approximately 28,000 grey seals were counted in the annual survey in the moulting period (HELCOM 2013f). HELCOM consider that within the UoA areas, the status of grey seals is of “Least Concern”.

Page 96 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Figure 39: The number of grey seals counted in censuses for different areas of the Baltic Sea, 1990-2004. (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2007)

Figure 40: Distribution of grey seals, Halichoerus grypus, in the Baltic Sea [Source: HELCOM 2013a].

The range of the grey seal overlaps with all of the UoAs under assessment in this fishery.

Page 97 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

4.7.2.4.3.3 Baltic ringed seal (Phoca hispida botnica) A review of the status of the Baltic ringed seal (“Itämeren norppa” in Finnish) population is presented in a HELCOM Species Information Sheet (HELCOM 2013h) and briefly summarised below.

Ringed seals are mainly found in the Arctic. The Baltic sub-population of “land locked” and are considered to be a geographically isolated postglacial relict. The population of Baltic ringed seals is estimated at around 10,000 individuals, 70% of which are found in the Bothnian Bay (see Figure 41).

The population of Baltic ringed seals is estimated to have fallen from around 180-200,000 individuals at the start of the 20th century to as few as 5,000 individuals in the 1970s. The population decline was principally a result of hunting and the impacts of organochlorine pollutants on reproductive success. The population is presently estimated to have been growing at a rate of 4.58% per year since 1988 in the Bothnian Bay (Figure 42).

Figure 41: Distribution of Baltic ringed seals, Phoca hispida botnica, in the Baltic Sea [Source: HELCOM 2013d].

The range of the Baltic ringed seal overlaps with all of the UoAs being considered in this assessment. The main concentration of these seals is in the Bothnian Bay.

Page 98 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Figure 42: Annual estimate of the Baltic ringed seal population in the Bothnian Bay, 1987-2006. (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2007).

Ringed seals are adapted to breeding on ice. Although they have been observed to breed on islets or skerries in the Baltic Sea in winters with poor ice, the pup mortality rate is known to be very high under these circumstances. Climate change is considered to be a major threat to the Baltic ringed seal populations.

Within Finland, the Baltic ringed seal is considered a game animal, but permits for hunting have not been issued since 1988. Killing seals to avoid damage to fishing nets is permissible. The maximum annual quota is 30 animals, but only a few animals are reported to have been killed in recent years (HELCOM 2013h).

The potential threats to the Baltic ringed seal population include entrapment in fishing gear. A study of fyke nets in the Bothnian Bay (targeting species other than herring) found that juvenile ringed seals were more susceptible to capture in nets than adults (Oksanen et al. 2015).

Habitats The MSC FCR requires that habitat impacts of the fishery are considered. Herring and sprats are pelagic species, and the fishing gear (trawls and traps) used in all of the UoAs is designed to catch them in the water column.

There is no plausible mechanism by which either herring trawls or fish traps can adversely affect the physical characteristics of the water column or diminish its value as a habitat. However, the FCR now requires that the likelihood of interactions between fishing gear and other marine habitats are taken into account. For this reason it is appropriate to consider the distribution and status of seabed habitats in the UoA areas and the risk that they could be adversely affected by either fishing métier under consideration.

During the site visit the client and LUKE scientists confirmed that the trawls used in the herring fishery are indeed pelagic, and that references to “demersal trawling” for herring by Finnish vessels that had appeared in various ICES documents had arisen from inappropriate use of this terminology during ICES meeting; the intention had been to describe mid-water pelagic trawling in the deeper parts of the northern Baltic Sea (see section 13.2 of this report).

Page 99 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The impacts of the two different fishing métiers used in the Units of Assessment on seabed habitats have not been studied in Finnish waters. However, based on generic studies of the impacts of fishing gear (such as Jennings and Kaiser 1998) it is possible to anticipate the impacts that trawls and fish traps could have on seabed habitats. These are considered in the following paragraphs.

The trawls used in both the herring and sprat fisheries are pelagic. They are designed to catch fish that are swimming near the surface or in the water column, and are not designed to make contact with the seabed. The construction of the footrope of the trawls indicates that they are lightweight and would not withstand contact with the seabed (see Figure 6). The landings composition from the trawl UoAs confirm that the gear operates in the water column, as only pelagic species are reported to be landed (see section 4.7.1.2.2 of this report). The trawls used in the herring and sprat fisheries are not, therefore, considered likely to impact either Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems or benthic habitats in the UoAs. These conclusions are consistent with those drawn in the recent assessment of the LFPO sprat fishery (Bureau Veritas Iberia 2017),

The herring traps used in the UoAs are described in section 4.5.3 of this report. In summary, the traps are set in the same locations in shallow coastal waters in the spring of each year and are removed at the end of the fishing season. Each trap may be secured with between 20 and 45 moorings (which are either wooden posts or anchors). The number of traps deployed in coastal waters is limited, and herring traps are relatively small in size. The interaction between the net and the seabed is limited to the immediate footprint of the anchorages for the trap.

The protection of marine habitats in the Baltic Sea is achieved through the activities of the Baltic Marine Environment Protection - Helsinki Commission (HELCOM), the European Union, and by national Governments through the identification and protection of marine areas that are sensitive, vulnerable or unique.

HELCOM is the governing body of the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, known as the Helsinki Convention. The Contracting Parties are Denmark, Estonia, the European Union, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia and Sweden (HELCOM 2017b).

HELCOM was established about four decades ago to protect the marine environment of the Baltic Sea from all sources of pollution through intergovernmental cooperation. HELCOM's vision for the future is a healthy Baltic Sea environment with diverse biological components functioning in balance, resulting in a good ecological status and supporting a wide range of sustainable economic and social activities.

A target for establishing an ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas was first set by the HELCOM/OSPAR Ministerial meeting in 2003; with the publication of the Baltic Sea Action Plan in 2007, concrete deadlines were set for designating Marine Protected Areas (HELCOM MPAs), with the aim of restoring the good ecological status of the Baltic marine environment by 2021. In support of this aim, the Contracting Parties of HELCOM have identified and designated Marine Protected Areas under their own national legislation (described further in section 4.7.3.2 below).

Page 100 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

4.7.3.1 Commonly encountered habitats Commonly encountered marine habitats are defined by the MSC as “…a habitat that regularly comes into contact with the gear used by the UoA…” (FCR at SA3.13.3.1 (Marine Stewardship Council 2014b)).

The distribution and sensitivity of marine habitats in the Baltic Sea has most recently been evaluated by the Helsinki Commission, HELCOM. The distribution of marine habitats in the Baltic Sea is shown in Figure 43 below.

The fishing gear used in the trawl fishery is designed for use in the water column, and is not intended to contact the seabed. The relationship between trap locations and commonly encountered habitats can be determined by comparing Figure 43 with Figure 7 of this report.

Page 101 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Figure 43: Map showing the distribution of marine habitats in the Baltic Sea. [Source: HELCOM 2016].

Page 102 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

4.7.3.2 Vulnerable marine ecosystems The MSC states that vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) “…shall be defined as is done in paragraph 42 subparagraphs (i)-(v) of the FAO Guidelines…” (i.e., that they have uniqueness or rarity, functional significance, fragility, life history traits that make recovery difficult, and/or structural complexity) (FCR at SA3.13.3.2 & GSA3.13.3.2 (Marine Stewardship Council 2014b)).

In this context, VMEs in the Baltic Sea are represented by the HELCOM MPAs and Natura 2000 sites that have been designated by HELCOM and the EU respectively. The current extent of HELCOM MPAs and Marine Natura 2000 sites is shown in Figure 44. HELCOM have also produced a “Red List” of Baltic Sea biotopes and habitats (see Table 25 below).

A review of protected areas in the Baltic Sea in 2016 found that the network of protected areas covered 16.7% of the marine area, an increase from the extent in the previous assessment in 2015 (HELCOM 2015, 2016). There are presently 174 HELCOM MPAs in the Baltic Sea. Finland has designated 33 MPAs, covering 6,285km², 12% of its territorial waters. The UN Convention on Biological Diversity set a target of conserving 10% of coastal and marine areas (Target 11 of the CBD, see United Nations 1992, Convention on Biological Diversity 2017).

The relationship between HELCOM MPAs and fishing activities by vessels equipped with Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) equipment is shown in Figure 45.

The relationship between trap locations and vulnerable marine ecosystems (HELCOM MPAs and Natura 2000 sites) can be determined by comparing Figure 44with Figure 7 in this report.

Page 103 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Table 25: HELCOM Red List of Baltic Sea biotopes and habitats (showing just the Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable biotopes & habitats). [Source: HELCOM 2013].

Page 104 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Figure 44: Map showing the location of marine Natura 2000 sites and HELCOM MPAs in the Baltic Sea. [Source: HELCOM 2016].

Page 105 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Figure 45: Map showing the location of HELCOM MPAs in the Baltic Sea and spatial distribution of Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) data for all fishing types. Note that white areas on the map may indicate both no data being available or no fishing by vessels equipped with VMS. [Source: HELCOM 2016].

Page 106 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Ecosystems To score the ecosystem PIs, it is helpful (but not an explicit MSC requirement) to define the ecosystem within which the fishery operates. The MSC does, though, require the ‘key ecosystem elements’ to be defined, and describes them as:-

“the features of an ecosystem considered as being most crucial to giving the ecosystem its characteristic nature and dynamics, and are considered relative to the scale and intensity of the UoA; they are features most crucial to maintaining the integrity of its structure and functions and the key determinants of the ecosystem resilience and productivity” (SA3.16.3, (Marine Stewardship Council 2014b).

The key feature of the Baltic Sea ecosystem is that it is a large, semi-enclosed brackish water sea. It has a narrow connection to the North Sea, from which inflows of higher salinity oxygen- rich water intermittently enter the Baltic, affecting both water quality and the distribution of plants and animals in the Baltic (Lessin et al. 2014). Water temperature and salinity vary greatly from north to south in the Baltic Sea. The northern Baltic waters have a very low salinity and are prone to freezing; waters in the southern Baltic are more saline. The gradient in salinity and its relationship to the range of marine and freshwater species in the Baltic Sea is illustrated in Figure 46.

Figure 46: Map illustrating the relationship between the salinity of bottom waters (shading) and the distribution of marine species (dark blue circles) and freshwater species (light blue circles) in the Baltic Sea. [Source: HELCOM 2010].

Page 107 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The Baltic Sea ecosystem is dominated in terms of biomass and abundance by a relatively small number of species that are able to thrive in these brackish conditions. The fish fauna is dominated by cod, sprats and herring which together make up approximately 80% of the Central Baltic Sea fish biomass (Ojaveer et al. 2010). The interactions between these commercially fished species and the effect on fishing on their role in the ecosystem has been investigated and modelled (Margonski et al. 2010, ICES 2013b), and are considered in some detail in section 4.6.6 of this report. Very briefly, herring and sprat are competitors and both are predated on by cod, creating a dynamic relationship between the three species (see Figure 47); the only ecosystem components that are considered likely to be affected by fishery removals of herring and sprat in the Central Baltic Sea apart from the target species would be cod.

Figure 47: Representation of key ecosystem interactions in the Central Baltic Sea [Source: Tomczak et al, 2010]

The relatively simple “linear” ecosystem illustrated in Figure 47 results from an ecological regime shift that is a consequence of the combined effect of a fall in salinity and targeted fishing for cod in this area (Casini et al. 2008, Tomczak et al. 2013). This is one of several regime shifts in the Baltic Sea ecosystem that have been documented in the 20th century. These have been driven by increased nutrient loads that have created a eutrophied environment, climate change, and also fishing pressure on Baltic cod stocks. The result is that the fish fauna in the Central Baltic is now dominated by sprats, rather than cod, and the abundance of macroalgae has declined as phytoplankton blooms have made the water more turbid. As a consequence of the loss of macroalgal vegetation there has been a loss of associated fauna. These changes are summarised and documented in the BalticSTERN report (BalticSTERN 2013), and illustrated in Figure 48.

Page 108 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Figure 48: Diagram illustrating the major changes in the Baltic Sea ecosystem during the 20th Century. [Source: BalticSTERN 2013].

Ecosystem studies throughout the Baltic Sea have demonstrated the importance of climate and anthropogenic factors (both fishing and eutrophication) on ecosystems (Suikkanen et al. 2013, Arula et al. 2014, Bergström et al. 2015, Mustamäki and Mattila 2015, Pekcan-Hekim et al. 2016). Ecosystem models have been constructed for the Central Baltic, Bothnian Sea and Bothnian Bay (see Figure 24) which show the energy flow between different ecosystem components. These studies indicate that outside of the Central Baltic Sea area, fishing for herring is not regarded as being likely to impact ecosystem function significantly; the main factors affecting ecosystem function are eutrophication and climate change in these areas.

The BalticSTERN report reviews the past and current status of the Baltic Sea and considers the consequences for the ecosystem of different management scenarios, including the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan (HELCOM 2007, BalticSTERN 2013). This demonstrates that there is a good understanding of human influences on ecosystem function in the Baltic Sea, and also a holistic approach to managing adverse impacts. The HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan aims to restore the good ecological status of the Baltic marine environment by 2021. The Finnish Government and its agencies are active participants in both HELCOM and BalticSTERN, and a signatory to the Baltic Sea Action Plan.

Page 109 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Principle Three: Management System Background Principle 3 of the Marine Stewardship Council standard states that:

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

In the following section of the report the broad context of the fishery management system for the unit of assessment is considered in respect of: the legal framework for fisheries management; consultation roles and responsibilities; the roles of different management organisations; long term objectives for the fishery; the incentives that the management system creates for sustainable fishing; and the procedures in place to review the management system and ensure that it is operating effectively.

Legal & Customary Framework The management system for the Finnish herring and sprat fisheries is made up of a framework of international, European Union and national legislation that governs fishing activity throughout all of the UoAs, coupled with an additional layer of private riparian ownership in Finnish coastal waters. This framework is described below.

4.8.1.1 International agreements Most of the countries with a Baltic Sea coastline are members of the European Union. The exceptions are Norway (with a coastline in the Skagerrak (ICES Sub-Area IIIa) which is outside the UoAs under consideration here) and Russia, with a coastline and territorial waters in the Gulf of Finland and also between Lithuania and Poland in the southern Baltic which are also outside the UoA.

4.8.1.1.1 EU-Russia Fisheries Agreement The Russian fishing fleet has access to territorial waters in the vicinity of Kaliningrad and St Petersburg (European Parliament 2009a, 2009b). The location of Russian territorial waters is illustrated in Figure 1 of this report. The Russian fishing fleet in the Baltic Sea is described by ICES as comprising 43 vessels, with smaller vessels targeting sprat and herring in Russian coastal waters (ICES 2017c).

Until the end of 2005, the international aspects of Baltic Sea Fisheries were managed multilaterally by the bordering States within the International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission, or IBSFC. Following enlargement of the EU in 2004, the number of parties dropped to two (the European Union and the Russian Federation) and an agreement on the joint management of Baltic Sea fisheries was agreed between the EU and Russia in 2009 (Council Regulation 439/2009) (EC 2009b). This agreement sets out the basis for cooperation in the management of shared stocks, with the overall objective stated as:-

Article 4: Objectives 1. The objective of this Agreement is to ensure a close cooperation between the Parties on the basis of the principle of equitable and mutual benefit for the purpose of conservation, sustainable exploitation and management of any straddling, associated and dependent stocks in the Baltic Sea.

2. The Agreement lays down the principles and procedures relating to the close cooperation between the Parties with the purpose of ensuring that the exploitation of

Page 110 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

the straddling, associated and dependent stocks in the Baltic Sea provides sustainable economic, environmental and social conditions.

3. The Parties shall base their cooperation on the best scientific advice available and on any other relevant data, shall apply the precautionary approach and shall agree to develop an eco-system-based approach to fisheries management.

The agreement allows for autonomous management measures to be adopted and implemented by the parties:-

Article 6: Autonomous management measures by the Parties 1. Each Party shall establish total allowable catches and long-term management plans for non-straddling stocks in the Baltic Sea, while taking into account associated and dependent species.

2. If, in the framework of the Joint Baltic Sea Fisheries Committee referred to in Article 14 of this Agreement, it has not been possible to agree on appropriate management measures to be recommended to their respective authorities, the Parties shall establish autonomous measures in order to ensure that the objectives as set out in Article 4 of this Agreement are achieved on the management of the exploitation and conservation of living marine resources of the Baltic Sea, while taking into account associated and dependent species.

3. Measures taken pursuant to paragraph 2 of this Article shall be based on objective scientific criteria and shall not discriminate in fact or in law against the other Party.

4. In addition to recommendations on measures adopted by the Joint Baltic Sea Fisheries Committee each Party may establish such conservation and management measures as it deems necessary to achieve the objectives as set out in Article 4 of this Agreement.

5. The measures to regulate fisheries taken by each Party within its Exclusive Economic Zone and its territorial sea for the purpose of conservation shall be based on objective and scientific criteria, while taking into account associated and dependent species, and shall not discriminate in fact or in law against the other Party.

The agreement identifies the basis and scope for cooperation in the joint management of shared stocks, the licensing and monitoring of fishing activities, and for scientific cooperation. The most recent ICES International Fish Survey working group report for the Baltic Sea (WGBIFS) provides evidence that the Russian Federation are participating in scientific research into the status of Baltic Sea stocks (ICES 2017d).

Under the 2009 EU-Russia treaty an annual meeting of the “Baltic Sea Fisheries Committee” takes place to provide a forum for the parties to discuss Baltic Sea fisheries. The annual quota discussions are handled through this Committee. The meetings are attended by EU and Russian delegations. The Baltic Sea Advisory Council is an observer at these meeting.

4.8.1.1.2 Helsinki Convention The Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea was agreed in Helsinki in 1974 by all of the coastal states around the Baltic Sea. It entered into force in 2000 after all of the contracting parties completed the ratification process.

Page 111 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The Governing Body of the Helsinki Convention is the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (known as the Helsinki Commission, HELCOM. HELCOM coordinates and facilitates the activities of the contracting parties to assist with the implementation of the Convention. The most recent (consolidated) version of the convention, and all of its annexes are available on the HELCOM website (HELCOM 2017c).

The overall objective of the Helsinki Convention and HELCOM is to protect the marine environment of the Baltic Sea from all sources of pollution through intergovernmental cooperation. HELCOM's vision for the future is a healthy Baltic Sea environment with diverse biological components functioning in balance, resulting in a good ecological status and supporting a wide range of sustainable economic and social activities.

4.8.1.2 EU Legislation

4.8.1.2.1 European Union Common Fisheries Policy The primary fisheries legislation within the EU is the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The CFP came into being in 1983. It is reviewed thoroughly every 10 years and the current CFP fisheries regulation (EC Regulation 1380/2013 (EU 2013)) was adopted by the Council of Ministers on 11th December 2013.

This Regulation sets out the strategic aims of the CFP and enables the Council of Ministers, or in certain cases the Commission, to make more detailed Regulations. Some of the key commitments set out in the revised CFP in 2013 are to:- • Fish stocks at Maximum sustainable yield (MSY) • Greater regionalization (through increased roles for Advisory Councils, including the Pelagic Advisory Council • An ecosystem approach to fisheries by ensuring fishing capacity is in line with fishing opportunities and moving more stocks under Long Term Management Plans (LTMPs) (such as the Baltic Sea Multi-Annual Plan implemented in 2016, see section 4.8.1.2.1.5 below) • An obligation to land the fish that is caught (the “landing obligation”), which was implemented for the Baltic Sea pelagic fisheries on 1st January 2015.

EC Regulations are directly applicable in each Member State and throughout EU waters, meaning that all vessels are legally required to abide by their provisions. Implementation of the CFP at a national level is carried out by each Member State’s fishery enforcement agency. Member States Fisheries enforcement authorities co-operate in policing the fishery (e.g. satellite monitoring, landing recording etc). National Governments may also make their own domestic legislation to support the enforcement of EC Regulations.

The European Commission’s Fisheries Control Agency based in Vigo (Spain) monitors the national enforcement process and its results. The Commission can also request fishery related data from member states.

As well as setting strategic long-term objectives for fisheries management within the EU, the CFP allows for the introduction of more “daughter regulations” that apply to specific sea areas or fishing activities. The CFP daughter regulations that are relevant to the UoAs under consideration here are summarised below.

4.8.1.2.1.1 Annual TAC Regulations The EU Member States set the fishing opportunities for fish stocks annually, following a review of scientific assessments of stock status prepared by ICES. The most recent TAC Regulation for the Baltic Sea is Regulation 1903/2016 (EC 2016b). This Regulation sets the TAC for 2017

Page 112 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

for the herring and sprat stocks throughout the Baltic, and allocates the TAC to individual EU Member States according to a pre-determined allocation key.

4.8.1.2.1.2 Buyers and sellers of first sale fish In 2002 the EU introduced a requirement for all buyers and sellers of first sale fish to be registered (Regulation 2371/2002 (EC 2002)). This Regulation requires that fishing vessels submit landings declarations to their national authorities, and that the businesses buying fish from these fishing vessels also submit records of fish purchase to national authorities. This administrative process was introduced to tackle the problems of undeclared commercial fish landings.

4.8.1.2.1.3 EU Drift net ban The EU Drift net ban (EC Regulation 812/2004 (EC 2004)) gradually phases on the use of drift nets in the Baltic Sea over the period 2006-08. The Regulation was a response to the impact on cetaceans caused by drifts nets used to catch salmon in the Baltic Sea. This Regulation is not directly relevant to the UoAs being considered here, but illustrates that the EU responded to concerns about the environmental impacts of fishing within the UoAs with a restriction and subsequent ban on a damaging fishing method.

4.8.1.2.1.4 EU Technical Measures In January 2006 the EU implemented a new Regulation that consolidated all of the technical measures in force at that time (fishing gear restrictions, spatial & temporal restrictions, MLS and discarding restrictions) into a single Regulation (EC Regulation 2187/2005 (EC 2005)). This Regulation simplified the complex range of measures imposed by different management bodies around the Baltic Sea. A non-technical summary of the technical measures in place in different areas is provided by the EU (EC 2017a).

4.8.1.2.1.5 Baltic Sea Multiannual Plan In July 2016 the EU adopted a new multiannual plan (MAP) for stocks of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea (Regulation 1139/2016 (EC 2016a)). This plan sets out a harvest strategy and harvest control rules for the Western Baltic herring stock which are briefly summarised below:- • The Harvest Strategy is set out in Articles 3 & 4 and also in the preamble to the Regulation as follows:- o The plan shall contribute to achieving the objectives of the CFP, an in particular by applying the precautionary approach to fisheries management and shall aim to maintain populations of harvested species above levels which can produce MSY (Article 3(1)). o Target fishing mortality rates that are compatible with MSY shall be achieved by 2020 (Article 4(1)). o The plan implements the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management, and is coherent with the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive, 2008/56/EC (EC 2008) (Article 5(3) of the Baltic Sea MAP). • Harvest control rules are set out in Articles 4 & 5 as follows:- o When the SSB is estimated at more than 90,000t, F shall be in the range 0.23- 0.32. (Article 4(2)) ▪ If the SSB falls below 90.000t, remedial measures shall be adopted to ensure the rapid return of the stock above the levels capable of producing MSY (i.e. above 100,000t) (Article 5(3)). o When the SSB is estimated at more than 110,000t, F may be in the range 0.32- 0.41 (Article 4(4)).

Page 113 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

▪ If the SSB falls below 110,000t, F shall be fixed at a lower level than this range and all appropriate remedial measures shall be adopted to restore the stock above this level, including the reduction of fishing opportunities and the suspension of the targeted fishery (Article 5(2)). o Deviations from the harvest control rules are permitted in order to meet the requirements of mixed fisheries; in order to avoid serious harm to a stock caused by inter- or intra- species stock dynamics; or to limit inter-annual TAC variations to 20% (Article 4(4)), o TACs shall be fixed in such a way as to ensure that there is less than a 5% probability of the SSB falling below Blim. (Article 4(7)). In addition to these new harvest control rules, the MAP also introduces a requirement for vessels of 8m overall length (LOA) or more landing more than 300kg of cod or 2t of pelagic fish to comply with the “prior notification” requirements of EC Regulation 1224/2009 (EC 2009c) by providing at least one hour’s notice of landings (Article 11). It also requires EU fishing vessels longer than 8m LOA to keep a logbook (Article 12); a margin of tolerance between estimated catch in the logbook and quantities landed shall be 10% (Article 13). In addition to this, vessels landing more than 750kg of cod or 5t of pelagic fish may only do so at designated ports (Article 14).

The new MAP also includes a requirement for regular evaluation of the plan. This is required in the first instance by 21st July 2019 and every 5 years thereafter (or sooner if the Member States concerned or the Commission consider this necessary (Article 15).

4.8.1.2.1.6 EU Landings Obligation The introduction of the new “landing obligation” (discard ban) as part of the Common Fisheries Policy reform was implemented for this fishery in 2015 (EC Regulation 812/2015) (EC 2014).

The “landing obligation” implements one of the objectives of the 2013 CFP which is the gradual elimination of discards of fish from European fisheries (Article 2 (5)(a) of the CFP Regulation). The CFP Regulation set out a timetable for implementation of the landing obligation, requiring that all Baltic Sea pelagic fisheries complied with the landing obligation by 1st January 2015 (Article 15 of the CFP Regulation).

Under the EU landing obligation, up to 9% inter-species quota transfer are allowed for stocks that are considered to be within safe biological limits (see Article 15(8) of the CFP Regulation). This rule has been implemented to address the problem of "choke“ species under the landings obligation, and in the Baltic Sea could theoretically result in a higher than expected catch of herring if, for instance, inter-species transfers were made by the sprat fishery. Any catches under the inter-species transfer rules are reported to ICES and taken account of in the management of the respective stocks.

4.8.1.3 Finnish Legislation There are several statutes in force in Finland that govern the management of fishing activities. These include statutes that enable Finnish Government bodies to implement EU fisheries legislation and also statutes that provide for a further level of domestic management of Finnish Fisheries. This legislation is briefly summarised below.

Page 114 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

4.8.1.3.1 Legislation enabling the implementation of the EU CFP Although EU law is “directly applicable” in all EU Member States, each Member State has to establish legislation to enable statutory bodies to implement and enforce this legislation within its territory and (in the case of fisheries) for Flag State vessels.

There are three statutes in force in Finland which enable the implementation of the EU CFP. These are listed and briefly described below.

a) Act on the national implementation of the European Union’s Common Fisheries Policy (Laki Euroopan unionin yhteisen kalastuspolitiikan kansallisesta täytäntöönpanosta) Act 1048/2016. (Government of Finland 2016a).

This Act enables the Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to implement and enforce the EU CFP within the Finnish EEZ and the maritime areas that commercial fishing vessels registered in Finland can access under the CFP. It allows MAF to allocate and regulate the Finnish national quota for relevant stocks; to exchange quota with other EU Member States; and to manage the quotas allocated to individual operators (see the related Act 1050/2016 below).

The Act also gives rights to LUKE to access vessels, business premises and other sampling points in order to obtain data necessary to meet the data requirements of the CFP.

b) Government Decree on a Commercial Fisheries Quota Scheme (Valtioneuvoston asetuskaupallisen kalastuksen kiintiöjärjestelmästä) Act 1050/2016. (Government of Finland 2016b).

This Act came into force in December 2016, and established a system of individual transferable fishing concessions within Finland, replacing a previous system of central government control of fishing effort. The new system provides a mechanism for allocating fishing opportunities (a proportion of the Finnish national quota) to individual operators based on their track record of previous activity during a 2011-2015 reference period.

The new quota scheme allows for fishermen to share or transfer fishing concessions with one another. Compliance with the quota allocation provided by the fishing concession is the responsibility of the operator. If any landings are made in excess of the operator’s allocation, they are allowed a maximum period of 72 hours to transfer sufficient quota allocation from another operator. Any breach of these requirements can result in prosecution.

The quota scheme transposes the EU rules that allow up to 9% of the herring (or sprat) quota to be transferred between the two species.

c) Law on the system of sanctions and controls in the Common Fisheries Policy (Lakiyhteisen kalastuspolitiikan seuraamusjärjestelmästä ja valvonnasta) Act 1188/2014. (Government of Finland 2014).

This law sets out the roles, responsibilities and powers of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment (Elinkeino-, liikenne- ja ympäristökeskus) (ELY), Border Guard and other authorities with respect to monitoring compliance with CFP controls and imposing sanctions in cases of non-compliance. This includes imposing fines, and also the implementation of the EC Control Regulation “points system” which can lead to the suspension of an

Page 115 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

operator’s fishing licence (18 points trigger a 2 months suspension, which may increase incrementally up to a year’s ban if 72 points are accumulated).

This Act also clearly identifies the responsibilities of operators in terms of reporting catches and landings, and requiring compliance with quota allocations. The EU requirements for registration of buyers of first sale fish are also implemented through this Act, with all buyers required to register with ELY and submit records of purchases for reconciliation with catch and landings declarations by fishermen.

4.8.1.3.2 National management regime The Finnish legislation that is relevant to all of the UoAs under consideration is the Fishing Act. The Fishing Act currently in force was implemented in 2015, replacing the earlier 1982 Act (Government of Finland 1982, 2015a).

The objective of the Fishing Act 2015 is set out in §1:

“The objective of this Act is to use the best available information to ensure ecologically, economically and socially sustainable management of fish resources in such a way as to secure a sustainable and diversified return on fish resources, the natural life cycle of fish stocks, and the diversity and protection of fish resources and other aquatic flora and fauna.”

This commitment is further elaborated in §4 of the Act:-

In this Act: 1) management of fish resources means the securing of the biological diversity and yield capacity of fish stocks by steering of fishing and other measures that improve the status of the fish stock and the fishing opportunities;

The rest of the Act sets out a clear framework for the administration and management of Finnish sea waters, private coastal fisheries, and inland freshwater areas. It also enables the Government to make Decrees containing more specific fishery management provisions. The full text of the Act is available on-line, and leaflets providing accessible and multi-lingual advice on compliance with the Act have also been published on-line (Ahven.net 2015, 2017).

The key features of the 2015 Fishing Act that relate to MSC Principles and Criteria are summarised below.

• Chapter 2 identifies who has fishing rights and the framework for issuing fishing permits, including:- o §5 defines the rights of private fishery owners o §7 grants everyone a right to go angling, ice fishing and to fish for Baltic herring with a rod free of charge; and also requires people aged between 18-65 to obtain a permit to fish with a lure. o §8 grants all EEA citizens the right to fish for recreational or commercial purposes providing they have an appropriate permit. • Chapter 3 identifies the fishery organisations and their specific duties. o §19-21 identifies the authorities and their roles. o §22-32 sets out provisions for regional management of fisheries & §33 allows for the creation of regional fisheries committees (these measures will be implemented gradually during the period 2018-19, with regional fisheries management plans being drawn up over the following 2 years (see §129 & 130) • Chapter 4 allows for the preparation of fisheries management plans, where necessary, to ensure the sustainable management of fish resources. Such plans are to be drawn

Page 116 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

up by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forester in consultation with other government departments and stakeholders. • Chapter 6 specifies certain restrictions and regulations on fishing activities, including: o §46 species prohibited fishing methods, including the use of “destructive fishing practices”. o §48 requires all stationary fishing gear (such as fish traps) to be clearly marked for navigational purposes and also with information identifying the owner of the fishing gear. o §49 requires that only licensed commercial fishermen can use commercial fishing gear. o §59 allows for fishing to be prohibited in order to protect endangered species; o §62 requires any catch of seals or harbour porpoise to be reported without delay. • allows for fishing activities to be restricted; Chapter 7 relates to migratory fish and their passage. o §66 prohibits fishing with a net (including fish traps) closer than 1km of a river mouth between 15h August and 31st October, in order to protect migratory fish. Chapter 10 applies to Commercial Fishing o §87-89 relate to the statutory registration of commercial fishermen. o §90 requires the reporting of catches in accordance with EU legislation in sea areas; o §91 prohibits the sale of fish other than by registered commercial fishermen and also requires commercial fishermen to comply with EU legislation concerning the first sale of fish. Chapter 11 relates to the administration of fisheries, describing the role of different organisations. Chapter 12 sets out arrangements for enforcement: o §99 details the organisations that can enforce fisheries legislation (including the police, Finnish Border Guard, fishery authorities, Customs officials and Metsahallitus officials). o §100-107 relate to the appointment, training and powers of local “fishing supervisors” who can be appointed by the Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment (ELY) to monitor compliance with fisheries regulation at the local level. o §108, 113 & 114 empower enforcement bodies to inspect fishing gear, stop vessels and require provision of proof of identity. o §109 gives enforcement bodies the power to confiscate fishing gear, equipment & catches. o §110 gives the owner of a water body the right to inspect and confiscate fishing gear if, for instance, it is not appropriately marked in accordance with §48. o §118 describes the penalties associated with fishing offences, which can include fines and criminal prosecution. Chapter 14 sets out Appeals procedures that apply in various circumstances where fishermen may be in dispute with statutory bodies or fishery owners.

The Government issued a Decree on Fishing (Valtioneuvoston asetuskalastuksesta) in 2015 (Government of Finland 2015b) under the Fishing Act 2015. This Decree sets out area- specific closed seasons and MLS for salmon, trout and some other fish species; general provisions requiring the marking of fishing gear; and specifies the training requirements for fishing supervisors (sensu §100-107 of the Fishing Act) to ensure that they have the appropriate skills.

Page 117 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

4.8.1.4 Riparian ownership In contrast to most sea fisheries, much of the sea and seabed area within Finnish Territorial Waters is subject to private ownership. The extent of these privately-owned fisheries is illustrated in Figure 49. The private waters cover virtually all of the Archipelago Sea and a strip of coastal water running along the entire Finnish coast. Within these waters fishing is only permissible with the permission of the landowner. Fishing carried out within these waters also has to comply with the requirements of both national and EU fisheries legislation (see §5 of the Fishing Act 2015).

Figure 49: Map showing boundary of privately owned waters in Finland, bounded by the red lines. [Source: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland]

Fishery management objectives The Baltic Sea sprat and herring fisheries are managed in accordance with clear long term and short-term management objectives summarised here.

4.8.2.1 Long term objectives The overall objectives for management of the fishery are set out in the 2013 EC Common Fisheries Policy Regulation (Council Regulation 1380/2013).

The objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) that are relevant to MSC Principles 1 & 2 are clearly set out in Article 2 of the Regulation:-

Page 118 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Article 2 Objectives 1. The CFP shall ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities are environmentally sustainable in the long-term and are managed in a way that is consistent with the objectives of achieving economic, social and employment benefits, and of contributing to the availability of food supplies. 2. The CFP shall apply the precautionary approach to fisheries management, and shall aim to ensure that exploitation of living marine biological resources restores and maintains populations of harvested species above levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield. In order to reach the objective of progressively restoring and maintaining populations of fish stocks above biomass levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield, the maximum sustainable yield exploitation rate shall be achieved by 2015 where possible and, on a progressive, incremental basis at the latest by 2020 for all stocks. 3. The CFP shall implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management so as to ensure that negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are minimised, and shall endeavour to ensure that aquaculture and fisheries activities avoid the degradation of the marine environment […] 5. The CFP shall, in particular:- (a) gradually eliminate discards, on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the best available scientific advice, by avoiding and reducing, as far as possible, unwanted catches, and by gradually ensuring that catches are landed; [...] (d) provide for measures to adjust the fishing capacity of the fleets to levels of fishing opportunities consistent with paragraph 2, with a view to having economically viable fleets without overexploiting marine biological resources; […] (j) be coherent with the Union environmental legislation, in particular with the objective of achieving a good environmental status by 2020 as set out in Article 1(1) of Directive 2008/56/EC [the Marine Strategy Framework Directive], as well as with other Union policies

Other EU legislation, notably the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD, Directive 2008/56/EC)) sets long term objectives for attaining “Good Environmental Status” in the EU marine environment by 2020. The MSFD sets targets for, inter alia: maintaining populations of commercially exploited fish and shellfish species within Sustainable Biological Limits; protecting food webs; maintaining biodiversity; and protecting the seabed.

4.8.2.2 Fishery – specific objectives The administration of the fishery provides a mechanism for transposing the overall objectives of the CFP into a specific quota allocation for each vessel operating in the fishery. This mechanism is briefly summarised here.

Clear fishery-specific objectives are set out in the Baltic Sea Multi Annual Plan (MAP) for this stock (summarised in section 4.8.1.2.1.5). The management plan has clear objectives that embrace a precautionary approach, and which determine management policy for the fishery.

Short-term management objectives are determined for the fishery annually at the meetings between Russia, the EU and the EU Member States to determine Total Allowable Catches (TACs) for the coming year that are set in the light of the long-term objectives for the fishery

Page 119 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

and the current assessment of stock status. The overall TAC for the stock is then shared as a quota, which is a fixed proportion of the TAC for this stock.

During the course of this assessment the EU Council agreed on TACs for 2018 for the ten most important commercial fish stocks in the Baltic Sea, including herring (EU 2017). The 2018 TACs have been adjusted in accordance with the Baltic Sea MAP, and in line with ICES advice. This has resulted in a reduction in the Bothnian herring TAC by 40% and an increase in the Central Baltic herring TAC (increased by 20%) and the sprat TAC (increased by 1%).

The quota that is allocated to the EC is shared among the EC Member States. The quota allocation between EC Member States is largely pre-determined, according to rules of “Relative Stability” which ensure that each Member State receives a predictable share of the resource. Quota allocations can be “swapped” between Member States.

At the national level, the quota is shared between vessels on the basis of historic rights (see 4.8.1.3.2). These allocations determine the fishing opportunities for each vessel prosecuting the Baltic Sea herring and sprat stocks. Again, opportunities arise for “swapping” quota between vessels, subject to certain rules.

Compliance with these objectives is measured by the EC and Member States, through monitoring of landings, surveillance of fishing fleets, inspections of vessels at sea, and monitoring of vessels during fishing trips. Information gathered by monitoring the fishery is used to inform future management decisions.

Management systems and processes The Baltic Sea herring & sprat fisheries are managed by a range of organisations, ranging from the international to the local level, and it provides opportunities for participation from a wide range of organisations. The key features of the management systems and processes relating to this fishery are summarised here.

4.8.3.1 Consultation, Roles & Responsibilities There are a range of organisations involved in the management of Baltic Sea fisheries, including both EU and national organisations that operate within a statutory management framework and organisations that work at the international level to coordinate and facilitate collaboration between Baltic Sea states. The roles and responsibilities of these organisations are summarised below.

Page 120 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Table 26: Table summarising the roles and responsibilities of key organisations involved in the management of Baltic Sea fisheries.

Scale Institution Roles & responsibilities Web site

International Baltic Sea Fisheries Committee Established under the EU-Russia agreement to meet annually and reach agreement on management actions.

Helsinki Commission Governing body for the convention on the protection of the marine http://helcom.fi/ (HELCOM) environment of the Baltic Sea area (Helsinki Convention), established to protect the marine environment of the Baltic Sea.

BALTFISH Regional body established by HELCOM to provide a platform for http://helcom.fi/acti discussion of Baltic Sea fisheries issues. on- (Baltic Sea Fisheries Forum) areas/fisheries/man agement/baltfish

ASCOBANS Secretariat The ASCOBANS secretariat works to promote close cooperation http://www.ascoban between countries with a view to achieving and maintaining a favourable s.org/en Agreement on the Conservation conservation status for small cetaceans throughout the Agreement Area. of Small Cetaceans in the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas.

ICES Provides scientific advice to inform fisheries and environmental www.ices.dk management.

EU DG MARE EU Directorate-General responsible for implementation of the Common https://ec.europa.eu Fisheries Policy. /fisheries/about_us (Directorate-General for _en Maritime Affairs and Fisheries)

STECF Provides technical advice on fisheries management to the EU in https://stecf.jrc.ec.e accordance with the requirements of Article 26 of the CFP regulation. uropa.eu/

Page 121 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Scale Institution Roles & responsibilities Web site

(Scientific, Technical & Economic Committee for Fisheries)

BSAC Multi-stakeholder Advisory Council established by the EU to facilitate http://www.bsac.dk/ stakeholder input to fisheries management processes.

National MAF Responsible for management of national commitments to the CFP (such http://mmm.fi/en/fro as quota management). ntpage (Ministry of Agriculture & Forestry)

ELY Responsible for monitoring compliance of fishing industry with EU and https://www.ely- national fisheries legislation. keskus.fi/en/web/el Centre for Economic y-en/frontpage Development, Transport & the Environment (Elinkeino-, liikenne- ja ympäristökeskus_

LUKE Responsible for gathering information about fish catches and landings; https://www.luke.fi/ Finnish participant in ICES. en/ Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luonnonvarakeskus)

FFA Represents the interests of Finnish fishermen at the national level and www.sakl.fi on the BSAC. Finnish Fishermen’s Association (Suomen Ammattikalastajaliitto)

Page 122 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

4.8.3.1.1 EU and national organisations As Baltic Sea fisheries are shared with Russia, the “Baltic Sea Fisheries Committee” provides the basis for annual meetings between the EU and Russia to review the current management of Baltic Sea fisheries and to agree management measures for the coming year (such as the overall TAC for herring and sprats).

In other aspects of the fishery management system including licensing and regulations governing operational practices, the primary forum for decision making for the Baltic Sea fisheries is the European Union, within a typical framework of European Decision making on pressure stocks.

At the heart of the European Union legislative / decision-making process is The European Commission; the politically independent, civil service. The Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG Mare), is the administrative department of the Commission with responsibility for fisheries. The Commission is responsible for the preparation of proposals for new laws, which, once adopted by the Commissioners, are sent to The Council of the European Union, where elected national representatives review the proposals of the Commission; make Community laws after reviewing proposals of the commission, and depending on their nature, after consulting with various committees and The European Parliament.

A diagram illustrating the interactions between the different organisations involved in fisheries management at the EU level is presented in Figure 50.

Figure 50: Diagram summarising the interactions between EU institutions in the management of EU fisheries. [Source: EC 2017]

Page 123 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

In drafting legislative proposals DG Mare consults widely, including with, relevant groups, third countries and regional fisheries organizations including advisory committees – notably the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee on Fisheries (STECF). The opinion of STECF is crucial in the process of setting annual Total Allowable Catches TACs and quotas.

Once enacted the European Commission (DG Mare) then has responsibility for implementation, management and control of community law in Member States. Where appropriate, European legislation is transposed at the national level through relevant national legislation (see section 4.8.1.3 of this report).

The annual decision on quota allocations for the forthcoming fishing season provides an indication of how the European decision-making process works. The ICES working groups with responsibility of stock assessment, submit annual assessments to ICES ACOM, who in turn review and disseminate to the European Commission (DG Mare). The advice will be reviewed by STECF before preparing recommendation for the commissioners. In doing so, every effort is made to consider and assess the implications of decisions in view of pragmatic solutions at stakeholder (Catching Sector) level.

The Baltic Sea Advisory Council (BSAC) was created in 2006. The BSAC is one of 7 Advisory Councils that have been created under the EU CFP to facilitate stakeholder engagement in fisheries management. The main function of the BSAC is to advise the European Commission and Member States on matters relating to the management of fisheries in the Baltic Sea. The 2013 CFP Regulation sets out the roles and functions of Advisory Councils (Articles 44 & 45; Annex III). Information about the activities of the BSAC is available from its website (BSAC 2017). The BSAC and the other ACs in the EU receive financial assistance from the EU, to facilitate stakeholder engagement in management.

4.8.3.1.2 International collaboration In addition to these organisations with a formally defined statutory role in Baltic Sea fisheries management, there are several non-statutory organisations that promote collaboration between Baltic States and which are relevant to fisheries management. The key organisations that are relevant to this assessment include:-

HELCOM - HELCOM (Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission - Helsinki Commission) is the governing body of the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, known as the Helsinki Convention. The Contracting Parties are Denmark, Estonia, the European Union, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia and Sweden. HELCOM was established about four decades ago to protect the marine environment of the Baltic Sea from all sources of pollution through intergovernmental cooperation.

HELCOM's vision for the future is a healthy Baltic Sea environment with diverse biological components functioning in balance, resulting in a good ecological status and supporting a wide range of sustainable economic and social activities.

BALTFISH – the Baltic Sea Fisheries Forum is a regional body established by HELCOM in 2009 to provide forum for discussions on fishery issues in the Baltic Sea. Information about BALTFISH can be found on the HELCOM website (HELCOM 2017d).

4.8.3.2 Monitoring, control & surveillance Monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) is coordinated at EU level by the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA), with set standards for all member countries, e.g. on inspection schemes and mandatory use of electronic recording and reporting system (ERS) and vessel monitoring system (VMS). Joint inspection and surveillance activities between

Page 124 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Member States concerned are carried out in accordance with joint deployment plans established by the EFCA in order to enhance uniformity of control, inspection and surveillance practices within EU.

Fishing vessels working outside of their national fisheries jurisdiction (within the 200 nautical mile zone or to median lines with adjacent states) are liable to inspection at sea or otherwise by the fisheries inspectorates of the country in whose waters they are working. In those circumstances any alleged infringements of EC rules would be prosecuted in the courts of the jurisdiction in which the alleged offence was detected.

All EU vessels are subject to EC satellite monitoring (VMS) if over 12m and are required to be equipped with Automatic Identification Systems (AIS). These monitoring measures discourage the misreporting of fishing locations. In cases of VMS malfunction, skippers must provide their national authorities with regular updates of their position to ensure that their activities can be monitored.

National authorities are also responsible for aggregating national fleet catches to a national total and policing other EC control requirements applicable on landing and as the fish moves through the distribution chain. This information is gathered from electronic logbooks (“e- logbooks”) that vessels must complete while fishing, and monitoring of the fish landed on their return to port. Catch declarations from fishing vessels, landings data and sales of fish are reconciled with one another to ensure compliance and accuracy of catch reporting.

Within Finland, the roles of different fisheries management organisations are clearly set out in legislation (Government of Finland 2014). In summary, the organisation with overall responsibility for fisheries management at the national level is the Ministry for Agriculture and Forestry (MAF). The Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment (ELY (Elinkeino-, liikenne- ja ympäristökeskus)) is responsible for monitoring fishing activities and ensuring compliance with regulations and has enforcement powers. The Natural Resources Institute Finland (LUKE (Luonnonvarakeskus)) is responsible for gathering information about catches and landings from Finnish fisheries.

4.8.3.3 Compliance Compliance with regulations is monitored by ELY. At a meeting during the site visit, ELY & MAF officials explained the role of ELY in monitoring the activities of fishing vessels at sea, including VMS monitoring of all of the vessels working in the UoAs (see Figure 51).

ELY reported that the only issues of non-compliance that they had detected were relatively minor administrative infringements associated with new legislation requiring the prompt submission of landing records. Some transgressions associated with catch records being more than 10% different from actual landing weight were reported for the smaller vessels, which lack accurate at-sea weighing equipment.

No concerns were raised about systematic non-compliance with regulations in force.

Page 125 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

a) January – June 2015

b) July – December 2015

Figure 51: VMS tracks of vessels that operate within the trawl UoAs (UOA 1, 2, 4, 6). [Source: ELY]

Page 126 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Monitoring and evaluation The management regime for this fishery incorporates measures that allow for review of the management plan for the stock, and the agreement between the EU and Russia, as well as for the EC Common Fisheries Policy.

Within the CFP, regular internal review of the management system occurs at every level. At the EC level, policy documents are reviewed internally and by Member States. The resulting policies, operational plans and practices are then subject to wide consultation before implementation, and regular evaluation. These systems also include formal consultation and review processes involving all EC Member State fisheries administrations, and committees such as ACOM & STECF dealing with industry concerns at a European level), and the Advisory Councils dealing with specific technical and management issues (of which the body specifically incorporating this fishery’s interests is the Pelagic Advisory Council).

The Baltic Sea Multi-Annual Plan was introduced in 2016 after wide consultation with stakeholders. The proposed harvest control rules in the MAP in particular were based on advice provided by ICES at the request of the EU (ICES 2016j).

There is also on-going and extensive review of stock assessment and data gathering methodologies at ICES level and at the level of the contributing laboratories and research institutions. Within ICES, a method working group keeps methods for fish stock assessment under regular review. In addition, other study and working groups exist to review the precautionary approach, discards, biological sampling, reference points, and recruitment variability.

ICES can, and does, involve external scientists in extensive review of its methodologies if considered necessary, and working group stock assessments are subject to external review. The Baltic Sea Advisory Council (BSAC) also provides opportunities for stakeholder involvement in the review of management advice and decisions.

The most recent opportunity for external participation in the review of the management system took place in the lead-up to the review of the CFP in 2012 which was preceded by formal consultations and regional ‘roadshows’ that provided many opportunities for external involvement in the review of the management system.

In summary, the management system is subject to internal review at all levels while key parts of the management system are subject to rather less frequent external review.

Page 127 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery 5 Evaluation Procedure Harmonised Fishery Assessment At the time of writing, only two MSC assessments had been undertaken on any of the UoAs being considered within the FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery assessment. The details for these other MSC assessments are provided below:-

Certified fisheries

• NKF Bothnian Bay Vendace Trawl Fishery https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/nkf-bothnian-bay-vendace- trawl/@@assessments

The NKF fishery was certified on 1st June 2015. This fishery takes place within the Bothnian Bay (part of the geographic extent of UoAs 2 & 3 in the current assessment). The target species are vendace, which are caught with demersal pair trawls.

Fisheries under assessment

• LFPO Pelagic Trawl Sprat (Sprattus sprattus): https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/lfpo-pelagic-trawl-sprat-sprattus- sprattus/@@view

The LFPO sprat fishery Public Comment Draft Report was published on the 14th February 2017, in advance of the site visit for the current assessment. The Final Report for this fishery was published on 19th April 2017, and the Public Certification Report was published on the 23rd May 2017.

The LFPO fishery targets the Baltic sprat stock using pelagic trawls and takes place within the same UoA as the fishery under assessment in this report.

Harmonisation activities The assessment team reviewed the content of the other assessment reports prior to the site visit for the FFA herring & sprat fishery. The reports provided a useful background resource for the assessment team, collating and reporting on available stock and fishery information, as well as highlighting areas of stakeholder and assessment team concerns.

The assessment team concluded that harmonisation discussions were not required for the NKF vendace fishery, because the target stock is different to those under assessment here; and because the fishing gear used in the vendace fishery (demersal trawl) is different to that used in the sprat and herring fisheries (pelagic trawl). There are also important differences in the management regime, because the vendace fishery is prosecuted by Swedish vessels operating under Swedish legislation. It was noted, however, that some herring may be caught in the vendace fishery, which is relevant to the current assessment.

The assessment team concluded that harmonisation activities were required for the LFPO sprat fishery, because the two assessments share the same target species; the fishing gear used in the LFPO and FFO fisheries is the same; and also because the fisheries share a common management regime (the EU CFP and the EU multiannual plan).

Harmonisation between the LFPO sprat fishery and the FFA herring and sprat fishery was conducted through correspondence between the teams during April 2017. This

Page 128 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

correspondence focussed on ensuring a harmonious outcome to the scoring of Principle 1 for the sprat stock, and in particular PI1.2.1 & PI 1.2.2 (harvest control rules & tools).

The assessment team has paid close attention to the information presented in the LFPO fishery assessment for Principle 2 & 3 in the sprat fishery to ensure a harmonious assessment outcome for this UoA. The team also noted that conclusions relating to Principle 2 & 3 in the sprat fishery are also relevant to the scoring of the Central Baltic herring fishery, which is conducted using very similar fishing gear and in the same geographic area as the sprat trawl fishery.

The outcome of this harmonisation activity is that the scores awarded for the Central Baltic sprat and herring trawl UoAs are broadly aligned with those awarded in the LFPO sprat trawl fishery. The key differences arise where the information that has been available to score these UoAs for the Finnish fisheries has been different to that which was available for the LFPO fishery. In both fisheries the overall outcome is the same.

The assessment team noted the concerns that were raised by WWF Finland in response to the 2015 assessment of the Swedish vendace fishery. These concerns were associated with the potential impact of that fishery on the migratory European whitefish population in the vicinity of the Tornionjoki river in Finland. The potential impact of the UoAs under assessment in this report on European whitefish is considered in section 4.7.1.5.3 of this report in response to the WWF-Finland concerns and to ensure harmonisation with this aspect of the assessment with the NKF vendace fishery.

Comparison of scores The scores awarded for the LFPO sprat trawl fishery and the FFA sprat UoA are compared in Table 27 overleaf.

Page 129 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Table 27: Comparison of assessment scores awarded for the LFPO Sprat Trawl Fishery and the FFA Sprat UoA.

Sprat Finland Fishermen's Principle Component Performance Indicator (PI) Lithuanian FPO Association Trawl Trawl 1.1.1 Stock status 90 100 Outcome 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding 0 75 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 85 95 One 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 85 95 Management 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 100 100 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 95 95 2.1.1 Outcome 100 100 Primary species 2.1.2 Management strategy 100 100 2.1.3 Information/Monitoring 70 100 2.2.1 Outcome 90 95 Secondary species 2.2.2 Management strategy 80 85 2.2.3 Information/Monitoring 70 85 2.3.1 Outcome 85 85 Two ETP species 2.3.2 Management strategy 80 80 2.3.3 Information strategy 60 80 2.4.1 Outcome 100 100 Habitats 2.4.2 Management strategy 90 90 2.4.3 Information 85 85 2.5.1 Outcome 100 100 Ecosystem 2.5.2 Management 95 95 2.5.3 Information 95 100 3.1.1 Legal &/or customary framework 85 100 Governance and policy 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibilities 95 85 3.1.3 Long term objectives 100 100 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 100 100 Three 3.2.2 Decision making processes 95 85 Fishery specific management system 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 95 85 Monitoring & management performance 3.2.4 90 80 evaluation

Finland Fishermen's Lithuanian FPO Overall weighted Principle-level scores Association Trawl Trawl Principle 1 - Target species 90.8 97.5 Principle 2 - Ecosystem 86.7 92.0 Principle 3 - Management 94.2 91.3

Page 130 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Previous assessments This fishery has not been assessed previously. Assessment Methodologies This fishery was assessed using the Standard Requirements defined within the MSC General Certification Requirements (GCR) v2.0 (Marine Stewardship Council 2015) and the Process Requirements defined within the MSC Fishery Certification Requirements (FCR) v2.0 (Marine Stewardship Council 2014a). This means that all of P-Annexes set out in the FCR apply to this assessment, and that the S-Annexes do not. The rationale for this approach is set out in the FCR.

The MSC FCR (v2.0 at §7.8.4-7.8.5) specify that the assessment methodology shall be stated in the assessment report. This information is set out in the table below.

Table 28: Summary of methodology used in this fishery assessment

Item Detail Version of MSC Certification CR Version 2.0, 1st October 2014. Requirements Methodology Used Version of Full Assessment Version 2.0 Reporting Template Version of MSC Assessment Tree CR Version 2.0, 1st October 2014. Used Default Assessment Tree Used Yes Adjustments made to Assessment Not applicable. Tree Risk Based Framework Used for: UoA 2 & 3 (Bothnian Bay herring): PI1.1.1 Stock Status All UoAs: PI2.2.1: Secondary species outcome

Stakeholders were informed of the assessment methodology in the notice issued by Acoura Marine on 14th February 2017. No comments were received.

Page 131 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Evaluation Processes and Techniques

Site Visits A site visit was carried out in Helsinki, which is the capital city of Finland and where many stakeholders are based. Meetings were held with the Managing Director of the FFA, government institutions and also WWF Finland.

Attendance at the meetings, interview and e-mail correspondence is detailed below.

An interpreter, Suvi Rapola, attended all meetings in Finland.

Table 29: List of meetings carried out during the site visit, with date, activity and attendance.

Date Activity Attendance

7th & 8th Meeting with client, Kim Jordas, FFA March 2017 Helsinki. 7th March Natural Resources Jukka Pönni 2017 Institute (LUKE) Jari Raitaniemi Ari Leskelä

7th March WWF Finland Sampsa Vilhunen 2017 8th March Ministry of Risto Lampinen Head of Unit for 2017 Agriculture & Fisheries Industry Forestry Ali Lindahl Senior Fisheries Officer Kari Ranta-aho Fisheries Chief, Institute of Economic Development, Traffic & Environment

A record of each meeting held is attached in section 12.2 of this report.

Consultations All aspects of the fishery and its management were discussed in the meetings with stakeholders. All stakeholders were invited to comment upon the record of each meeting that was compiled by the assessment team.

The records of each meeting contain information that has been used in this assessment. Where stakeholders provided reports that have been used in the assessment, these are listed in the references cited.

Evaluation Techniques

5.4.3.1 Methodology for information gathering The information used for this assessment was gathered before, during and after the site visit. Published sources of information (such as ICES stock assessment and Working Group reports) were obtained from the internet.

Interviews were conducted with stakeholders during the site visit (listed in Table 29). The information gathered from these interviews is included in section 12.2 of this report.

Page 132 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

5.4.3.2 The scoring process Scoring was discussed by the team during the site visit and formally completed afterwards when information requested during the site visit had been made available by the clients and other stakeholders.

The scores were determined using the methodology set out in the MSC CRv2.0 at section 7.10. In summary, the MSC Principles and Criteria set out the requirements of a certified fishery. The certification methodology adopted by the MSC involves the interpretation of these Principles and Criteria into specific Performance Indicators and Scoring Guideposts against which the performance of Fishery can be measured. In order to make the assessment process as clear and transparent as possible, these identify the level of performance necessary to achieve 100, 80 (a pass score), and 60 scores for each Indicator. A summary of the hierarchy of MSC Principles and Performance Indicators is provided in section 9 of this report.

For each Performance Indicator, the performance of the fishery is assessed as a ‘score’. In order for the fishery to achieve certification, an overall score of 80 is considered necessary for each of the three Principles, 100 represent ideal best practice and 60 a measurable shortfall. A fishery cannot be certified if a score below 60 is recorded for any PI. As it is not considered possible to allocate precise scores, a scoring interval of five is therefore used in evaluations.

A procedure for determining scores was agreed before scoring took place. In all cases, the team would aim to agree a score (a consensus approach). In situations where team members could not agree on the score that should be awarded for a PI, the lowest score proposed was used as a precautionary measure.

5.4.3.3 Assessment of the Units of Certification This report sets out an assessment of seven units of certification. The UoAs are differentiated by species (sprats in UoA 1 and herring in UoAs 2-7); herring stock (Bothnian Bay, Bothnian Sea and Central Baltic); and gear type used in the herring fishery (trawl and fish trap).

There are some similarities between UoAs which enable the assessment process to be simplified. For instance, the Principle 1 assessment for each herring stock is the same for both the trap and trawl métiers, as is the Principle 3 assessment.

To rationalise the assessment process, the team has considered that it is appropriate to combine the Principle 1 and Principle 3 assessments for trawl and trap métiers for each herring stock. The Principle 2 assessments have been performed separately for each UoA, because the different métiers may have different impacts and also because there are known to be some differences in the character of the marine environment between the different herring stocks. The assessment approach is summarised in Table 30 below.

Page 133 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Table 30: Summary of rationale for assessment of the two units of certification.

UoA MSC Principle Principle 1 – Principle 2 – Principle 3 – Target species Marine Management & Environment Governance

Sprats (Sprattus sprattus) Central UoA 1 - Trawl UoA assessed UoA assessed PIs assessed Baltic alone. alone*. alone

Herring (Clupea harengus) Bothnian UoA 2 – Trawl UoAs assessed UoAs assessed PIs assessed Bay together – one separately*. together – both stock. UoAs subject to UoA 3 - Trap UoAs assessed the same separately*. management regime. Bothnian UoA 4 – Trawl PIs assessed UoAs assessed PIs assessed Sea together – one separately*. together – both stock. UoAs subject to UoA 5 - Trap UoAs assessed the same separately*. management regime. Central UoA 6 – Trawl PIs assessed UoAs assessed PIs assessed Baltic together – one separately*. together – both stock. UoAs subject to UoA 7 - Trap UoAs assessed the same separately*. management regime.

* Cumulative impacts within the UoA have been taken into account in accordance with CR requirements.

Page 134 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Risk Based Framework (RBF) Use The assessment team evaluated the need to use the RBF prior to the announcement of the fishery assessment by reference to published sources of information (ICES stock assessments and the EU management plan for the Baltic Sea) and also by reference to a pre- assessment that had been carried out for the fishery.

After carrying out this evaluation, the team concluded that the RBF should be used in the assessment for one of the target species stocks (Bothnian Bay herring) and for “Secondary species” in all Units of Assessment. The rationale for use of the RBF is set out in Table 31 below.

Table 31: Summary of the Performance Indicators assessed using the Risk Based Framework (RBF) and the rationale for use in each case.

Performance Indicator Unit(s) of Rationale for use of RBF Assessment PI 1.1.1: Stock Status Bothnian Bay Herring There is a limit reference point in place UoA 2 & 3 for this stock, but no target reference point (EC 2016a). There are no limit or target reference points in place for this stock (EC 2016a).

PI 2.2.1: Secondary All The definition of “secondary species” species outcome indicates that these species have no limit or target reference points in place (see CRv2.0 at SA3.1.4). This definition in turn requires the use of the RBF (see CRv2.0 at Table 3). In all but exceptional circumstances the RBF has to be used for secondary species.

5.4.4.1 Stakeholder Comments on Use of RBF No stakeholder comments were received on the consultation about the use of the RBF published on 1st February 2017.

5.4.4.2 RBF Consultation Process Summary Stakeholder engagement is an important aspect of the use of the RBF. Acoura Marine has taken several steps during the assessment of this fishery to encourage stakeholder input into the RBF assessment. These steps are summarised here.

Stakeholders were advised that the RBF was due to be used for assessing Performance indicator 1.1.1 and 2.2.1 of this fishery prior to the site visit, both by notices posted on the MSC website, and by direct e-mail contact from Acoura Marine. These notices included the text required by the MSC (CR v2.0 at PF2.3.2).

The assessment team planned a stakeholder consultation strategy prior to the site visit in accordance with the MSC CR at PF2.3.3. In summary, a range of stakeholders were identified and asked to participate in the assessment process. Meetings were held with all of the stakeholders that expressed an interest, and an interpreter was provided to ensure that the

Page 135 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

consultation was conducted in a language that could be understood by all stakeholders. At each meeting the assessment team provided an overview of the fishery under assessment and the assessment process so that the stakeholder consultation could focus on providing information required by the RBF and default scoring processes.

All stakeholders identified for this fishery were invited to participate in the assessment remotely using an on-line questionnaire (a copy of the questionnaire is appended at section 13.3.1, and responses are included in section 13.3.2). This questionnaire provides a further opportunity for stakeholders to provide their expert opinions to support the RBF process.

The information gathered through these consultation processes has been used to inform the use of the RBF in this assessment.

Page 136 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Scoring elements Scoring elements were identified and agreed by the team prior to scoring the fishery. Scoring elements were identified using information provided by stakeholders during and following the site visit, and also information submitted in RBF questionnaires.

The scoring elements considered in this assessment under Principles 1 and 2 are listed in Table 32 below.

Table 32: Scoring elements considered in this assessment.

Component Scoring elements Main / not main Data-deficient or species* not

UoA 1: Sprat trawl fishery

1.1.1 - Stock Sprattus sprattus Main Not data deficient Status

2.1.1 Clupea harengus Main Not data deficient

2.2.1 3-spined stickleback Minor Data deficient (Gasterosteus aculeatus)

UoA 2: Bothnian Bay Herring trawl fishery

1.1.1 - Stock Clupea harengus Main Data deficient Status

2.1.1 Vendace (Coregonus albula) Minor Not data deficient.

2.2.1 3-spined stickleback Minor Data deficient (Gasterosteus aculeatus)

Smelt (Osmerus eperlanus)

UoA 3: Bothnian Bay Herring trap fishery

1.1.1 - Stock Clupea harengus Main Data deficient Status

2.1.1 None - -

2.2.1 3-spined stickleback Minor Data deficient (Gasterosteus aculeatus)

Smelt (Osmerus eperlanus)

UoA 4: Bothnian Sea Herring trawl fishery

Page 137 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Component Scoring elements Main / not main Data-deficient or species* not

1.1.1 - Stock Clupea harengus Main Not data deficient Status

2.1.1 Sprattus sprattus Main Not data deficient

2.2.1 3-spined stickleback Minor Data deficient (Gasterosteus aculeatus)

Smelt (Osmerus eperlanus)

UoA 5: Bothnian Sea trap fishery

1.1.1 - Stock Clupea harengus Main Not data deficient Status

2.1.1 Sprattus sprattus Main Not data deficient

2.2.1 3-spined stickleback Minor Data deficient (Gasterosteus aculeatus)

Smelt (Osmerus eperlanus)

UoA 6: Central Baltic Herring trawl fishery

1.1.1 - Stock Clupea harengus Main Not data deficient Status

2.1.1 Sprattus sprattus Main Not data deficient

2.2.1 3-spined stickleback Minor Data deficient (Gasterosteus aculeatus)

Smelt (Osmerus eperlanus)

UoA 7: Central Baltic Herring trap fishery

1.1.1 - Stock Clupea harengus Main Not data deficient Status

2.1.1 Sprattus sprattus Main Not data deficient

2.2.1 Smelt (Osmerus eperlanus) Minor

Page 138 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Component Scoring elements Main / not main Data-deficient or species* not

All UoAs

2.3.1 Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) Harbour seal (Phoca vitulina) Grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) Not main Not data deficient Cormorant (Phallcrocrorax carbo sinensis)

2.4.1 Pelagic habitats NA NA

2.5.1 Ecosystem function NA NA

* The MSC make a distinction in some Performance Indicators between “main species” (typically those forming 5% or more of the catch or 2% for “less resilient” species) and “minor species” (less than 5% (or less than 2% for “less resilient species)). The MSC rules for identifying main species are set out in MSC FCR v2.0 at SA3.4.2 and associated guidance.

Page 139 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery 6 Traceability Eligibility Date The target eligibility date for this fishery is the date on which the assessment process is completed and the Public Certification Report is published. Traceability within the Fishery Finland is an EU Member State. Finnish fisheries are therefore subject to all of the CFP control regulations, including Council Regulation 1224/2009. These are briefly summarised below:-

a) Article 58 of this Regulation specifically addresses Traceability, requiring that all fisheries and aquaculture products shall be traceable at all stages of production, processing and distribution from catching or harvesting to retail stage. b) Vessels above 15m LOA are required to be equipped with functioning VMS to that their position can be monitored. c) Vessels are required to record their catches during any fishing trip, either in electronic logbooks (vessels over 12m LOA) or in a fishing logbook (vessels under 10m LOA). These records are inspected at sea and must be submitted to their flag Member State and port Member State (if different) within 48 hours of landing). d) Vessels over 12m LOA must indicate their intention to land fish at least 4h before doing so. e) Vessels over 12m LOA are required to make a landing declaration within 24h of landing. f) EU Member States are required to monitor landings of smaller vessels to ensure that they comply with the CFP. g) Buyers and sellers of first sale fish are required to be registered with the Member State, and to record all transactions in a format specified in the Regulation (including electronic formats) so that the buying of fish from fishing vessels can be reconciled with their catch and landings records.

During the course of the site visit the Finnish authorities provided evidence of the monitoring of fishing vessels at sea (see VMS data in Figure 51) and also detailed records of fish landings at different ports in Finland (see Table 35). The role of ELY in compliance monitoring was explained by MAF (see section 4.8.3.3 & 13.2.4). The level of compliance with traceability requirements was reported to be good.

Trawl fishery UoAs An assessment of traceability in the trawl fishery UoAs is presented below.

Table 33: Traceability Factors within the FFA trawl fishery UoAs (1, 2, 4, 6)

Traceability Factor Description of risk factor if present. Where applicable, a description of relevant mitigation measures or traceability systems (this can include the role of existing regulatory or fishery management controls)

Potential for non-certified gear/s to be FFA trawler vessels are only capable of using pelagic used within the fishery trawls. The mesh size of the trawls is stipulated in technical measures, and the gear is subject to inspection at sea and in port. The risk of using non- certified gear is therefore considered to be low

Page 140 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Potential for vessels from the UoC to FFA trawler vessels operate from ports in Finland and fish outside the UoC or in different occasionally in Sweden. They only have entitlement geographical areas (on the same trips or to fish for herring within the UoAs, and are monitored different trips) to ensure that they remain within these areas, using VMS tracking and by reference to e-logbook catch submissions. The risk of vessels fishing outside the UoAs is considered to be very low.

Potential for vessels outside of the UoC The area is fished by one MSC-certified fisheries (see or client group fishing the same stock section 5.1), as well as non-certified vessels. Because transhipment between vessels at sea is not permitted and because landings can only take place in designated ports and are carefully monitored, the risk of catch from outside the UoC or client group being substituted for MSC certified fish is considered to be negligible.

Risks of mixing between certified and All landings are declared and subject to inspections, non-certified catch during storage, and landings declarations are reconciled with both e- transport, or handling activities logbook catch records as well as records of fish sales. (including transport at sea and on land, The risks of mixing between certified and non-certified points of landing, and sales at auction) catch is therefore low.

Risks of mixing between certified and No processing is carried out at sea. Processing is non-certified catch during processing only carried out after the sale of fish, and will therefore activities (at-sea and/or before be addressed in subsequent Chain of Custody subsequent Chain of Custody) assessments.

Risks of mixing between certified and Transhipment of fish at sea is not permitted. non-certified catch during transhipment

Any other risks of substitution between No additional risks identified. fish from the UoC (certified catch) and fish from outside this unit (non-certified catch) before subsequent Chain of Custody is required

Trap fishery UoAs Acoura Marine has assessed the traceability factors for the trap fishery UoAs in the table below.

Table 34: Traceability Factors within the FFA Trap fishery UoAs (3, 5, 7)

Traceability Factor Description of risk factor if present. Where applicable, a description of relevant mitigation measures or traceability systems (this can include the role of existing regulatory or fishery management controls)

Page 141 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Potential for non-certified gear/s to be The UoAs apply to fish traps used to catch herring. used within the fishery The only risk of non-certified fishing gear being used to catch the target species in the UoAs could arise from herring being caught in gill nets.

Fishermen are required to declare the method that they used to catch fish when they are landed. This information is included in their landings declaration, and is subject to scrutiny by ELY officials. There are no reports of non-compliance with these requirements, and the risk of non-certified gear being used instead of traps to catch herring is considered to be very low.

Potential for vessels from the UoC to Fish traps are stationary. The risk of them operating fish outside the UoC or in different outside their UoA is therefore negligible. geographical areas (on the same trips or different trips)

Potential for vessels outside of the UoC As noted previously, traps are stationary. Access to or client group fishing the same stock fishing areas requires the permission of the riparian owner. The potential for non-UoA traps to be operated within the UoAs is therefore negligible.

Risks of mixing between certified and All landings are declared and subject to inspections, non-certified catch during storage, and landings declarations are reconciled with both e- transport, or handling activities logbook catch records as well as records of fish sales. (including transport at sea and on land, The risks of mixing between certified and non-certified points of landing, and sales at auction) catch is therefore low.

Risks of mixing between certified and No processing is carried out at sea. Processing is non-certified catch during processing only carried out after the sale of fish, and will therefore activities (at-sea and/or before be addressed in subsequent Chain of Custody subsequent Chain of Custody) assessments.

Risks of mixing between certified and Transhipment of fish at sea is not permitted. non-certified catch during transhipment

Any other risks of substitution between No additional risks identified. fish from the UoC (certified catch) and fish from outside this unit (non-certified catch) before subsequent Chain of Custody is required

Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody Tracking and traceability information for both Units of Certification is considered sufficient for product to be eligible to enter further chains of custody.

Page 142 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Parties eligible to use the fishery certificate The parties eligible to use the fishery certificate are those listed in section 15 of this report.

Point of change of ownership of product The point at which ownership of the product changes is the point of first sale. Chain of custody should therefore begin at the point of first sale.

List of eligible landing points Over 90 landing points on the Finnish coastline are monitored by ELY. Most of these account for landings of less than 100t per year, and landings of over 500t of fish per year are only made at 12 ports, which are listed below. These ports account for over 96% of all fish landings in Finland.

The client has provided landings documented by ELY from all ports to an accuracy of 1kg for the period 2014-16. This list contains information that is considered to be commercially sensitive, and is not therefore presented in full; it does however demonstrate that all fish landings are monitored to a high degree of accuracy in Finland.

Page 143 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Table 35: List of the main ports in Finland (from a list of over 90 ports monitored by ELY), which accounted for landings of more than 500t pa in the period 2014-16. Average annual landings of fish to each port are shown; these ports account for 96.3% of all landings in Finland. [Source: FFA].

Port Average landings (all fish), 2014-16 (kg)

Uusikapunki 24,673,689

Kaskö 11,967,908

Kasnäs 10,895,034

Reposaari 10,044,351

Tuomarainen 7,879,464

Rauma 5,563,766

Käldinge 5,195,777

Klobbskat 4,316,992

Laupunen 3,658,461

Konikarvo (Rahja) 2,828,110

Vasklot 2,352,588

Ingå Fiskehamn 1,358,898

TOTAL (All Ports including 94,183,561 those not listed)

The evidence presented to the assessment team shows that there is a comprehensive list of all points of landing in Finland, and that these are all monitored with a level of precision that would be sufficient to verify compliance with the MSC Chain of Custody requirements.

Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody Within the Central Baltic Sea trawl fishery (UoAs 1 & 6), herring and sprat are IPI stocks; at certain times of year it is likely that any pelagic trawl haul will result in the capture of both species.

Because both species will be certified under this assessment, both herring and sprat from the Central Baltic trawl UoAs are eligible to enter further chains of custody.

Page 144 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery 7 Evaluation Results Principle Level Scores The performance of the UoAs under assessment in this fishery in relation to MSC Principles 1, 2, and 3 is summarised in the table below.

Table 36: Final Principle Scores

Sprat Herring Overall weighted Principle-level scores Trawl Trawl Trap Trawl Trap Trawl Trap UoA 1 UoA 2 UoA 3 UoA 4 UoA 5 UoA 6 UoA 7 Principle 1 - Target species 90.8 80.8 80.8 98.3 98.3 94.2 94.2 Principle 2 - Ecosystem 86.0 84.3 84.0 84.3 84.0 85.3 84.7 Principle 3 - Management 94.2 95.8 95.8 95.8 95.8 94.2 94.2

Summary of PI Level Scores The scores assigned to each Performance Indicator for each UoA are shown in Table 38. Summary of Conditions All of the UoAs scored less than 80 for 3 performance indicators, generating a total of 21 conditions of certification. The response required for each UoA is identical for these 3 Performance Indicators. The Conditions are summarised in the table below.

Table 37: Summary of Conditions

Condition Condition Performance Related to number Indicator previously raised condition? (Y/N/NA) Quantitative information should be made available 1-7 that is adequate to assess the impact of the UoA 2.1.3 NA on the main primary species with respect to status.

Quantitative information should be made available that is adequate to assess the impact of the UoA 8-14 on the main secondary species with respect to 2.2.3 NA status.

Quantitative information should be gathered about the interactions between the UoAs and ETP 15-21 species to assess the UoA related mortality and 2.3.3 NA impacts, and to monitor trends in the extent and magnitude of impacts on ETP species.

Recommendations No recommendations have been made for any of the UoAs. Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement The fishery attained a score of 80 or more against each of the MSC Principles and did not score less than 60 against any MSC Performance Indicators.

Page 145 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The assessment team therefore recommends that the FFA Finland Baltic Herring and Sprat Fishery should be certified according to the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries.

Following this decision by the assessment team, and review by stakeholders and peer- reviewers, the determination will be presented to Acoura’s decision making entity that this fishery has passed its assessment and should be certified.

Changes in the fishery prior to and since Pre-Assessment The main changes to the fishery since the pre-assessment has been the introduction of the Baltic Sea Multi-Annual Plan, and also the new transferable fisheries concessions introduced by the Finnish Government. Both of these management initiatives came into force at the start of 2017.

Page 146 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Table 38: Scores for the FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery UoAs. Scores shaded green attain the unconditional pass level. Yellow shading indicates a conditional pass, and red shading would indicate a fail.

Sprat Herring Baltic Bothnian Bay Bothnian Sea Central Baltic Principle Component Performance Indicator (PI) Trawl Trawl Trap Trawl Trap Trawl Trap UoA 1 UoA 2 UoA 3 UoA 4 UoA 5 UoA 6 UoA 7 1.1.1 Stock status 90 80.0 80.0 100 100 100 100 Outcome 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 85 85 85 95 95 85 85 One 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 85 80 80 100 100 85 85 Management 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 100 80 80 100 100 100 100 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 95 80 80 95 95 95 95 2.1.1 Outcome 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Primary species 2.1.2 Management strategy 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 2.1.3 Information/Monitoring 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 2.2.1 Outcome 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 Secondary species 2.2.2 Management strategy 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 2.2.3 Information/Monitoring 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 2.3.1 Outcome 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 Two ETP species 2.3.2 Management strategy 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 2.3.3 Information strategy 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 2.4.1 Outcome 100 90 85 90 85 90 85 Habitats 2.4.2 Management strategy 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 2.4.3 Information 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 2.5.1 Outcome 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Ecosystem 2.5.2 Management 95 90 90 90 90 95 95 2.5.3 Information 95 85 85 85 85 95 90 3.1.1 Legal &/or customary framework 85 95 95 95 95 85 85 Governance and policy 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibilities 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 3.1.3 Long term objectives 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Three 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Fishery specific 3.2.2 Decision making processes 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 management system 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 3.2.4 Monitoring & management performance evaluation 90 90 90 90 90 90 90

Page 147 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

8 References

Adjers, K., M. Appelberg, R. Eschbaum, A. Lappalainen, A. Minde, R. Repecka, and G. Thoresson. 2006. Trends in coastal fish stocks of the Baltic Sea. Boreal Environment Research 11:13–25.

Ahven.net. 2015. Fishing Act: Benefits for fish and fishermen. http://www.ahven.net/v2_tiedostot/555.pdf.

Ahven.net. 2017. Ahven.net - main page. http://www.ahven.net/english.

Aro, E. 1989. A review of fish migration patterns in the Baltic. Rap. Proc.-verb. Ré. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer, 190: 72–96. - Cerca con Google. (n.d.). . https://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&client=firefox- b&biw=1924&bih=965&noj=1&q=Aro,+E.+1989.+A+review+of+fish+migration+patter ns+in+the+Baltic.+Rap.+Proc.- verb.+R%C3%A9.+Cons.+Int.+Explor.+Mer,+190:+72%E2%80%9396.&oq=Aro,+E.+ 1989.+A+review+of+fish+migration+patterns+in+the+Baltic.+Rap.+Proc.- verb.+R%C3%A9.+Cons.+Int.+Explor.+Mer,+190:+72%E2%80%9396.&gs_l=serp.3.. .25815.25815.1.25974.1.1.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c.1.64.serp..1.0.0.d37Vn2Dz_p8&gf e_rd=cr&ei=UH3_WNwgyPTwB-rEpSg.

Arula, T., J. Gröger, H. Ojaveer, and M. Simm. 2014. Shifts in the Spring Herring (Clupea harengus membras) Larvae and Related Environment in the Eastern Baltic Sea over the Past 50 Years. PLOS ONE 9:e91304. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0091304.

ASCOBANS. 1992. Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans in the Atlanto- Scandian and Baltic (original 1992 text with the amendment agreed in 2003). Pages 1–7. http://www.ascobans.org/sites/default/files/basic_page_documents/ASCOBANS_Agr eementText_English_integratedAmendment.pdf.

ASCOBANS. 2016. ASCOBANS Recovery Plan for Baltic Harbour Porpoises: Jastarnia Plan (2016 Revision). Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans in the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas (ASCOBANS). http://www.diva- portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:1063396.

ASCOBANS. 2017a. ASCOBANS | Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans in the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas. http://www.ascobans.org/.

ASCOBANS. 2017b. Parties and Range States. http://www.ascobans.org/en/parties-range- states.

ASCOBANS. 2017c. Finland. http://www.ascobans.org/en/country/finland.

ASCOBANS. 2017d. Species list: Phocoena phocoena. http://www.ascobans.org/en/species/phocoena-phocoena.

BALTFISH. 2016. BALTFISH - a final report. https://www.balticsea-region- strategy.eu/attachments/article/590800/2017%2002%2003%20BALTFISH%20final% 20report.pdf.

Page 148 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

BalticSTERN. 2013. Baltic Sea–Our Common Treasure: Economics of Saving the Sea. Havs- och vattenmyndigheten, Stockholm. http://stockholmresilience.org/download/18.4531be2013cd58e844853b/BalticSTERN _The+Baltic+Sea+- +Our+Common+Treasure.+Economics+of+Saving+the+Sea_0314.pdf.

Berggren, P. 1994. Bycatches of the Harbour Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena in the Swedish Skagerrak, Kattegat & Baltic Seas; 1973-1993. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. (Special Issue) 15:211–215. http://eprint.ncl.ac.uk/file_store/production/217510/3702978B-04EE- 438E-962D-B3DD8FA8EA98.pdf.

Bergström, U., J. Olsson, M. Casini, B. K. Eriksson, R. Fredriksson, H. Wennhage, and M. Appelberg. 2015. Stickleback increase in the Baltic Sea – A thorny issue for coastal predatory fish. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 163, Part B:134–142. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272771415002267.

BSAC. 2017. Baltic Sea Advisory Council - Home. http://www.bsac.dk/.

Bureau Veritas Certification. 2015. NKF Bothnian Bay Vendace Trawl. Public Certification Report. Page 159. https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/lfpo-pelagic-trawl-sprat- sprattus-sprattus/@@assessment- documentsets?documentset_name=Public+comment+draft+report&phase_name=Pu blic+review+of+the+draft+assessment+report&start_date=2016-05- 19&title=Initial+assessment.

Bureau Veritas Iberia. 2016. NKF Bothnian Bay Vendace Trawl Fishery. First Surveillance Report. Page 25. https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/nkf-bothnian-bay-vendace- trawl/@@assessments.

Bureau Veritas Iberia. 2017. LFPO Pelagic trawl sprat (Sprattus sprattus). Final Report. Page 236. https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/lfpo-pelagic-trawl-sprat-sprattus- sprattus/@@assessments.

Calamnius, L. 2017. Behaviour of grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) and their prey in and near set traps. Report, Drottningholm Lysekil Öregrund. http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/14203/.

Casini, M., J. Lövgren, J. Hjelm, M. Cardinale, J.-C. Molinero, and G. Kornilovs. 2008. Multi- level trophic cascades in a heavily exploited open marine ecosystem. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 275:1793–1801. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2587786/.

CITES. 2017. The CITES Appendices | CITES. https://cites.org/eng/app/index.php.

CMS. 2017. Agreements | CMS. http://www.cms.int/en/cms-instruments/agreements.

Convention on Biological Diversity. 2017. Target 11 - Quick guide to the Aichi Biodiversity Targets: Protected areas increased and improved. https://www.cbd.int/doc/strategic- plan/targets/T11-quick-guide-en.pdf.

van Damme, C. J. G., M. Dickey-Collas, A. Rijnsdorp, and O. Kjesbuc. 2009. Fecundity, atresia, and spawning strategies of Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 66:2130–2141.

Donaldson, A., C. Gabriel, B. J. Harvey, and J. Carolsfield. 2010. Impacts of Fishing Gears other than Bottom Trawls, Dredges, Gillnets and Longlines on Aquatic Biodiversity and

Page 149 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 011:vi + 84p. http://biblio.uqar.ca/archives/30157002.pdf.

EC. 1992. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Pages 7–50. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31992L0043&from=EN.

EC. 1997. COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein. Pages 1–69. http://eur- lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31997R0338&from=en.

EC. 2002. COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy. Pages 1–22. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32002R2371&from=EN.

EC. 2004. COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 812/2004 of 26.4.2004 laying down measures concerning incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries and amending Regulation (EC) No 88/98. Pages 1–20. http://eur- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:150:0012:0031:EN:PDF.

EC. 2005. Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 of 21 December 2005 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound, amending Regulation (EC) No 1434/98 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 88/98. Pages 1–23. http://eur- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2005:349:0001:0023:EN:PDF.

EC. 2006. Baltic Sea Technical Rules - Introduction. Pages 1–21. https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/sites/fisheries/files/docs/body/baltic-sea-technical- rules_en.pdf.

EC. 2008. Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). Page 2008/56/EC. http://eur- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:164:0019:0040:EN:PDF.

EC. 2009a. Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (codified version). Pages 7–26. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009L0147&from=EN.

EC. 2009b. COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 439/2009 of 23 March 2009 concerning the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Government of the Russian Federation on cooperation in fisheries and the conservation of the living marine resources in the Baltic Sea. Pages 1–7. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009R0439&from=EN.

EC. 2009c. COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93,

Page 150 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

(EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006. Pages 1–50. http://eur- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:343:0001:0050:EN:PDF.

EC. 2014. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1396/2014 of 20 October 2014 establishing a discard plan in the Baltic Sea. Page 2. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R1396&from=EN.

EC. 2016a. Regulation (EU) 2016/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2016 establishing a multiannual plan for the stocks of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks, amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007. Page 20. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2016:191:FULL&from=EN.

EC. 2016b. COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) 2016/1903 of 28 October 2016 fixing for 2017 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea and amending Regulation (EU) 2016/72. Pages 1–10. http://eur- lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R1903&from=EN.

EC. 2016c. COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2017/117 of 5 September 2016 establishing fisheries conservation measures for the protection of the marine environment in the Baltic Sea and repealing Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/1778. Pages 1–9. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32017R0117&from=EN.

EC. 2016d. COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2017/118 of 5 September 2016 establishing fisheries conservation measures for the protection of the marine environment in the North Sea. Pages 1–16. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32017R0118&from=EN.

EC. 2016e. The Finnish Work Plan for data collection in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors 2017-2019. https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/10213/994679/WP_Finland_2017- 2019.pdf.

EC. 2017a. Baltic Sea Technical Rules. EC, Brussels. https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/sites/fisheries/files/docs/body/baltic-sea-technical- rules_en.pdf.

EC. 2017b. STECF About - European Commission. https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/about-stecf.

EC. 2017c. Natura 2000 - Environment - European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/index_en.htm.

EC. 2017d. The Habitats Directive - Environment - European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/index_en.htm.

EC. 2017e. The Birds Directive - Environment - European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/birdsdirective/index_en.htm.

EC. 2017f. Better Regulation Guidelines - European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/smart- regulation/guidelines/toc_guide_en.htm.

EC. 2017g. Consultations. Text. https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations_en.

Page 151 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

EC, P. O. of the E. 2007. COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 809/2007 of 28 June 2007 amending Regulations (EC) No 894/97, (EC) No 812/2004 and (EC) No 2187/2005 as concerns drift nets. Pages 1–2. https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/- /publication/c53972be-8935-4f26-9365-98a2b6bd16e7/language-en.

van Eerden, M., S. van Rijn, S. Volponi, J.-Y. Paquet, and D. N. Carss. 2012. Cormorants and the European Environment: exploring Cormorant ecology on a continental scale. COST, European Cooperation in Science and Technology. http://www.intercafeproject.net/pdf/Cormorants_and_the_European_Environment_we b_version.pdf.

Ehnholm, G. 1951. Studier över strömmingen i östra Kvarken. Havsforskningsinstitutets skrift., No. 149: 1-94. Pages 1–94.

Eigaard, O. R., M. Breen, L. Buhl-Mortensen, G. Dinesen, T. K. Sørensen, P. Jonsson, M. Zengin, and A. Rijnsdorp. 2013. Deliverable 1.1b: Benthic impact from the perspective of the fisheries. Pages 35–71 Deliverable 1.1: Report on benthic ecosystem processes and the impact of fishing gear. Benthis. http://www.benthis.eu/web/file?uuid=e89c7e3e-a611-4d12-b829- 47caed6f8313&owner=fd9fa22c-6bf7-42dc-ad64-ad4cbd966f98.

EMODNET. 2017. Seabed Habitats Mapping Portal. http://www.emodnet.eu/seabed-habitats.

Environment.fi. 2017. Joint website of Finland’s environmental administration. http://www.ymparisto.fi/en-US.

EU. 2005. EUR-Lex - 32005R2187 - EN - EUR-Lex. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32005R2187.

EU. 2007. EUR-Lex - 32007R1098 - EN - EUR-Lex. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32007R1098.

EU. 2013. REGULATION (EU) No 1380/2013 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC. Page 1380/2013.

EU. 2016. EUR-Lex - 32015R2072 - EN - EUR-Lex. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32015R2072.

EU. 2017. Council agreement on 2018 catch limits in the Baltic Sea - Consilium. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2017/10/09-baltic-sea- catch-limits-2018/.

European Parliament. 2009a. Industrial fisheries in the Baltic Sea. Directorate-General for Internal Policies of the Union. Publications Office, Luxembourg. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2011/460040/IPOL- PECH_NT(2011)460040_EN.pdf.

European Parliament. 2009b. EC-Russia agreement on cooperation in fisheries in the Baltic Sea. Pages 1–2. European Parliament, Luxembourg. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+IM- PRESS+20070516IPR06761+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=NL.

Page 152 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

FINLEX. 2017. FINLEX ® - Ajantasainen lainsäädäntö: Luonnonsuojeluasetus 160/1997 [Nature Conservation Decree - Consolidated text]. http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1997/19970160#a19.6.2013-471.

Fishbase. 2017. Osmerus eperlanus summary page. http://www.fishbase.us/summary/Osmerus-eperlanus.html.

Froese, R., C. Garilao, H. Winker, G. Coro, N. Demirel, A. Tsikliras, D. Dimarchopoulou, G. Scarcella, and A. Sampang-Reyes. 2016. Exploitation and status of European stocks. Report. http://oceanrep.geomar.de/34476/.

Garcia, S., P. Sparre, and J. Csirke. 1989. Estimating surplus production and maximum sustainable yield from biomass data when catch and effort time series are not available. Fisheries Research 8:13–23. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0165783689900374.

Government of Finland. 1982. Fishing Act 1982. (Consolidated text including amendments up to 154/2013). Pages 1–42. http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1982/en19820286.pdf.

Government of Finland. 1993. Hunting Act (consolidated text). Pages 1–20. http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1993/en19930615.pdf.

Government of Finland. 1996. Nature Conservation Act. Pages 1–33. http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1996/en19961096.pdf.

Government of Finland. 1997. Nature Conservation Decree. Pages 1–9. http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1997/en19970160.pdf.

Government of Finland. 2003. Language Act. Pages 1–16. http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2003/en20030423.pdf.

Government of Finland. 2014. Law on the system of sanctions and controls in the Common Fisheries Policy (Lakiyhteisen kalastuspolitiikan seuraamusjärjestelmästä ja valvonnasta). http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/2014/20141188.

Government of Finland. 2015a. Fishing Act. Pages 1–55. http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2015/en20150379.pdf.

Government of Finland. 2015b. Government Decree on Fishing (Valtioneuvoston asetus kalastuksesta). http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/2015/20151360.

Government of Finland. 2016a. Act on the national implementation of the European Union’s Common Fisheries Policy (Laki Euroopan unionin yhteisen kalastuspolitiikan kansallisesta täytäntöönpanosta). http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/2016/20161048.

Government of Finland. 2016b. Government Decree on a Commercial Fisheries Quota Scheme (Valtioneuvoston asetuskaupallisen kalastuksen kiintiöjärjestelmästä). http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/2016/20161050.

Gröhsler, T., Oeberst, R., Schaber, M., Larson, N., and Kornilovs, G. 2013. Discrimination of western Baltic spring-spawning and central Baltic herring (Clupea harengus L.) based on growth vs. natural tag information. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 70(6): 1108– 1117. - Cerca con Google. (n.d.). . https://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy- ab&client=firefox-

Page 153 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

b&biw=1924&bih=965&noj=1&q=Gr%C3%B6hsler,+T.,+Oeberst,+R.,+Schaber,+M.,+ Larson,+N.,+and+Kornilovs,+G.+2013.+Discrimination+of+western+Baltic+spring- spawning+and+central+Baltic+herring+(Clupea+harengus+L.)+based+on+growth+vs .+natural+tag+information.+ICES+Journal+of+Marine+Science,+70(6):+1108%E2%8 0%931117.&oq=Gr%C3%B6hsler,+T.,+Oeberst,+R.,+Schaber,+M.,+Larson,+N.,+an d+Kornilovs,+G.+2013.+Discrimination+of+western+Baltic+spring- spawning+and+central+Baltic+herring+(Clupea+harengus+L.)+based+on+growth+vs .+natural+tag+information.+ICES+Journal+of+Marine+Science,+70(6):+1108%E2%8 0%931117.&gs_l=serp.3...30591.31563.1.31879.2.2.0.0.0.0.148.148.0j1.1.0....0...1c. 1.64.serp..1.0.0.0.CuzGfxg5IOA&gfe_rd=cr&ei=y37_WJXZFZPKXqCvvbAF.

Haakana, H., and H. Huuskonen. 2012. The endangered whitefish (Coregonus lavaretus pallasi) population in the Koitajoki River, eastern Finland: the present state and threats. Advances in Limnology:519–533. https://www.schweizerbart.de/papers/adv_limnology/detail/63/77924/The_endangere d_whitefish_Coregonus_lavaretus_pallasi_population_in_the_Koitajoki_River_easter n_Finland_the_present_state_and_threats.

Harvey, C. J., S. P. Cox, T. E. Essington, S. Hansson, and J. F. Kitchell. 2003. An ecosystem model of food web and fisheries interactions in the Baltic Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science 60:939–950. https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/60/5/939/769206/An- ecosystem-model-of-food-web-and-fisheries.

Heikinheimo, O. 2011. Interactions between cod, herring and sprat in the changing environment of the Baltic Sea: A dynamic model analysis. Ecological Modelling 222:1731–1742. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380011001128.

HELCOM. 2006. Assessment of Coastal Fish in the Baltic Sea. Helsinki Commission. http://helcom.fi/Lists/Publications/BSEP103a.pdf.

HELCOM. 2007. Baltic Sea Action Plan. HELCOM Ministerial Meeting, Krakow, Poland, 15th November 2007. Helsinki Commission, Helsinki. http://helcom.fi/Documents/Baltic%20sea%20action%20plan/BSAP_Final.pdf.

HELCOM. 2010. Ecosystem Health of the Baltic Sea. Helcom Initial Holistic Assessment. Helsinki Commission, Helsinki. http://www.helcom.fi/Lists/Publications/BSEP122.pdf.

HELCOM. 2012. Indicator-based assessment of coastal fish community status in the Baltic Sea 2005-2009. Pages 1–92. http://www.helcom.fi/Lists/Publications/BSEP131.pdf.

HELCOM. 2013a. HELCOM Red List Clupea harengus. Pages 1–5. HELCOM, Helsinki. http://www.helcom.fi/Red%20List%20Species%20Information%20Sheet/HELCOM% 20Red%20List%20Clupea%20harengus.pdf.

HELCOM. 2013b. HELCOM Red List Species Information Sheet: Coregonus maraena. Pages 1–6. http://helcom.fi/Red%20List%20Species%20Information%20Sheet/HELCOM%20Red %20List%20Coregonus%20maraena.pdf.

HELCOM. 2013c. HELCOM Red List of Baltic Sea species in danger of becoming extinct. Pages 1–110. http://www.helcom.fi/Lists/Publications/BSEP140.pdf.

Page 154 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

HELCOM. 2013d. HELCOM Red List Species Information Sheet: Alosa alosa. Pages 1–2. http://helcom.fi/Red%20List%20Species%20Information%20Sheet/HELCOM%20Red %20List%20Alosa%20alosa.pdf.

HELCOM. 2013e. HELCOM Red List Species Information Sheet: Phocoena phocoena. Pages 1–7. http://helcom.fi/Red%20List%20Species%20Information%20Sheet/HELCOM%20Red %20List%20Phocoena%20phocoena.pdf.

HELCOM. 2013f. HELCOM Red List Species Information Sheet: Halichoerus grypus. Pages 1–7. http://helcom.fi/Red%20List%20Species%20Information%20Sheet/HELCOM%20Red %20List%20Coregonus%20maraena.pdf.

HELCOM. 2013g. HELCOM Red List Species Information Sheet: Phoca vitulina vitulina. Pages 1–5. http://helcom.fi/Red%20List%20Species%20Information%20Sheet/HELCOM%20Red %20List%20Phoca%20vitulina%20vitulina.pdf.

HELCOM. 2013h. HELCOM Red List Species Information Sheet: Phoca hispida botnica. Pages 1–6. HELCOM. http://helcom.fi/Red%20List%20Species%20Information%20Sheet/HELCOM%20Red %20List%20Phoca%20hispida%20botnica.pdf.

HELCOM. 2013i. Red List of Baltic Sea underwater biotopes, habitats and biotope complexes. Pages 1–74. http://www.helcom.fi/Lists/Publications/BSEP138.pdf.

HELCOM. 2013j. HELCOM Red List Species Information Sheet: Lutra lutra. Pages 1–8. http://helcom.fi/Red%20List%20Species%20Information%20Sheet/HELCOM%20Red %20List%20Lutra%20lutra.pdf.

HELCOM. 2015. HELCOM PROTECT - Overview of the status of the network of Baltic Sea marine protected areas. Page 31. http://www.helcom.fi/Lists/Publications/Overview%20of%20the%20status%20of%20t he%20network%20of%20Baltic%20Sea%20marine%20protected%20areas.pdf.

HELCOM. 2016. Ecological coherence assessment of the Marine Protected Area network in the Baltic. Page 74. HELCOM. http://helcom.fi/Lists/Publications/BSEP148.pdf.

HELCOM. 2017a. Baltic Sea Trends - Indicators - Abundance of key coastal fish species - Results and Confidence. http://www.helcom.fi/baltic-sea-trends/indicators/abundance- of-key-coastal-fish-species/results-and-confidence/.

HELCOM. 2017b. About Us - HELCOM. http://helcom.fi/about-us.

HELCOM. 2017c. Convention - HELCOM. http://www.helcom.fi/about-us/convention/.

HELCOM. 2017d. Baltfish Forum. http://helcom.fi/action-areas/fisheries/management/baltfish.

HELCOM. 2017e. HELCOM Red List Assesment_Breeding birds. Pages 1–3. HELCOM, Helsinki. http://www.helcom.fi/Documents/Baltic%20sea%20trends/Biodiversity/Red%20List/H ELCOM%20Red%20List%20Assesment_Breeding%20birds.pdf.

Page 155 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

HELCOM. 2017f. Red List of Marine mammals - HELCOM. http://helcom.fi/baltic-sea- trends/biodiversity/red-list-of-species/red-list-of-marine-mammals/.

HELCOM. 2017g. HELCOM Data and Map Service. http://maps.helcom.fi/website/mapservice/index.html.

HELCOM. 2017h. HELCOM (Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission - Helsinki Commission). http://helcom.fi/.

Herrmann, C., T. Bregnballe, K. Larsson, and K. Rattiste. 2014. Population development of Great Cormorant. HELCOM Baltic Sea Environment Fact Sheets. http://helcom.fi/baltic-sea-trends/environment-fact-sheets/biodiversity/population- development-of-great-cormorant/.

Holmgren, N. M. A., N. Norrström, R. Aps, and S. Kuikka. 2012. MSY-orientated management of Baltic Sea herring (Clupea harengus) during different ecosystem regimes. ICES Journal of Marine Science 69:257–266.

ICES. 2008. ICES Advice 2008, Book 8. Section 8.1 Ecosystem Overview.

ICES. 2009. Report of the ICES/HELCOM Working Group on Integrated Assessments of the Baltic Sea (WGIAB), 16–20 March 2009, Rostock, Germany. Page 81.

ICES. 2012. Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Pelagic Stocks (WKPELA 2012), ICES WKPELA REPORT 2012 ICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE ICES CM 2012/ACOM:47.

ICES. 2013a. Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Baltic Multispecies Assessments (WKBALT) 4–8 February 2013, Copenhagen.

ICES. 2013b. Multispecies considerations for the central Baltic stocks: cod in Subdivisions 25–32, herring in Subdivisions 25–29 and 32, and sprat in Subdivisions 22–32. Pages 1–6 ICES Advice 2013, Book 8. ICES. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2013/2013/Baltic%20Mul tispecies%20Advice.pdf.

ICES. 2013c. ICES benchmark 2013 baltic - Cerca con GooReport of the Benchmark Workshop on Pelagic Stocks (WKPELA 2013). ICES.

ICES. 2014. Stock Annex: Salmon (Salmo salar) in Subdivisions 22–31 (Baltic Sea, excluding the Gulf of Finland) and Salmon (Salmo salar) in Subdivision 32 (Gulf of Finland). Pages 1–47 ICES Stock Annex. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Stock%20Annexes/2015/sal- 2431+sal-32_SA.pdf.

ICES. 2015. Report of the Working Group on Marine Mammal Ecology (WGMME). 9-12 February 2015, London, UK. ICES, Copenhagen. http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/20 15/WGMME/wgmme_2015.pdf.

ICES. 2016a. Report of the Baltic Fisheries Assessment Working Group (WGBFAS) 12-19 April 2016 ICES HQ, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/ac om/2016/WGBFAS/01%20WGBFAS%20Report%202016.pdf.

Page 156 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

ICES. 2016b. Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) in subdivisions 22–32 (Baltic Sea). Pages 1–8 ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort, Baltic Sea Ecoregion. ICES. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/spr-2232.pdf.

ICES. 2016c. Herring (Clupea harengus) in subdivisions 25–29 and 32 (central Baltic Sea, excluding Gulf of Riga). Pages 1–9 ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort, Baltic Sea Ecoregion. ICES. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/her-2532- gor.pdf.

ICES. 2016d. Herring (Clupea harengus) in Subdivision 30 (Bothnian Sea). Pages 1–7 ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort, Baltic Sea Ecoregion. ICES. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/her-30.pdf.

ICES. 2016e. Herring (Clupea harengus) in Subdivision 31 (Bothnian Bay). Pages 1–6 ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort, Baltic Sea Ecoregion. ICES. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/her-31.pdf.

ICES. 2016f. Advice basis. Pages 1–15 ICES Advice basis. ICES. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/Introduction_t o_advice_2016.pdf.

ICES. 2016g. Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in Subdivision 32 (Gulf of Finland). Pages 1–11 ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort, Baltic Sea Ecoregion. ICES. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/sal-32.pdf.

ICES. 2016h. Cod (Gadus morhua

ICES. 2016i. Salmon (Salmo salar) in subdivisions 22–31 (Baltic Sea, excluding Gulf of Finland). Pages 1–16 ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort, Baltic Sea Ecoregion. ICES. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/sal-2231.pdf.

ICES. 2016j. EU request to ICES to provide FMSY ranges for selected North Sea and Baltic Sea stocks. Pages 1–11 ICES Special Request Advice Greater North Sea and Baltic Sea Ecoregions. ICES, Copenhagen. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2015/Special_Requests/ EU_FMSY_ranges_for_selected_NS_and_BS_stocks.pdf.

ICES. 2016k. Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (WGBYC) 1–5 February 2016 ICES HQ, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES, Copenhagen. https://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/a com/2016/WGBYC/01_WGBYC%20Report%202016.pdf.

ICES. 2017a. Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Baltic Stocks (WKBALT). ICES, Copenhagen. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/ac om/2017/WKBALT/01%20WKBALT- %20Benchmark%20workshop%20on%20Baltic%20Stocks.pdf.

ICES. 2017b. Herring (Clupea harengus) in subdivisions 25–29 and 32 (central Baltic Sea, excluding Gulf of Riga). Pages 1–9 ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort, Baltic Sea Ecoregion. ICES.

Page 157 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/her.27.25- 2932.pdf.

ICES. 2017c. Baltic Sea Ecoregion - Fisheries overview. Pages 1–25. ICES publishing, Copenhagen. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/Baltic_Sea_E coregion_Fisheries_Overview.pdf.

ICES. 2017d. Final Report of the Baltic International Fish Survey Working Group. Pages 1– 689. ICES, Copenhagen. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/SS GIEOM/2017/WGBIFS/WGBIFS%202017.pdf.

ICES. 2017e. Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) in subdivisions 22–32 (Baltic Sea). Pages 1–9 ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort, Baltic Sea Ecoregion. ICES, Copenhagen. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/spr.27.22%E 2%80%9332.pdf.

INTERCAFE. 2017. INTERCAFE: Interdisciplinary Initiative to Reduce Pan-European Cormorant-Fisheries Conflicts. http://www.intercafeproject.net/index.html.

IUCN. 2017. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. http://www.iucnredlist.org/search.

Jennings, S., and M. J. Kaiser. 1998. The Effects of Fishing on Marine Ecosystems. Advances in Marine Biology 34:201–352. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0065288108602126.

Königson, S., J. Lövgren, J. Hjelm, M. Ovegård, F. Ljunghager, and S.-G. Lunneryd. 2015. Seal exclusion devices in cod pots prevent seal bycatch and affect their catchability of cod. Fisheries Research 167:114–122. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016578361500034X.

Lajus, J., A. Kraikovski, and D. Lajus. 2013. Coastal Fisheries in the Eastern Baltic Sea (Gulf of Finland) and Its Basin from the 15 to the Early 20th Centuries. PLOS ONE 8:e77059. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0077059.

Lessin, G., U. Raudsepp, and A. Stips. 2014. Modelling the Influence of Major Baltic Inflows on Near-Bottom Conditions at the Entrance of the Gulf of Finland. PLOS ONE 9:e112881. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0112881.

Ljunggren, L., A. Sandström, U. Bergström, J. Mattila, A. Lappalainen, G. Johansson, G. Sundblad, M. Casini, O. Kaljuste, and B. K. Eriksson. 2010. Recruitment failure of coastal predatory fish in the Baltic Sea coincident with an offshore ecosystem regime shift. ICES Journal of Marine Science 67:1587–1595. https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/67/8/1587/608411/Recruitment-failure-of- coastal-predatory-fish-in.

LUKE. 2017a. Abundant catches of Baltic herring and sprat offshore – poor catches on the coast. https://www.luke.fi/en/news/abundant-catches-baltic-herring-sprat-offshore- poor-catches-coast.

LUKE. 2017b. Statistics database - Commercial Marine Fisheries. http://statdb.luke.fi/PXWeb/pxweb/en/LUKE/LUKE__06%20Kala%20ja%20riista__02

Page 158 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

%20Rakenne%20ja%20tuotanto__02%20Kaupallinen%20kalastus%20merella/?tabl elist=true&rxid=001bc7da-70f4-47c4-a6c2-c9100d8b50db.

LUKE. 2017c. Luonnonvarakeskus (LUKE) Natural Resources Institute Finland website. https://www.luke.fi/en/.

Lundin, M. 2014. Size selection of fish in the trap fisheries of the Baltic and Bothnian Seas. http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/11029/.

MacKenzie, B. R., M. Eero, and H. Ojaveer. 2011. Could Seals Prevent Cod Recovery in the Baltic Sea? PLOS ONE 6:e18998. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0018998.

MAF. 2013. Finland NP Proposal 2011-2013 Amended for 2013. https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/np/2014/- /document_library_display/z9Yv/view/688307/38411?_110_INSTANCE_z9Yv_redire ct=https%3A%2F%2Fdatacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu%2Fnp%2F2014%3Fp_p_id%3 D110_INSTANCE_z9Yv%26p_p_lifecycle%3D0%26p_p_state%3Dnormal%26p_p_ mode%3Dview%26p_p_col_id%3Dcolumn-2%26p_p_col_count%3D1.

MAF. 2016. The Finnish Work Plan for data collection in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors 2017-2019. https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/wps?p_p_id=101_INSTANCE_wND0&p_p_life cycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column- 2&p_p_col_count=1&_101_INSTANCE_wND0_delta=10&_101_INSTANCE_wND0_ keywords=&_101_INSTANCE_wND0_advancedSearch=false&_101_INSTANCE_w ND0_andOperator=true&cur=2.

Margonski, P., S. Hansson, M. T. Tomczak, and R. Grzebielec. 2010. Climate influence on Baltic cod, sprat, and herring stock–recruitment relationships. Progress in Oceanography 87:277–288. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079661110001126.

Marine Stewardship Council. 2014a. MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements and Guidance, v.2.0. Marine Stewardship Council. https://www.msc.org/documents/scheme-documents/fisheries-certification-scheme- documents/fisheries-standard-version-2.0.

Marine Stewardship Council. 2014b, October 1. MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements and Guidance Version 2.0. Marine Stewardship Council.

Marine Stewardship Council. 2015. MSC General Certification Requirements and Guidance v2.0. https://www.msc.org/documents/scheme-documents/msc-scheme- requirements/msc-general-certification-requirements-v2.1/.

Marine Stewardship Council. 2016. Get certified: a practical guide for fisheries. https://www.msc.org/documents/get-certified/fisheries/get-certified-a-practical-guide- for-fisheries-low-resolution.

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. 2007. Management Plan for the Finnish seal populations in the Baltic Sea. Ministry of Agriculture & Forestry, Helsinki. http://mmm.fi/documents/1410837/1721042/4b_Hylkeen_enkku_nettiin.pdf/aeb2abf7- d6f0-422e-8a6a-94ba8403df31.

Page 159 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

MSC. 2015. Use of ‘if necessary’ in P2 management PIs (2.1.2, 2.2.2, 2.4.2, 2.5.2) | MSC Interpretation Log. http://msc-info.accreditation-services.com/questions/use-of-if- necessary-in-p2-management-pis-2-1-2-2-2-2-2-4-2-2-5-2/.

MSC. 2017. Move-on rules at SG60 for PI2.4.2a. | MSC Interpretation Log. http://msc- info.accreditation-services.com/questions/move-on-rules-at-sg60-for-pi2-4-2a/.

Mustamäki, N., and J. Mattila. 2015. Structural changes in three coastal fish assemblages in the northern Baltic Sea archipelago. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 164:408– 417. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272771415300160.

Ojaveer, H., and M. Eero. 2011. Methodological Challenges in Assessing the Environmental Status of a Marine Ecosystem: Case Study of the Baltic Sea. PLOS ONE 6:e19231. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0019231.

Ojaveer, H., A. Jaanus, B. R. MacKenzie, G. Martin, S. Olenin, T. Radziejewska, I. Telesh, M. L. Zettler, and A. Zaiko. 2010. Status of Biodiversity in the Baltic Sea. PLOS ONE 5:e12467. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0012467.

Oksanen, S. M., M. P. Ahola, J. Oikarinen, and M. Kunnasranta. 2015. A Novel Tool to Mitigate By-Catch Mortality of Baltic Seals in Coastal Fyke Net Fishery. PLOS ONE 10:e0127510. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0127510.

Östman, Ö., M. K. Boström, U. Bergström, J. Andersson, and S.-G. Lunneryd. 2013. Estimating Competition between Wildlife and Humans–A Case of Cormorants and Coastal Fisheries in the Baltic Sea. PLOS ONE 8:e83763. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0083763.

Otterlind, G. 1962. Sillens/strömmingens vandringsvanor vid svenska syd- och ostkusten. Ostkusten. Pages 15–21.

Patokina, F. A., C. M. Nigmatullin, and S. M. Kasaktina. 2011. Adult cod as top-predator in the southern Baltic: results of the winter–early spring observations in 1992–2010.

Pekcan-Hekim, Z., A. Gårdmark, A. M. L. Karlson, P. Kauppila, M. Bergenius, and L. Bergström. 2016. The role of climate and fisheries on the temporal changes in the Bothnian Bay foodweb. ICES Journal of Marine Science 73:1739–1749. https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/73/7/1739/2458697/The-role-of-climate- and-fisheries-on-the-temporal.

Permanne, R. 1990. Growth, morphological variation and migration of herring (Clupea harengus L.) in the northern Baltic Sea. Finnish Fish. Res. 10:1–48.

Raitaniemi, J. 2017, April 18. MSC (E-mail from LUKE scientists to assessment team).

Raitaniemi, J., J. Pönni, and A. Lekelä. 2017, April 19. RE: MSC. (E-mail from LUKE scientists to assessment team).

Rassi, P., E. Hyvärinen, A. Juslén, and I. Mannerkoski, editors. 2010. Suomen lajien uhanalaisuus Punainen kirja 2012. The 2010 Red List of Finnish Species. Ministry of the Environment and the Finnish Environment Institute. http://www.ym.fi/fi- FI/Ajankohtaista/Julkaisut/Erillisjulkaisut/Suomen_lajien_uhanalaisuus__Punainen_ki r(4709).

Page 160 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Russian Government. 2004. On Fisheries and the Conservation of Aquatic Biological Resources. Pages 1–30. http://www.fish.gov.ru/files/documents/documenty/federalnye_zakony/Federalnyj- zakon_166-FZ_ot_20-12-2004.pdf.

SAMBAH. 2016. Heard but not seen. Static Acoustic Monitoring of the Baltic Harbour Porpoise. http://www.sambah.org/Non-technical-report-v.-1.8.1.pdf.

Sandberg, J., R. Elmgren, and F. Wulff. 2000. Carbon flows in Baltic Sea food webs — a reevaluation using a mass balance approach. Journal of Marine Systems 25:249–260.

Simmonds, J., E. Jardim, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for the Protection and the Security of the Citizen, European Commission, and T. and E. C. for F. (STECF) Scientific. 2012. Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF): multispecies management plans for the Baltic (STECF-12-06). Publications Office, Luxembourg. http://dx.publications.europa.eu/10.2788/25697.

Sjöblom, V. 1966. Rannikkomme syyskutuinen silakka vuonna 1964 ja sen runsauteen vaikuttavista tekijöistä. (Summary: Autumn spawning Baltic herring (Clupea harengus L.) on the Finnish coast in 1964 and factors affecting fluctuations in its abundance). Suomen Kalatalous 25: 1-23. Pages 1–23.

SLU. 2015. Siklöja: Vänern, Vättern och Mälaren. Pages 1–7. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. https://www.slu.se/globalassets/ew/org/inst/aqua/externwebb/sidan- publikationer/resurs-och-miljo/sikloja.pdf.

Strandmark, A., A. Bring, S. A. O. Cousins, G. Destouni, H. Kautsky, G. Kolb, M. de la Torre- Castro, and P. A. Hambäck. 2015. Climate change effects on the Baltic Sea borderland between land and sea. AMBIO 44:28–38. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13280- 014-0586-8.

Suikkanen, S., S. Pulina, J. Engström-Öst, M. Lehtiniemi, S. Lehtinen, and A. Brutemark. 2013. Climate Change and Eutrophication Induced Shifts in Northern Summer Plankton Communities. PLOS ONE 8:e66475. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0066475.

SYKE. 2016. The growth of the Finnish cormorant population experiences only a slight increase. http://www.syke.fi/en- US/Research__Development/Maintaining_ecosystem_services_and_biodiversity/The _growth_of_the_Finnish_cormorant_popu(39938).

Tomczak, M. T., J. J. Heymans, J. Yletyinen, S. Niiranen, S. A. Otto, and T. Blenckner. 2013. Ecological Network Indicators of Ecosystem Status and Change in the Baltic Sea. PLOS ONE 8:e75439. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0075439.

Tomczak, M. T., S. Niiranen, O. Hjerne, and T. Blenckner. 2012. Ecosystem flow dynamics in the Baltic Proper—Using a multi-trophic dataset as a basis for food–web modelling. Ecological Modelling 230:123–147. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380011006028.

United Nations. 1992. Convention on Biological Diversity. Pages 1–30. https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf.

Page 161 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Vainikka, A., E. Jakubavičiūtė, and P. Hyvärinen. 2017. Synchronous decline of three morphologically distinct whitefish (Coregonus lavaretus) stocks in Lake Oulujärvi with concurrent changes in the fish community. Fisheries Research 196:34–46. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165783617302278.

Vanhatalo, J., M. Vetemaa, A. Herrero, T. Aho, and R. Tiilikainen. 2014. By-Catch of Grey Seals (Halichoerus grypus) in Baltic Fisheries—A Bayesian Analysis of Interview Survey. PLOS ONE 9:e113836. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0113836.

Page 162 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery 9 Appendix 1: Assessment Tree

This section of the report provides a background to the assessment tree used to evaluate this fishery. It begins with an outline of the MSC Principles & Criteria and then continues to describe the modified assessment tree that has been used in this fishery assessment. MSC Principles & Criteria Below is a much-simplified summary of the MSC Principles and Criteria, to be used for over- view purposes only. For a fuller description, including scoring guideposts under each Performance Indicator, reference should be made to the full assessment tree, complete with scores and justification, contained in this report. Alternatively, a fuller description of the MSC Principles and Criteria can be obtained from the MSC website (www.msc.org).

Figure 52: Graphic summarising MSC Principles and Performance Indicators [Source: Marine Stewardship Council 2016]

Page 163 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Principle 1 A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery. Intent: The intent of this Principle is to ensure that the productive capacities of resources are maintained at high levels and are not sacrificed in favour of short-term interests. Thus, exploited populations would be maintained at high levels of abundance designed to retain their productivity, provide margins of safety for error and uncertainty, and restore and retain their capacities for yields over the long term. Status » The stock is at a level that maintains high productivity and has a low probability of recruitment overfishing. » Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock (or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome). » Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding and rebuilding strategies are in place with reasonable expectation that they will succeed. Harvest strategy / management » There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place, which is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives. » There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place that endeavour to maintain stocks at target levels. » Sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data is available to support the harvest strategy. » The stock assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule, takes into account uncertainty, and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points.

Principle 2 Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends Intent: The intent of this Principle is to encourage the management of fisheries from an ecosystem perspective under a system designed to assess and restrain the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem. Retained species / Bycatch / ETP species » Main species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or if outside the limits there is a full strategy of demonstrably effective management measures. » There is a strategy in place for managing these species that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species. » Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status and support a full strategy to manage main retained / bycatch and ETP species.

Page 164 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Habitat & Ecosystem » The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat or ecosystem structure and function, considered on a regional or bioregional basis. » There is a strategy and measures in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types. » The nature, distribution and vulnerability of all main habitat types and ecosystem functions in the fishery area are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery and there is reliable information on the spatial extent, timing and location of use of the fishing gear.

Principle 3 The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable. Intent: The intent of this principle is to ensure that there is an institutional and operational framework for implementing Principles 1 and 2, appropriate to the size and scale of the fishery. Governance and policy » The management system exists within an appropriate and effective legal and/or customary framework that is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries and observes the legal & customary rights of people and incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. » Functions, roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals involved in the management process are explicitly defined and well understood. The management system includes consultation processes. » The management policy has clear long-term objectives, incorporates the precautionary approach and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing. Fishery specific management system » Short and long term objectives are explicit within the fishery’s management system. » Decision-making processes respond to relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner. » A monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented. Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and there is no evidence of systematic non- compliance. » A research plan provides the management system with reliable and timely information and results are disseminated to all interested parties in a timely fashion.

Page 165 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery 10 Appendix 2 Scoring and Rationales Principle 1: Baltic Sprat Trawl Fishery (UoA 1)

PI 1.1.1 – Stock status The stock is considered to be “key Low Trophic Level”, and has been scored against PI1.1.1A.

PI 1.1.1A - key LTL The stock is at a level which has a low probability of serious ecosystem PI 1.1.1 A impacts Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Stock status relative to ecosystem impairment Guide It is likely that the stock is It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of post above the point where stock is above the point certainty that the stock is serious ecosystem where serious ecosystem above the point where impacts could occur. impacts could occur. serious ecosystem impacts could occur. Met? Y Y Y Justifi As outlined in section 4.6.1 the Baltic sprat is considered as an LTL species. In order cation to score the stock status relative to the ecosystem impairment the multispecies model (SMS model, (ICES 2013a) presented in section 4.6.1.2 has been used. According to SA 2.2.12 (MSC CR v2.0) when scoring PI 1.1.1A scoring issue (a), the point where serious ecosystem impacts could occur shall be interpreted as being substantially higher than the point at which recruitment is impaired (PRI), as determined for the target species in a single species context. Although the SMS model is not a proper ecosystem model, the reference points outlined in the study (reported in Table 16) are used in the present assessment to evaluate the status of the stock relative to the ecosystem impacts. The values outlined in Table 16 are considered appropriate reference points consistent with the ecosystem needs, because the methodology used to estimate them takes into consideration the three main species of the Baltic ecosystem (cod, herring and sprat) together with a mixed category (mainly zooplankton) defined as “other food”, covering most of the functional groups present in the Baltic Sea. SA 2.2.12 (MSC CR v2.0), serious ecosystem impact by default may occur only if the sprat biomass is below a certain threshold determined from ecosystem models, but in any case, shall not be less than 20% of the spawning stock level that would be expected in the absence of fishing. The multispecies model does not formally estimate such level, but taking into account that the BMSY level for sprat is estimated around 1,000 kt and BMSY is considered to be half of the unexploited biomass (Garcia et al. 1989), the point where serious ecosystem impacts occurs should be around 400 kt for sprat (20% of 2000 kt). The SSB estimated in 2016 (1343 kt) is more than three times the point where serious ecosystem impacts occur. The SSB resulted to be above such level for almost the entire time series therefore is possible to conclude that there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point where serious ecosystem impacts could occur (SG100 is met as well as SG 60 and 80). b Stock status in relation to ecosystem needs Guide The stock is at or There is a high degree of post fluctuating around a level certainty that the stock consistent with ecosystem has been fluctuating needs. around a level consistent with ecosystem needs or has been above this level over recent years.

Page 166 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Met? Y N

Justifi Since 2011 the stock has been below the BMSY estimate from SMS model. However, cation the stock has been recovering to this value since 2013 and the predicted biomass in 2016 is 1343 kt, which is higher than the BMSY estimated by the SMS model (≈ 1000 kt). Moreover, the Multiannual management plan (EC 2016a) sets TACs such that the fishing mortality is restricted inside the range (0.19-0.26) and with reference to article 4(4) (0.26- 0.27), such thresholds are more precautionary than the FMSY identified by the SMS advice (FMSY = 0.3). Therefore, the current stock status is consistent with SG80 requirements. However, is not possible to demonstrate that there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is fluctuating around a level consistent with ecosystem needs, taking into account that the SSB was below BMSY from 2011 to 2015. Therefore, SG 100 is not met. The present conclusions are different from the Latvian sprat fishery, which scored 100. The difference in scoring results from a different rationale but it does not have any implication for the harmonization or the final assessment outcomes. References ICES 2013a; MSC CR v2.0; Garcia et al. 1989; EC 2016 Stock Status relative to Reference Points Type of reference Value of reference Current stock status relative point point to reference point

Reference B20%virgin ≈ 400 kt 1343/400 = point used in scoring stock relative to ecosystem impairment (SIa) Reference BMSY ≈ 1000 kt 1343/1000 = 0.75 point used in scoring stock relative to ecosystem needs (SIb) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Page 167 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

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

Met? Not relevant Not relevant Justifi The stock is not depleted. cation b Rebuilding evaluation Guide Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that the There is strong evidence post determine whether the rebuilding strategies are that the rebuilding rebuilding strategies are rebuilding stocks, or it is strategies are rebuilding effective in rebuilding the likely based on simulation stocks, or it is highly stock within the specified modelling, exploitation likely based on simulation timeframe. rates or previous modelling, exploitation performance that they will rates or previous be able to rebuild the stock performance that they will within the specified be able to rebuild the stock timeframe. within the specified timeframe. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi The stock is not depleted. cation References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: - CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Page 168 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Harvest strategy design Guid The harvest strategy The harvest strategy is responsive to The harvest strategy epost is expected to the state of the stock and the is responsive to the achieve stock elements of the harvest strategy work state of the stock and management together towards achieving stock is designed to objectives reflected in management objectives reflected in achieve stock PI 1.1.1 SG80. PI 1.1.1 SG80. management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Met? Y Y N Justif EU and Russia are components of the total sprat fishery. The fishery is jointly regulated icatio through the EU-Russian fisheries committee. Overall, based on 2009 Fisheries n agreement between EU and Russia, these two Parties agree their quotas within sustainable limits and based on advice from ICES. The agreement dictates that the Parties will request ICES to annually advice on the fishing possibilities and the Parties to consults on the total exploitation. The EU-Russian arrangement provides a strategy for the exploitation of the Baltic sprat stock. The strategy is implemented under the EU CFP and the Russian fishing law. The objectives of the CFP are, inter alia, to ensure that fishing is environmentally sustainable in the long term, to apply the precautionary approach to fisheries management, and to implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management. The Russian fisheries law implies similar objectives. The tools that are used to implement the strategy includes a package – coordinated between the Parties – of technical measures and the TAC. Both Parties implement a strict management regime with landing control and sea going control. Under the ICES umbrella the Parties cooperate by providing data for the stock assessments and on the assessment and advisory process, in the assessment working groups (inter alia WGBFAS) and the advisory groups (ACOM). The Finnish fishery is regulated under the EU CFP. In July 2016 EU introduced the Multiannual Management Plan for Baltic (Regulation (EU) 2016/1139; (EC 2016a)) by a plan that is implemented for 2017 onwards. The plan includes rules for reduction of the fishing mortality below those ranges set in the Regulation in cases when the SSB is below the reference points. An overview of the plan is presented in section 4.6.4 and is further detailed in the justification for PI 3.2.1. This plan is evaluated to be precautionary (Simmonds et al. 2012). Therefore, SG60 is met. The plan prescribes that TACs must be set based on scientific advice and the advice be based on fishing mortalities as defined in the Annexes of the Plan. The harvest strategy based on advice from ICES which in turn bases its advice on fisheries data and acoustic abundance data and the advice is responsive to the state of the stock work together under the strategy to achieve MSY level of exploitation. The strategy is designed based on CFP objectives to achieve stock management objectives as laid down in the Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (EU 2013). These objectives are further detailed in the Plan (Regulation 1139/2016 (EC 2016a)). This regulation establishes the rules of the EU CFP in line with the international obligations of the Union. The preamble of the plan clearly states that is appropriate to establish a multi-species fisheries plan taking into account the dynamics between the stocks of cod, herring and sprat, and also taking into consideration the by-catch species of the fisheries for those stocks, namely the Baltic stocks of plaice, flounder, turbot and brill. Moreover, the objective of the plan should be to contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the CFP, especially reaching and maintaining MSY for the stocks concerned. Taking into account the ecosystem approach foreseen in the CFP it is possible to argue that the

Page 169 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place elements of the HS work together in reaching an exploitation level that is in line with the ecosystem need requested for LTL species. Therefore, there is evidence that the elements of the HS work together in towards achieving stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80 A. However, taking into account that the HS is based on scientific advice formulated in a single species context while the SMS model is based on multispecies simulation, is not possible to conclude that the harvest strategy overall is designed to meet the standards outlined in in PI 1.1.1A SG80. Therefore, SG 100 is not met This applies to PI1.1.1A if that is used. Interpretation here: http://msc-info.accreditation- services.com/questions/key-ltl-species-and-pi1-2-1/ b Harvest strategy evaluation Guid The harvest strategy The harvest strategy may not have The performance of epost is likely to work been fully tested but evidence exists the harvest strategy based on prior that it is achieving its objectives. has been fully experience or evaluated and plausible argument. evidence exists to show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Met? Y Y N Justif The harvest strategy laid down in the EU CFP is based on standard ‘best practice’ icatio approach to fisheries management with sustainable exploitation objectives and hence n SG 60 is met. The strategy has been effective for more than a decade and the stock is at a high level and evidence exist that the strategy is achieving its objectives. Therefore, SG 80 is met. The harvest strategy before the adoption of the multiannual management plan was not fully clear and although ICES in 2009 (ICES 2009) tested a proposal for management plan this plan was not adopted and implemented. The performance of the harvest strategy has not been fully tested. The Multiannual Plan has been tested theoretically and the general framework is within the EU CFP and therefore is expected to achieve the objectives of CFP, also in terms of ecosystem needs. However, considering that the plan was only fully operative from 2017 onward there is very little evidence yet that HS is able to maintain stocks at target levels consistent with the ecosystem needs. Therefore SG 100 is not fulfilled. c Harvest strategy monitoring Guid Monitoring is in place epost that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Met? Y Justif There is extensive monitoring of the fishery (logbooks, VMS, landing control, sampling icatio of the catches). This applies both to the Russian as well as the EU based fisheries. The n status of the sprat stock is monitored by annual acoustic abundance surveys and stock assessment conducted by ICES. Therefore, SG 60 is met d Harvest strategy review Guid The harvest strategy epost is periodically reviewed and

Page 170 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place improved as necessary. Met? Y Justif The harvest strategy was review regularly under the regime (1974-2006). The current icatio regime is discussed at annual meetings between Russia and EU. The technical n regulation within the CFP is reviewed at irregular intervals. The CFP itself is reviewed every 10 years latest in 2013 with implementation of the revised Basic regulation for 2014. The Multiannual Plan for Baltic fisheries is expected to be reviewed in 2019 (Article 15). The BALTFISH forum (an organization of Baltic State governments; (BALTFISH 2016)) reviews the harvest strategy at irregular intervals. SG 100 is met. e Shark finning Guid It is likely that shark It is highly likely that shark finning is There is a high epost finning is not taking not taking place. degree of certainty place. that shark finning is not taking place. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justif The species is not a shark. icatio n f Review of alternative measures Guid There has been a There is a regular review of the There is a biennial epost review of the potential effectiveness and review of the potential practicality of alternative measures to potential effectiveness and minimise UoA-related mortality of effectiveness and practicality of unwanted catch of the target stock practicality of alternative measures and they are implemented as alternative measures to minimise UoA- appropriate. to minimise UoA- related mortality of related mortality of unwanted catch of unwanted catch of the target stock. the target stock, and they are implemented, as appropriate.

Met? Y Y N Justif The fishery has no direct discards and very limited slippage during haul back, as icatio reported by a participant in the fishery stated during the site visit and in ICES advice for n this stock. All landings are used either for direct human consumption or used in the fish oil/ meal market. There is therefore considered to be virtually no unwanted catch in the fishery. Regulation 2187/2005 requires a minimum mesh size for the sprat trawl fishery set at 16 mm and no minimum landing size for sprat. So, in theory, sprat passing through 16mm from the trawler are not desired, yet if caught there is a legal market for them. There are valuable markets for both human food and meal/ oil, such that there are requirements that the fish must go to the human market first (quality dependent). Furthermore, the EU, whose Baltic countries are significant participants in the sprat fishery, has introduced a discard ban (EU 2013), however this is not expected to affect the sprat fishery significantly as there is no discards. The team has concluded there is no incentive to discard sprat (regardless of the ban) and no mortality of unwanted catch. There has been a review for discarding (unwanted catch), resulting in the discard ban, SG60 is met. The discard regulation calls for the ban to be implemented for no more than 3 years, thus resulting in a review prior to reauthorization, SG80 is met. Because the measures are not revised every two years SG 100 is not met. References EC 2016; Simmonds et al. 2012; EU 2013, BALTFISH 2016; ICES, 2016b.

Page 171 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Page 172 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a HCRs design and application Guide Generally understood Well defined HCRs are in The HCRs are expected to post HCRs are in place or place that ensure that the keep the stock fluctuating available that are exploitation rate is at or above a target level expected to reduce the reduced as the PRI is consistent with MSY, or exploitation rate as the approached, are expected another more appropriate point of recruitment to keep the stock level taking into account impairment (PRI) is fluctuating around a the ecological role of the approached. target level consistent with stock, most of the time. (or above) MSY, or for key LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. Met? Y Y N Justifi The harvest strategy is laid down in the Basic regulation of the CFP (EU 2013) while cation the harvest control rule is defined in the Multiannual Plan for the Baltic fisheries (EC 2016a). This Multiannual Plan is described in section 4.6.4 of this report. The HCR is expected based on evaluation by ICES and STECF to keep the stock fluctuating at or above MSY. The Harvest Control Rule is based on reference points defined in the Management Plan. The HCR is laid down in the multiannual plan for the fisheries in the Baltic Sea, this plan implies that fishing pressure be reduced if the stock falls below predefined reference points. Although, the Blim foreseen by the plan is estimated in a different way (Stock–recruitment relationship, biomass which produces half of the maximal recruitment in a Beverton–Holt model) than the one estimated according the ecosystem needs foreseen for LTL species (20% B0), the two values are quite similar and the Blim of the plan is little bit higher (10 kt more) therefore more precautionary, meeting SG60. The plan is explicit and well defined based on specified reference points with the objective to keep the stock at certain target level consistent with a Bpa as 1.4 Blim (570 kt). Although the BMSY estimated in the SMS model (ICES 2013a) is higher (≈ 1000 kt) the FMSY foreseen by the SMS is higher than the fishing mortality ranges outlined in the plan, so according to the SMS model the resulting HCR is going to keep the stock at levels consistent with ecosystem need. Therefore SG 80 is met. However, taking into account the discrepancy between the biomass reference points outlined in the plan and in the SMS model, SG100 is not met. b HCRs robustness to uncertainty Guide The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account of post robust to the main a wide range of uncertainties. uncertainties including the ecological role of the stock, and there is evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties. Met? Y N Justifi The main uncertainty in the assessment relate to variation in recruitment where the cation incoming year-class strength used in the TAC advice is based on a geometric average consideration. Another issue is the mix of herring and sprat in the catches where the species split is based on sampling. For the Client fleet and the rest of the EU vessels, the data collection framework (DCF) provides an appropriate programme and the estimates are reliable. There is uncertainty in the survey estimates. This

Page 173 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place estimation variance is on the same scale as is common for acoustic surveys. The assessment of the status of the sprat stock include an account of the natural mortality based on the cod predation. The low target fishing mortality ranges that are laid down in the HCR make the rule robust to uncertainties. The ICES approach to formulating its advice through committee work is robust to known uncertainties as these are incorporated in the precautionary advice. Therefore, SG80 is met. There is outstanding work (ongoing) in improving the HCR to become fully ecosystem oriented and until this work is implemented with ecosystem-oriented reference points the SG100 is not fulfilled. c HCRs evaluation Guide There is some evidence Available evidence Evidence clearly shows post that tools used or indicates that the tools in that the tools in use are available to implement use are appropriate and effective in achieving the HCRs are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels effective in controlling exploitation levels required under the HCRs. exploitation. required under the HCRs. Met? Y Y Y Justifi MSC defines the tools as “Mechanisms for implementing strategies under Principles cation 1 or 2.” The tools implemented by the HCR (TAC) combined with the EU technical regulations (for instance the 16 mm cod end mesh size); by-catch rules assuring that the sprat catches are fairly clean of herring, have been in force since 2005 and similar regulations were applied before that. There is general experience within fisheries management that these tools are (used and available) are appropriate and effective. SG60 is met. The high level of sprat stock – although partly controlled environmentally and a result of the low cod stock that persisted most of the period of the high sprat stock is evidence that the HCR can achieve the objectives. The outcome of previous management approach [a high stock size combined with restricted fishing mortality meeting precautionary objectives] is based on the same tools as the revised 2016 plan. This provides evidence that the tools are effective and appropriate in achieving exploitation level under the HCR in force. SG80 is met. The HCRs of the new Multiannual Management Plan for Baltic (EC 2016a) also include ecosystem considerations and the target fishing mortality ranges are inside such restrictions. The evidence with the old management strategy clearly shows that the tools are effective in controlling the exploitation level as required under the HCR, being the ICES catch in most of the case below the agreed TAC, and fishing mortality (F) is currently below Fmsy and within the range specified in the MAP despite the Russian allocation of an “autonomous quota” by Russia. Therefore, at present, the SG100 requirements are met. References EC 2016; EU 2013; ICES 2013a; ICES 2016b. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Page 174 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Range of information Guide Some relevant Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range post information related to information related to of information (on stock stock structure, stock stock structure, stock structure, stock productivity and fleet productivity, fleet productivity, fleet composition is available to composition and other composition, stock support the harvest data is available to support abundance, UoA strategy. the harvest strategy. removals and other information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The assessment is supported by data from the fishery (species and size/age cation compositions) and by results of abundance surveys. There is good understanding of the biology, population dynamics and reproduction strategy for sprat. The fleet is well documented. The natural mortalities from 2012 onwards were based on the regression of M against the SSB of eastern Baltic cod while earlier estimates were based on SMS multispecies model run; these are now uncertain because of the uncertainties in the cod assessment. An ongoing collection of cod stomach contents data will improve the data basis for estimating natural mortality updating information from previous sampling campaigns. Hence, a comprehensive range of information on stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, removals and other information such as environmental information are available. LUKE is the scientific institute involved in the data collection according to the Finnish DCF national programme proposal 2011-2016 (MAF 2013) and the following work plan for 2017- 2019 (MAF 2016). The programme is affirmed by the European Commission and EC also evaluates Annual Reports of Finland and other member states. The information collected according the Finland National Programme and the LUKE research agenda that has been discussed during the site visit are evidence that a comprehensive range of information, including some not directly related with the current HS, is available. Therefore, SG 100 is met, as well as the lower levels of SG 60 and SG 80. b Monitoring Guide Stock abundance and Stock abundance and All information required post UoA removals are UoA removals are by the harvest control rule monitored and at least one regularly monitored at a is monitored with high indicator is available and level of accuracy and frequency and a high monitored with sufficient coverage consistent degree of certainty, and frequency to support the with the harvest control there is a good harvest control rule. rule, and one or more understanding of inherent indicators are available uncertainties in the and monitored with information [data] and the sufficient frequency to robustness of assessment support the harvest control and management to this rule. uncertainty. Met? Y Y Y Justifi All fisheries targeting sprat in the Baltic Sea are well monitored both through fishery cation dependent data as well as fishery independent data. There is sampling of the catches, there are data from annual abundance surveys available and data are

Page 175 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy annually presented to ICES. Removal is recorded continuously and surveys are annual. The total distribution area is covered. Therefore, SG 60 and SG 80 are met. All information required by the HCR is presented, abundance, SSB, and fishing mortality. Furthermore, there is good understanding of the quality of the assessment and its inherent uncertainties. The robustness of the assessment is investigated at ICES benchmarks (ICES 2013c) where the assessment is critically reviewed and alternative formulations are investigated. Hence SG100 is met. c Comprehensiveness of information Guide There is good information post on all other fishery removals from the stock. Met? Y Justifi Other fisheries on Baltic sprat are conducted by EU countries and by Russia. The cation fisheries are well documented through fisheries statistics (landings), logbooks (effort) and VMS-AIS (geographical area of fishing). The fisheries are sampled at comparable levels and the data that are available ICES. There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. SG80 is met. References MAF 2013; MAF 2016 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Page 176 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration Guide The assessment is The assessment takes post appropriate for the stock into account the major and for the harvest control features relevant to the rule. biology of the species and the nature of the UoA. Met? Y Y Justifi The Baltic sprat live longer than sprat elsewhere e.g. in the North Sea. Therefore, an cation analytical age-based assessment model is appropriate, see Section 4.6.1. The model covers sprat across the Baltic Sea and based on tagging it has shown that there is no marked separation between the sprat stocks in different subdivisions although the main concentrations are in the Baltic Proper. The species can be aged with reasonable accuracy based on otoliths. The assessment is reviewed at irregular intervals approximately every 5 years at ICES benchmarks. At these benchmarks the robustness of a range of assessment approaches is investigated and a method of ‘best practice’ is adopted (ICES 2013c). The assessment is appropriate for the stock and SG80 is met. Sprat is a prey species (key LTL species) with cod as a major predator. The influence is modelled through the natural mortality on sprat which takes account of the predations. The sprat recruitment is in general driven by environment changes and the change in productivity is accounted for in the projections on which the TAC is based. ICES benchmarked the assessment in 2013 (ICES 2013c) and it was found that the assessment takes into account the major features of sprat including the effects of the cod predation. SG 100 is met. b Assessment approach Guide The assessment The assessment post estimates stock status estimates stock status relative to generic relative to reference points reference points that are appropriate to the appropriate to the species stock and can be category. estimated. Met? Y Y Justifi The status of the stock is evaluated relative to appropriate and available reference cation points, see Scoring Issue (a) and Section 4.6.1. Therefore, SG 80 is met, as well as the lower SG 60 level. c Uncertainty in the assessment Guide The assessment The assessment takes The assessment takes post identifies major sources uncertainty into account. into account uncertainty of uncertainty. and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Met? Y Y N Justifi The major sources of uncertainty include the environmental variability and the lack cation of ability to estimate recruitment at age 0. SG 60 is met.

The assessment also takes into account uncertainties related with the abundance of cod in Subdivisions 25–26 as well as the redistribution of the fishery to the northern areas (Subdivisions 27–32) that may also reduce the density-dependent effect and increase growth for the clupeids in the area. Therefore, SG 80 is met.

Page 177 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status However the assessment is not formulated probabilistically and SG100 is not met.

d Evaluation of assessment Guide The assessment has been post tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Met? Y Justifi The assessment has been benchmarked (ICES 2013c). This benchmark focused on cation the possible application of a multispecies model for the advisory assessments; see ICES advice 2013 section 4.6.1. Moreover, WGBFAS investigates the possible applicability of the SAM model for the sprat assessment (ICES 2016f). At the benchmark the robustness of the various models are investigated and in particular if the models provided unbiased estimates, e.g. through investigation of retrospective patterns. The benchmark process investigates alternative approaches. Therefore, SG 100 is met. e Peer review of assessment Guide The assessment of stock The assessment has been post status is subject to peer internally and externally review. peer reviewed. Met? Y Y Justifi The assessment is internally peer reviewed within ICES through WGBFAS and cation ACOM and there are external reviewers involved in the benchmark process, ICES (2013c). The WGBFAS include scientists from all Baltic states also scientists that are not directly involved with the sprat assessment, ACOM involve scientists from all ICES member states and through the system of Advice drafting groups (ADG) there are external scientist involved in the evaluation of the assessment, the chair of an ADG is normally the chair or a vice chair of ACOM not involved with the sprat assessment. The benchmark process involves external experts. Therefore, the SG100 is met. References ICES 2013c; ICES 2016f OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Page 178 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Principle 1: Central Baltic Herring Trawl and Trap net Fisheries (Subdivisions 25–29 and 32, excluding Gulf of Riga) (UoAs 6 and 7)

PI 1.1.1A - key LTL The stock is at a level which has a low probability of serious ecosystem PI 1.1.1 A impacts Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Stock status relative to ecosystem impairment Guide It is likely that the stock is It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of post above the point where stock is above the point certainty that the stock is serious ecosystem where serious ecosystem above the point where impacts could occur. impacts could occur. serious ecosystem impacts could occur. Met? Y Y Y

Justifi As outlined in section 4.6.2.1.1 the Central Baltic Herring is considered as an LTL cation species. In order to score the stock status relative to the ecosystem impairment the multispecies model (SMS model, (ICES 2013a)) presented in section 4.6.2.1.2 has been used. According to SA 2.2.12 (MSC CR v2.0) when scoring PI 1.1.1A scoring issue (a), the point where serious ecosystem impacts could occur shall be interpreted as being substantially higher than the point at which recruitment is impaired (PRI), as determined for the target species in a single species context. Although the SMS model is not a proper ecosystem model, the reference points outlined in the study (reported in Table 16) are used in the present assessment to evaluate the status of the stock relative to the ecosystem impacts. The values outlined in Table 16 are considered appropriate reference points consistent with the ecosystem needs, because the methodology used to estimate them takes into consideration the three main species of the Baltic ecosystem (cod, herring and sprat) together with a mixed category (mainly zooplankton) defined as “other food”. According to SA 2.2.12 (MSC CR v2.0), serious ecosystem impact by default may occur only if the sprat biomass is below a certain threshold determined from ecosystem models, but in any case shall not be less than 20% of the spawning stock level that would be expected in the absence of fishing. The multispecies model does not formally estimate such level, but taking into account that the BMSY level for sprat is estimated around 730 kt and BMSY is considered to be half of the unexploited biomass (Garcia et al. 1989), the point where serious ecosystem impacts occurs should be around 292 kt for herring (20% of 1460 kt). The SSB estimated in 2016 (1057 kt) is more than three times the level where serious ecosystem impacts occur. The SSB resulted to be above such level or the entire time series therefore is possible to conclude that there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point where serious ecosystem impacts could occur (SG100 is met). b Stock status in relation to ecosystem needs Guide The stock is at or There is a high degree of post fluctuating around a level certainty that the stock consistent with ecosystem has been fluctuating needs. around a level consistent with ecosystem needs or has been above this level over recent years. Met? Y Y

Justifi The BMSY estimated in the framework of multispecies advice (SMS; ICES 2013a)) is cation around 730 kt. Such value could be considered as an appropriate biomass reference point consistent with the ecosystem needs, as explained in previous section. The

Page 179 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

value of SSB in 2016 is well above the SMS BMSY and has been above such threshold since 2010. Therefore, SG 100 is met. References ICES 2013a; MSC CR v2.0; Garcia et al. 1989 Stock Status relative to Reference Points Type of reference Value of reference Current stock status relative point point to reference point

Reference B20%virgin 292 kt 1057/292= 3.6 point used in scoring stock relative to ecosystem impairment (SIa)

Reference BMSY 730 kt 1057/730= 1.44 point used in scoring stock relative to ecosystem needs (SIb) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Page 180 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

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

Met? Not relevant Not relevant Justifi The stock is not depleted. cation b Rebuilding evaluation Guide Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that the There is strong evidence post determine whether the rebuilding strategies are that the rebuilding rebuilding strategies are rebuilding stocks, or it is strategies are rebuilding effective in rebuilding the likely based on simulation stocks, or it is highly stock within the specified modelling, exploitation likely based on simulation timeframe. rates or previous modelling, exploitation performance that they will rates or previous be able to rebuild the stock performance that they will within the specified be able to rebuild the stock timeframe. within the specified timeframe. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi The stock is not depleted. cation References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: N/A CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Page 181 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Harvest strategy design Guide The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is post expected to achieve stock responsive to the state of responsive to the state of management objectives the stock and the the stock and is designed reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. elements of the harvest to achieve stock strategy work together management objectives towards achieving stock reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Met? Y Y N Justifi EU and Russia are components of the total herring fishery. The fishery is jointly cation regulated through the EU-Russian fisheries committee. Overall, based on 2009 Fisheries agreement between EU and Russia (EC 2009b), these two Parties agree their quotas within sustainable limits and based on advice from ICES. The agreement dictates that the Parties will request ICES to annually advice on the fishing possibilities and the Parties to consults on the total exploitation. The EU-Russian arrangement provides a strategy for the exploitation of the Baltic sprat stock. The strategy is implemented under the EU CFP and the Russian fishing law. The objectives of the CFP (EU 2013) are, inter alia, to ensure that fishing is environmentally sustainable in the long term, to apply the precautionary approach to fisheries management, and to implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management. The Russian fisheries law implies similar objectives. The tools that are used to implement the strategy includes a package – coordinated between the Parties – of technical measures and the TAC. Both Parties implement a strict management regime with landing control and sea going control. Under the ICES umbrella the Parties cooperate by providing data for the stock assessments and on the assessment and advisory process, in the assessment working groups (inter alia WGBFAS) and the advisory groups (ACOM). The Finnish fishery is regulated under the EU CFP. In July 2016 by a plan that is implemented for 2017 onwards, Regulation (EU) 2016/1139 (EC 2016a). The plan includes rules for reduction of the fishing mortality below those ranges set in the Regulation in cases when the SSB is below the reference points. An overview of the plan is presented in section 4.6.3 and is further detailed in the justification for PI 3.2.1. This plan is evaluated to be precautionary (Simmonds et al. 2012). Therefore, SG60 is met. The plan prescribes that TACs must be set based on scientific advice and the advice be based on fishing mortalities as defined in the Annexes of the Plan. The harvest strategy based on advice from ICES which in turn bases its advice on fisheries data and acoustic abundance data and the advice is responsive to the state of the stock work together under the strategy to achieve MSY level of exploitation. The strategy is designed based on CFP objectives to achieve stock management objectives as laid down in the Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013. These objectives are further detailed in the Plan (Regulation 1139/2016; EC 2016). This regulation establishes the rules of the EU CFP in line with the international obligations of the Union. The preamble of the plan clearly states that is appropriate to establish a multi-species fisheries plan taking into account the dynamics between the stocks of cod, herring and sprat, and also taking into consideration the by-catch species of the fisheries for those stocks, namely the Baltic stocks of plaice, flounder, turbot and brill. Moreover, the objective of the plan should be to contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the CFP, especially reaching and maintaining MSY for the stocks concerned. Taking into account the ecosystem approach foreseen in the CFP it is possible to

Page 182 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place argue that the elements of the HS work together in reaching an exploitation level that is in line with the ecosystem need requested for LTL species. Therefore, there is evidence that the elements of the HS work together in towards achieving stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80 A. However, taking into account that the HS is based on scientific advice formulated in a single species context while the SMS model is based on multispecies simulation, is not possible to conclude that the harvest strategy overall is designed to meet the standards outlined in in PI 1.1.1A SG80. Therefore, SG 100 is not met. b Harvest strategy evaluation Guide The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy may The performance of the post likely to work based on not have been fully tested harvest strategy has been prior experience or but evidence exists that it fully evaluated and plausible argument. is achieving its objectives. evidence exists to show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Met? Y Y N Justifi The harvest strategy laid down in the EU CFP is based on standard ‘best practice’ cation approach to fisheries management with sustainable exploitation objectives and hence SG 60 is met. The strategy has been effective for more than a decade and the stock is at a high level and evidence exist that the strategy is achieving its objectives. Therefore, SG 80 is met. The harvest strategy before the adoption of the multiannual management plan was not fully clear and although ICES in 2009 tested a proposal for management plan this plan was not adopted and implemented (ICES 2009). The performance of the harvest strategy has not been fully tested. The Multiannual Plan has been tested theoretically and the general framework is within the EU CFP and therefore is expected to achieve the objectives of CFP, also in terms of ecosystem needs. However, considering that the plan will be fully operative from 2017 onward there is no evidence yet that HS is able to maintain stocks at target levels consistent with the ecosystem needs. Therefore SG 100 is not fulfilled. c Harvest strategy monitoring Guide Monitoring is in place that post is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Met? Y Justifi There is extensive monitoring of the fishery (logbooks, VMS, landing control, cation sampling of the catches). This applies both to the Russian as well as the EU based fisheries. The status of the sprat stock is monitored by annual acoustic abundance surveys and stock assessment conducted by ICES. Therefore, SG 60 is met d Harvest strategy review Guide The harvest strategy is post periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. Met? Y Justifi The harvest strategy was reviewed regularly under the IBSFC regime (1974-2006). cation The current regime is discussed at annual meetings between Russia and EU. The technical regulation within the CFP is reviewed at irregular intervals. The CFP itself is reviewed every 10 years latest in 2013 with implementation of the revised Basic

Page 183 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place regulation for 2014. The Multiannual Plan for Baltic fisheries is expected to be reviewed in 2019 (Article 15). The BALTFISH forum (an organization of Baltic State governments; (BALTFISH 2016) reviews the harvest strategy at irregular intervals. SG 100 is met. e Shark finning Guide It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of post finning is not taking place. shark finning is not taking certainty that shark place. finning is not taking place. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi The species is not a shark. cation f Review of alternative measures Guide There has been a review There is a regular review There is a biennial post of the potential of the potential review of the potential effectiveness and effectiveness and effectiveness and practicality of alternative practicality of alternative practicality of alternative measures to minimise measures to minimise measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of the unwanted catch of the unwanted catch of the target stock. target stock and they are target stock, and they are implemented as implemented, as appropriate. appropriate.

Met? Y Y N Justifi The fishery has no direct discards and very limited slippage during haul back, as cation reported by a participant in the fishery stated during the site visit and in ICES advice for this stock. All landings are used either for direct human consumption or used in the fish oil/ meal market. There is therefore considered to be virtually no unwanted catch in the fishery.

Regulation 2187/2005 requires a minimum mesh size for the trawl and trap fisheries and there is no minimum landing size for herring. So, in theory, sprat passing through 16 mm from the trawler are not desired, yet if caught there is a legal market for them. There are valuable markets for both human food and meal/ oil, such that there are requirements that the fish must go to the human market first (quality dependent). Furthermore, the EU, whose Baltic countries are significant participants in the sprat fishery, has introduced a discard ban (EU 2013), however this is not expected to affect the sprat fishery significantly as there is no discards. The team has concluded there is no incentive to discard sprat (regardless of the ban) and no mortality of unwanted catch. There has been a review for discarding (unwanted catch), resulting in the discard ban, SG60 is met. The discard regulation calls for the ban to be implemented for no more than 3 years, thus resulting in a review prior to reauthorization, SG80 is met. Because the measures are not revised every two years SG 100 is not met. References EC 2016; Simmonds et al. 2012; EU 2013, BALTFISH 2016; ICES, 2016c. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Page 184 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a HCRs design and application Guide Generally understood Well defined HCRs are in The HCRs are expected to post HCRs are in place or place that ensure that the keep the stock fluctuating available that are exploitation rate is at or above a target level expected to reduce the reduced as the PRI is consistent with MSY, or exploitation rate as the approached, are expected another more appropriate point of recruitment to keep the stock level taking into account impairment (PRI) is fluctuating around a the ecological role of the approached. target level consistent with stock, most of the time. (or above) MSY, or for key LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. Met? Y Y N Justifi The harvest strategy is laid down in the Basic regulation of the CFP (EU 2013) while cation the harvest control rule is defined in the Multiannual Plan for the Baltic fisheries (EC 2016a). This Multiannual Plan is described in section 4.6.4 of this report. The HCR is expected based on evaluation by ICES and STECF to keep the stock fluctuating at or above MSY (Simmonds et al. 2012). The Harvest Control Rule is based on reference points defined in the Management Plan. The HCR is laid down in the multiannual plan for the fisheries in the Baltic Sea, this plan implies that fishing pressure be reduced if the stock falls below predefined reference points. Although, the Blim foreseen by the plan is estimated in a different way (Bloss = Blim) than the one estimated according to the ecosystem needs foreseen for LTL species (20% B0), the two values are quite similar and the Blim of the plan is higher therefore more precautionary, meeting SG60. The plan is explicit and well defined based on specified reference points with the objective to keep the stock at certain target level consistent with a Bpa as 1.4 Blim (600 kt). Although the BMSY estimated in the SMS model (ICES 2013a) is higher (≈ 730 kt) the FMSY foreseen by the SMS is higher than the fishing mortality ranges outlined in the plan, so according to the SMS model the resulting HCR is going to keep the stock at levels consistent with ecosystem need. Therefore SG 80 is met. However, taking into account the discrepancy between the biomass reference point outlined in the multiannual management plan and in the SMS model, SG100 is not met. b HCRs robustness to uncertainty Guide The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account of post robust to the main a wide range of uncertainties. uncertainties including the ecological role of the stock, and there is evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties. Met? Y Y Justifi The main uncertainty in the assessment relates to variation in recruitment where the cation incoming year-class strength used in the TAC advice is based on a geometric average consideration. Another issue is the mix of herring and sprat in the catches where the species split is based on sampling. For the Client fleet and the rest of the EU vessels, the data collection framework (DCF) provides an appropriate programme and the estimates are reliable. There is uncertainty in the survey estimates. This estimation variance is on the same scale as is common for acoustic surveys. Natural

Page 185 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place mortality (M) in this year’s assessment was estimated differently from previous years. In 2016 assessment, the natural mortalities from 2012 onwards were based on the regression of M against the SSB of eastern Baltic cod, whereas in previous assessment years they were assumed equal to the value of M in 2011 from a multispecies assessment model (SMS). The low target fishing mortality ranges that are laid down in the HCR make the rule robust to uncertainties. The ICES approach to formulating its advice through committee work is robust to known uncertainties as these are incorporated in the precautionary advice. Therefore, SG80 is met. There is outstanding work (ongoing) in improving the HCR to become fully ecosystem oriented and until this work is implemented with ecosystem-oriented reference points the SG100 is not fulfilled. c HCRs evaluation Guide There is some evidence Available evidence Evidence clearly shows post that tools used or indicates that the tools in that the tools in use are available to implement use are appropriate and effective in achieving the HCRs are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels effective in controlling exploitation levels required under the HCRs. exploitation. required under the HCRs. Met? Y Y Y Justifi MSC defines the tools as “Mechanisms for implementing strategies under Principles cation 1 or 2.” The tools implemented by the HCR (TAC) combined with the EU technical regulations (for instance the 16 mm cod end mesh size) have been in force since 2005 and similar regulations were applied before that. There is general experience within fisheries management that these tools are (used and available) are appropriate and effective. SG60 is met. The high level of Central Baltic Herring stock is evidence that the HCR can achieve the objectives. The outcome of previous management approach (a high stock size combined with restricted fishing mortality meeting precautionary objectives) is based on the same tools as the revised 2016 plan. This provides evidence that the tools are effective and appropriate in achieving exploitation level under the HCR in force. SG80 is met The HCRs of the new Multiannual Management Plan for Baltic (EC 2016a) also include ecosystem considerations and the target fishing mortality ranges are inside such restrictions. The evidence with the old management strategy clearly shows that the tools are effective in controlling the exploitation level as required under the HCR, being the observed catch consistent with the agreed TAC. Therefore, SG100 is met. References EC 2016; EU 2013; ICES 2013a; Simmonds et al. 2012 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Page 186 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Range of information Guide Some relevant Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range post information related to information related to of information (on stock stock structure, stock stock structure, stock structure, stock productivity and fleet productivity, fleet productivity, fleet composition is available to composition and other composition, stock support the harvest data is available to support abundance, UoA strategy. the harvest strategy. removals and other information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The assessment is supported by data from the fishery (species and size/age cation compositions) and by results of abundance surveys. There is good understanding of the biology, population dynamics and reproduction strategy for Central Baltic herring. The fleet is well documented in term of catch and spatial distribution of the effort. Species misreporting of herring has occurred in the past; this is presently considered to be negligible. Natural mortality (M) in this year’s assessment was estimated differently from previous years. In the current assessment, the natural mortalities from 2012 onwards were based on the regression of M against the SSB of eastern Baltic cod, whereas in previous assessment years they were assumed equal to the value of M in 2011 from a multispecies assessment model (SMS). The change of procedure is due to no updated multispecies values being available after 2011 because an analytical assessment for eastern Baltic cod is lacking. There is a programme of ongoing collection of cod stomach contents data which is improving the data basis for estimating natural mortality updating information from previous sampling campaigns. Hence, a comprehensive range of information on stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, removals and other information such as environmental information are available. LUKE is the scientific institute involved in the data collection according to the Finnish DCF national programme proposal 2011-2016 (MAF 2013) and the following work plan for 2017- 2019 (MAF 2016). The programme is affirmed by the European Commission and EC also evaluates Annual Reports of Finland and other member states. The information collected according the Final National Programme and the LUKE research agenda that has been discussed during the site visit are evidence that a comprehensive range of information, including some not directly related with the current HS, is available; in particular the ecosystem role of the Central Baltic herring stock has been investigated in considerable detail by ICES, and also the effect of climate change on fish stock assemblages in the Baltic Sea. Therefore, SG 100 is met, as well as the lower standards of SG 60 and 80. b Monitoring Guide Stock abundance and Stock abundance and All information required post UoA removals are UoA removals are by the harvest control rule monitored and at least one regularly monitored at a is monitored with high indicator is available and level of accuracy and frequency and a high monitored with sufficient coverage consistent degree of certainty, and frequency to support the with the harvest control there is a good harvest control rule. rule, and one or more understanding of inherent

Page 187 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy indicators are available uncertainties in the and monitored with information [data] and the sufficient frequency to robustness of assessment support the harvest control and management to this rule. uncertainty. Met? Y Y Y Justifi All fisheries targeting Central Baltic herring are well monitored both through fishery cation dependent data as well as fishery independent data. There is sampling of the catches, there are data from annual abundance surveys available and data are annually presented to ICES. Removal is recorded continuously and surveys are annual. The total distribution area is covered. Therefore, SG 60 and SG 80 are met. All information required by the HCR is presented, abundance, SSB, and fishing mortality. Furthermore, there is good understanding of the quality of the assessment and its inherent uncertainties. The robustness of the assessment is investigated at ICES benchmarks (ICES 2013c) where the assessment is critically reviewed and alternative formulations are investigated. Hence SG100 is met. c Comprehensiveness of information Guide There is good information post on all other fishery removals from the stock. Met? Y Justifi Other fisheries on Baltic sprat are conducted by EU countries and by Russia. The cation fisheries are well documented through fisheries statistics (landings), logbooks (effort) and VMS-AIS (geographical area of fishing). The fisheries are sampled at comparable levels and the data that are available ICES. There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. SG80 is met. References MAF 2013; MAF 2016; ICES 2013c; (Harvey et al. 2003, Ljunggren et al. 2010, Heikinheimo 2011, ICES 2013a, Bergström et al. 2015) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Page 188 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration Guide The assessment is The assessment takes post appropriate for the stock into account the major and for the harvest control features relevant to the rule. biology of the species and the nature of the UoA. Met? Y Y Justifi The Central Baltic herring stock status is evaluated using an age-based analytical cation assessment (XSA; (ICES 2016a) that uses catches in the model and in the forecast. ICES (ICES 2013c) considers the model appropriate. Herring in the central Baltic is composed of a number of local populations differing in growth parameters. Among the factors influencing the future mean weight-at-age of the stock is recruitment success for the individual populations. Separate trial assessments for different populations conducted in 2013 (ICES 2013c), however, showed only a limited impact of this complex stock structure on the perception of the overall stock dynamics. Preliminary investigations indicate that western Baltic spring-spawning herring (Division 3a and subdivisions 22–24) and central Baltic herring (subdivisions 25–29 and 32, excluding Gulf of Riga herring) are mixing in subdivisions 24–26 ((“Gröhsler, T., Oeberst, R., Schaber, M., Larson, N., and Kornilovs, G. 2013. Discrimination of western Baltic spring-spawning and central Baltic herring (Clupea harengus L.) based on growth vs. natural tag information. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 70(6): 1108–1117. - Cerca con Google” n.d.). However, this is not taken into account in the current assessment. The species can be aged with reasonable accuracy based on otoliths. The assessment is reviewed at irregular intervals approximately every 5 years at ICES benchmarks. At these benchmarks the robustness of a range of assessment approaches is investigated and a method of ‘best practice’ is adopted (ICES 2013c). The assessment is appropriate for the stock and SG80 is met. Natural mortality (M) in 2016 assessment was estimated differently from previous years. In the current assessment, the natural mortalities from 2012 onwards were based on the regression of M against the SSB of eastern Baltic cod, whereas in previous assessment years they were assumed equal to the value of M in 2011 from a multispecies assessment model (SMS). The change of procedure is due to no updated multispecies values being available after 2011 because an analytical assessment for eastern Baltic cod is lacking. ICES benchmarked the assessment in 2013 (ICES 2013c) and it was found that the assessment takes into account the major features of central Baltic herring including the effects of the cod predation. Therefore, SG 100 is met. b Assessment approach Guide The assessment The assessment post estimates stock status estimates stock status relative to generic relative to reference points reference points that are appropriate to the appropriate to the species stock and can be category. estimated. Met? Y Y Justifi Stochastic simulations with Beverton, Ricker, and segmented regression stock– cation recruitment curve from the full time-series (1974−2013) have been used to estimate FMSY in a single species context. Moreover, multispecies model (SMS; (ICES 2013a)) model have been used to estimate ranges of reference point taking into account of

Page 189 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status several options giving a high sustainable yield of herring as well as of cod and sprat because of low to moderate predation from cod. The XSA model provides deterministic yearly estimates of fishing mortality, Spawning Stock Biomass and recruitment. Therefore, there is evidence that the status of the stock is evaluated relative to appropriate and available reference points, see also P1.1.1.A and Section 4.6.5., meeting SG 80. c Uncertainty in the assessment Guide The assessment The assessment takes The assessment takes post identifies major sources uncertainty into account. into account uncertainty of uncertainty. and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Met? Y Y N Justifi The major sources of uncertainty include the environmental variability and the lack cation of ability to estimate recruitment at age 0. SG 60 is met.

The assessment also takes into account uncertainties related with the abundance of cod in Subdivisions 25–26 as well as the redistribution of the fishery to the northern areas (Subdivisions 27–32) that may also reduce the density-dependent effect and increase growth for the clupeids in the area. Therefore, SG 80 is met. However the assessment is not formulated probabilistic and SG100 is not met.

d Evaluation of assessment Guide The assessment has been post tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Met? Y Justifi During the recent benchmark assessment (ICES 2013c) the state-space assessment cation model SAM was explored as an alternative method to assess the central Baltic herring stock. This year’s final but still preliminary configuration of SAM is given WGBFAS 2016 (ICES 2016a). The assessment run and the software internal code are available at https:/www.stockassessment.org. In general SAM produces lower estimates of SSB and recruitment (age 1), whereas it shows higher fishing mortality (F3–6). The retrospective pattern of SAM in recent years is similar to the XSA output showing an acceptable tendency to overestimate fishing mortality and underestimate spawning stock biomass. Therefore, there is clear evidence that the assessment model utilized is robust and also alternative methods are rigorously explored, meeting SG 100. e Peer review of assessment Guide The assessment of stock The assessment has been post status is subject to peer internally and externally review. peer reviewed. Met? Y Y Justifi The assessment is internally peer reviewed within ICES through WGBFAS and cation ACOM and there are external reviewers involved in the benchmark process. The WGBFAS include scientists from all Baltic states also scientists that are not directly involved with the sprat assessment, ACOM involve scientists from all ICES member states and through the system of Advice drafting groups (ADG) there are external scientist involved in the evaluation of the assessment, the chair of an ADG is normally

Page 190 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status the chair or a vice chair of ACOM not involved with the sprat assessment. The benchmark process involves external experts. Therefore, the SG100 is met. References ICES 2016a; ICES 2013a; ICES 2013c; Gröhsler et al., 2013 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Principle 1: Bothnian Sea Herring Trawl and Trap net Fisheries (UoAs 4 and 5)

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

Met? Y Y Y

Justifi As evidenced in section 4.6.2.2.1 the stock of herring in Bothnian Sea is not cation considered an LTL stock. The ICES assessment (ICES 2016d) shows that the spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has been above MSY Btrigger since 1987 and has been increasing since 1999. Fishing mortality (F) has been mostly below FMSY although it was slightly above in 2012– 2014. Recruitment has increased over time. A level of biomass consistent with the point where recruitment would be impaired has been estimated as 360 kt. This value was based on half the predicted max (but not half the asymptotic max, a/b) recruitment based on Beverton-Holt S/R-model and the corresponding SSB because asymptotic max R gave unrealistically high values (almost straight line and no density dependence). Therefore, considering that the lower bound of the confided limit (95%) is above this value is possible to conclude that there is an high degree of certainty that the stock is above the PRI. Therefore, SG 100 is met. b Stock status in relation to achievement of MSY Guide The stock is at or There is a high degree of post fluctuating around a level certainty that the stock has consistent with MSY. been fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years. Met? Y Y

Justifi The stock assessment estimates that the stock has been above MSY Btrigger since cation 1987 and has been increasing since 1999. Also in this case the lower bound of the confidence interval is well above the MSY Btrigger. In ICES context, fisheries with B> MSY Btrigger may be regarded as fluctuating around MSY. However, a stock with B>MSY Btrigger is not necessarily at or fluctuating around BMSY. Irrespective of status

Page 191 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

with respect to MSY Btrigger, CABs must ensure that there is evidence that the stock is ‘fluctuating around’ BMSY in contrast to recovering towards BMSY. According to SA 2.2.3, CABs should consider proxy indicators and reference points where BMSY is not defined by ICES. Fishing mortality rate is usually defined and thus should be used in accordance with SA 2.2.4 which states that teams shall demonstrate that F has been low enough for long enough to ensure that corresponding biomass levels have been met (SA 2.2.4). In ICES stocks, BMSY is assumed to be achieved through consistent maintenance of fishing mortality at or below FMSY. Consistent with requirements in PI 1.1.2a (Rebuilding PI) MSC recommends that to achieve an assumed status of BMSY, F should have been at or below FMSY for at least 1 Generation Time (GT) from a starting point close to Bpa or MSY Btrigger. In order to ensure that stock status is fluctuating around BMSY, fishing mortality in ICES stocks should only exceptionally be greater than FMSY”. Taking into consideration that the Bothnian Sea herring stock is above MSY Btrigger since 1985 and the F has been mostly below FMSY although it was slightly above in 2012–2014, there is clear evidence that the status is fluctuating around BMSY over the recent period. Therefore, SG 100 is met, as is the lower standard of SG 80. References ICES 2016d Stock Status relative to Reference Points Type of reference Value of reference Current stock status relative point point to reference point

Reference Blim 360 kt 951/360 = 2.64 point used in scoring stock relative to PRI (SIa)

Reference BMSY 503 kt 951/503 = 1.89 point used in scoring stock relative to MSY (SIb) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Page 192 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

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

Met? NA NA Justifi The stock is not depleted. cation b Rebuilding evaluation Guide Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that the There is strong evidence post determine whether the rebuilding strategies are that the rebuilding rebuilding strategies are rebuilding stocks, or it is strategies are rebuilding effective in rebuilding the likely based on simulation stocks, or it is highly stock within the specified modelling, exploitation rates likely based on simulation timeframe. or previous performance that modelling, exploitation they will be able to rebuild the rates or previous stock within the specified performance that they will timeframe. be able to rebuild the stock within the specified timeframe. Met? NA NA NA The stock is not depleted. References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: - CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Page 193 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Harvest strategy design Guide The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is post expected to achieve stock responsive to the state of responsive to the state of management objectives the stock and the the stock and is designed reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. elements of the harvest to achieve stock strategy work together management objectives towards achieving stock reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The harvest strategy for the fishery is based on a TAC set in accordance with the cation annual ICES advice. Stock management objectives are clearly set out in the revised EU CFP 1380/2013 (explicitly requiring that fisheries are harvested in accordance with the MSY approach) which applies to this stock in EU waters (EC 2016a). This is clearly targeted at achieving the stock management objectives, as defined by the MSY reference points for biomass and fishing mortality and can be expected to succeed. The strategy is implemented under the EU CFP 1380/2013 and the stock is fished only by Finland and Sweden (EU 2013). The objectives of the CFP are, inter alia, to ensure that fishing is environmentally sustainable in the long term, to apply the precautionary approach to fisheries management, and to implement the ecosystem- based approach to fisheries management. The tools that are used to implement the strategy includes a package of technical measures and the TAC. The HS of Bothnian sea herring consists in a strict management regime with landing control and sea going control. Under the ICES umbrella Finland and Sweden cooperate by providing data for the stock assessments and on the assessment and advisory process, in the assessment working groups (inter alia WGBFAS) and the advisory groups (ACOM). The exploitation of the stock has been higher in the mid-1990s than at present, but due to the restrictive TACs in recent years, a strong Finnish national effort regulation of the fisheries has been introduced. This regulation resulted in a decrease of the total Finnish catches in Subdivision 30. In July 2016 a new Multiannual Management Plan was adopted, that is implemented for 2017 onwards, Regulation (EU) 2016/1139. The plan includes rules for reduction of the fishing mortality below those ranges set in the Regulation in cases when the SSB is below the reference points. An overview of the plan is presented in section 4.6.4 and is further detailed in the justification for PI 3.2.1. This plan is evaluated to be precautionary (Simmonds et al. 2012). Therefore SG60 is met. The plan prescribes that TACs must be set based on scientific advice and the advice be based on fishing mortalities as defined in the Annexes of the Plan. The harvest strategy based on advice from ICES which in turn bases its advice on fisheries data and acoustic abundance data. Therefore there is evidence that the HS is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the HS (data collection, scientific advice, management plan, etc.) work together under the strategy to achieve objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1. Therefore, SG80 is met. The strategy is designed based on CFP objectives to achieve stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 as laid down in the Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013. These objectives are further detailed in the Plan (Regulation 1139/2016). This regulation establishes the rules of the EU CFP in line with the international obligations of the Union. Hence, SG100 is met. Harvest strategy evaluation

Page 194 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

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

Justifi The stock status is regularly monitored through the annual stock assessments, and cation the estimates of fishing mortality and spawning stock biomass indicate that the harvest strategy has been achieving its objectives. The evaluation of the harvest strategy is relatively complete. The harvest strategy laid down in the EU CFP is based on standard ‘best practice’ approach to fisheries management with sustainable exploitation objectives and hence SG 60 is met. The strategy has been effective for more than a decade and the stock is at a high level and evidence exist that the strategy is achieving its objectives. Therefore, SG 80 is met. The harvest strategy before the adoption of the multiannual management plan was not fully clear and although ICES in 2009 tested a proposal for management plan this plan was not adopted and implemented. The performance of the harvest strategy has not been fully tested. The Multiannual Plan has been tested theoretically and the general framework is within the EU CFP and therefore is expected to achieve the objectives of CFP. However, considering that the plan will be fully operative from 2017 onward there is no evidence yet that HS is able to maintain stocks at target levels consistent with the ecosystem needs. Therefore SG 100 is not fulfilled. c Harvest strategy monitoring Guide Monitoring is in place that post is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Met? Y Justifi Considerable data are collected on the fishery, including data on catches, effort and cation stock abundance. These are sufficient to monitor the stock, vessel operations, and catch by area and time. These, through review and various analyses, provide a strong basis to evaluate all parts of the harvest strategy. This meets SG60. d Harvest strategy review Guide The harvest strategy is post periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. Met? Y Justifi The harvest strategy was review regularly under the IBSFC regime (1974-2006). The cation technical regulation within the CFP is reviewed at irregular intervals. The CFP itself is reviewed every 10 years latest in 2013 with implementation of the revised Basic regulation for 2014. The Multiannual Plan for Baltic fisheries is expected to be reviewed in 2019 (Article 15). The BALTFISH forum (an organization of Baltic State Governments (BALTFISH 2016)) reviews the harvest strategy at irregular intervals. SG 100 is met. e Shark finning Guide It is likely that shark finning It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of post is not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is not taking place. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

Page 195 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

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

appropriate. appropriate. Met? Y Y N Justifi The fishery has no direct discards and very limited slippage during haul back, as cation reported by a participant in the fishery stated during the site visit and in ICES advice for this stock. All landings are used either for direct human consumption or used in the fish oil/ meal market. There is therefore considered to be virtually no unwanted catch in the fishery. Regulation 2187/2005 requires a minimum mesh size for the trawl and trap net fisheries and there is no minimum landing size is set for herring. There are valuable markets for both human food and meal/ oil, such that there are requirements that the fish must go to the human market first (quality dependent). Furthermore, the EU, whose Baltic countries are significant participants in the herring fishery, has introduced a discard ban (EU 2013), however this is not expected to affect the herring fishery significantly as there is no discards. The team has concluded there is no incentive to discard herring (regardless of the ban) and no mortality of unwanted catch. There has been a review for discarding (unwanted catch), resulting in the discard ban, SG60 is met. The discard regulation calls for the ban to be implemented for no more than 3 years, thus resulting in a review prior to reauthorization, SG80 is met. Because the measures are not revised every two years SG 100 is not met. References EC 2016; Simmonds et al. 2012; EU 2013, BALTFISH 2016; ICES 2016d OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Page 196 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 A HCRs design and application Guide Generally understood Well defined HCRs are in The HCRs are expected to post HCRs are in place or place that ensure that the keep the stock fluctuating available that are exploitation rate is at or above a target level expected to reduce the reduced as the PRI is consistent with MSY, or exploitation rate as the approached, are expected another more appropriate point of recruitment to keep the stock level taking into account impairment (PRI) is fluctuating around a target the ecological role of the approached. level consistent with (or stock, most of the time. above) MSY, or for key LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. Met? Y Y Y

Justifi The HCR is laid down in the multiannual plan for the fisheries in the Baltic Sea, this cation plan implies that fishing pressure be reduced if the stock falls below predefined reference point (EC 2016a). This Multiannual Plan is described in section 4.6.4 of this report. SG60 is met. The plan is explicit and well defined based on specified reference points with the objective to keep the stock at a target level. SG 80 is met. The plan implies reduced fishing mortality compared to MSY taking into the status of the stock. Therefore, SG100 is met B HCRs robustness to uncertainty Guide The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account of post robust to the main a wide range of uncertainties. uncertainties including the ecological role of the stock, and there is evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties. Met? Y Y

Justifi The assessment method (SAM model) takes into account uncertainties in the fishery cation dependent and independent times series used as input data. The short-term prediction carried out by the SAM model is simulation based, and accounts for uncertainty in the final year estimates. The outcomes of such forecast are used to set the reference levels in the framework of HRC rules, therefore is possible to conclude that the HCRs take account of a wide range of uncertainties and there is evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties. Hence, SG 100 is met. C HCRs evaluation Guide There is some evidence Available evidence Evidence clearly shows post that tools used or available indicates that the tools in that the tools in use are to implement HCRs are use are appropriate and effective in achieving the appropriate and effective effective in achieving the exploitation levels in controlling exploitation. exploitation levels required under the HCRs. required under the HCRs. Met? Y Y Y

Page 197 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

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

Justifi The tools implied by the HCR (TAC) combined with the EU technical cation regulations – by-catch rules assuring that the herring catches are fairly clean of sprat, have been in force since many years. SG60 is met. The high level of herring stock is evidence that the HCR can achieve the objectives. Therefore, SG80 is met. The evidence available clearly shows that the tools are effective in controlling the exploitation level as required under the HCR, taking into account the observed catches were always below the agreed TAC. Therefore, SG100 is met. References EC 2016 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Range of information Guide Some relevant information Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of post related to stock structure, information related to information (on stock stock productivity and fleet stock structure, stock structure, stock composition is available to productivity, fleet productivity, fleet support the harvest composition and other composition, stock strategy. data is available to support abundance, UoA the harvest strategy. removals and other information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. Met? Y Y Y

Justifi Information is comprehensive across fleet, stock distribution, catch for all the cation countries involved in the fisheries. Commercial catches (Finnish and Swedish landings, ages from catch sampling and survey, length frequencies from catch sampling) from 1973 to 2015 are available for the assessment. Two tuning fleets: one acoustic survey, 2007 to 2015 (3rd or 4th Q BIAS), and one commercial, 1990 to 2006 (trap net) are used. Annual maturity data from Finnish commercial trawl catches before spawning are also collected and used in the assessment. Discarding is not allowed and it is considered negligible. Considerable environmental information is also collected, which is relevant to the population dynamics of the stock but are not directed used in the present assessment. Therefore, the fishery meets the SG100.

Page 198 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

b Monitoring Guide Stock abundance and Stock abundance and All information required by post UoA removals are UoA removals are the harvest control rule is monitored and at least one regularly monitored at a monitored with high indicator is available and level of accuracy and frequency and a high monitored with sufficient coverage consistent with degree of certainty, and frequency to support the the harvest control rule, there is a good harvest control rule. and one or more indicators understanding of inherent are available and uncertainties in the monitored with sufficient information [data] and the frequency to support the robustness of assessment harvest control rule. and management to this uncertainty. Met? Y Y Y Justifi All fisheries targeting herring in the Bothnian Sea are well monitored both cation through fishery dependent data as well as fishery independent data. There is sampling of the catches, there are data from annual abundance surveys available and data are annually presented to ICES. Removal is recorded continuously, and surveys are annual. The total distribution area is covered. SG 60 and SG 80 are met. All information required by the HCR is presented, abundance, SSB, and fishing mortality. Furthermore, there is good understanding of the quality of the assessment and its inherent uncertainties. The robustness of the assessment is investigated at ICES benchmarks (ICES 2013a), where the assessment is critically reviewed and alternative formulations are investigated. Hence SG100 is met. c Comprehensiveness of information Guide There is good information post on all other fishery removals from the stock. Met? Y

Justifi Other fisheries on Bothnian Sea Herring are conducted by Sweden under the cation DCF regulation. Fisheries are well documented through fisheries statistics (landings), logbooks (effort) and VMS (geographical area of fishing). The fisheries are sampled at comparable levels and the data that are available ICES. There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. SG80 is met.

References ICES 2013a OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Page 199 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

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

Justifi The ICES Baltic Fisheries Assessment Working Group (WGBFAS) is the scientific cation working group responsible for the assessment and review of this stock. An Age-based analytical assessment (SAM; (ICES 2016d)) that uses catches in the model and in the forecast have been used since 2014. The assessment method takes into account the major features of the biology of the stock as maturity, growth and weight at age. In former years the assessment of this stock has been criticized of having only commercial fleets for tuning, but in 2012 new acoustic tuning series was introduced (ICES 2012). At the same time the pelagic trawl fleet was rejected from the tuning because the recent effort estimates were considered unreliable. The remaining commercial survey index (trap net tuning fleet) was slightly revised in 2012 and revised again in 2013 according to the recommendations of the reviewers of WKPELA (WD1 in IBP her-30 report). Although, the survey time series is short, the extending the acoustic survey time-series will improve the quality of the assessment that at the moment is considered by WGBFAS appropriate to evaluate the status of the stock. Therefore, SG 100 is met. b Assessment approach Guide The assessment The assessment post estimates stock status estimates stock status relative to generic relative to reference points reference points that are appropriate to the appropriate to the species stock and can be category. estimated. Met? Y Y

Justifi The SAM model is being used for advice as it was accepted from the 2013 cation benchmark. The stock assessment is appropriate for the available data and the harvest control rule. It is estimating stock status relative to MSY based reference points. Therefore, SG60 and SG80 are met. c Uncertainty in the assessment Guide The assessment identifies The assessment takes The assessment takes post major sources of uncertainty into account. into account uncertainty uncertainty. and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Met? Y Y N

Justifi The assessment model (SAM) takes into account uncertainties in the input data in a cation stochastic way. Therefore, SG80 is met. However the assessment is not formulated in a probabilistic way and SG100 is not met.

Page 200 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status d Evaluation of assessment Guide The assessment has been post tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Met? Y

Justifi A comparison with last year’s assessment based on the other settings is presented cation in WGBAFS (ICES 2016d). The present estimate of the 2014 spawning stock biomass is 3% higher than in last year’s assessment, whereas the estimate for fishing mortality in 2014 is less than 1% lower in the current assessment. Therefore, SG 100 is met. e Peer review of assessment Guide The assessment of stock The assessment has been post status is subject to peer internally and externally review. peer reviewed. Met? Y Y

Justifi The assessment is internally peer reviewed within ICES through WGBFAS and cation ACOM and there are external reviewers involved in the benchmark process. The WGBFAS include scientists from all Baltic states also scientists that are not directly involved with the sprat assessment, ACOM involve scientists from all ICES member states and through the system of Advice drafting groups (ADG) there are external scientist involved in the evaluation of the assessment, the chair of an ADG is normally the chair or a vice chair of ACOM not involved with the sprat assessment. The benchmark process involves external experts Hence the SG100 is met.

References ICES 2016d; ICES 2012 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Bothnian Bay Herring Trawl and Trap net Fisheries (UoAs 2 and 3)

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

Met? NA NA NA

Justifi The Risk Based Framework (RBF) has been used to score this PI, because there are cation no reference points available, either derived from analytical stock assessments or using empirical approaches.

Page 201 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The status of the fishery with regard to reference points was confirmed with the team by questionnaires and interviews with relevant stakeholders during the site visit. This view confirms that set out in the report by ICES (2016e), which carried out an exploratory assessment showing that the spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has increased since 2008, the fishing mortality (F) has had an overall increasing trend since 2010 and the recruitment since 2010 has been above average, except for 2013. The results of the RBF assessment were: CA Score: 80 PSA Score: 80 The MSC CR indicates that for scores at this level, the overall RBF score awarded shall be at the mid-point of the two scores (see CRv2.0, Table PF7). A score of 80 is therefore awarded for this PI. b Stock status in relation to achievement of MSY Guide The stock is at or There is a high degree of post fluctuating around a level certainty that the stock has consistent with MSY. been fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years. Met? NA NA

Justifi The Risk Based Framework has been used to score this PI. cation References ICES 2016e Stock Status relative to Reference Points Type of reference Value of reference Current stock status relative point point to reference point Reference NA NA NA point used in scoring stock relative to PRI (SIa) Reference NA NA NA point used in scoring stock relative to MSY (SIb) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Page 202 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

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

Met? Not relevant Not relevant Justifi The stock is not depleted. cation b Rebuilding evaluation Guide Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that the There is strong evidence post determine whether the rebuilding strategies are that the rebuilding rebuilding strategies are rebuilding stocks, or it is strategies are rebuilding effective in rebuilding the likely based on simulation stocks, or it is highly stock within the specified modelling, exploitation rates likely based on simulation timeframe. or previous performance that modelling, exploitation they will be able to rebuild the rates or previous stock within the specified performance that they will timeframe. be able to rebuild the stock within the specified timeframe. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant The stock is not depleted. References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: N/A CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Page 203 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Harvest strategy design Guide The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is post expected to achieve stock responsive to the state of responsive to the state of management objectives the stock and the the stock and is designed reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. elements of the harvest to achieve stock strategy work together management objectives towards achieving stock reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Met? Y Y N Justifi The harvest strategy for the Bothnian Bay herring fishery is set out at EU level cation under the EU CFP 1380/2013 (EU 2013) and the stock is fished only by Finland and Sweden. The objectives of the CFP are, inter alia, to ensure that fishing is environmentally sustainable in the long term, to apply the precautionary approach to fisheries management, and to implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management. The tools that are used to implement the strategy includes a package of technical measures and the TAC. The HS of Bothnian Bay herring consists in a strict management regime with landing control and sea going control (EC 2016a). Under the ICES umbrella Finland and Sweden cooperate by providing data for the stock assessments and on the assessment and advisory process, in the assessment working groups (inter alia WGBFAS) and the advisory groups (ACOM). In July 2016 a Multiannual Management Plan for Baltic fisheries has been adopted and is implemented for 2017 onwards, Regulation (EU) 2016/1139. An overview of the plan is presented in section 4.6.4 and is further detailed in the justification for PI 3.2.1. The plan prescribes that TACs must be set based on scientific advice. The harvest strategy based on advice from ICES which in turn bases its advice on fisheries data. The advice is responsive to the state of the stock and the available evidence (the trend of relative biomass in the last decade available from the exploratory analysis) confirms that the elements of the HS (data collection, scientific advice, control, etc.) work together is controlling the consequence subcomponent (population size) of the CA and the “susceptibility” attributes in the PSA. Taken together, the harvest strategy has resulted in the creation of a management regime that imposes constraints on all aspects of the fishery that would alter the susceptibility of the target species to fishing activity. This strategy meets the SG60 and SG80 requirements. However, SG100 is not met as there are no target or limit reference points for the stock. b Harvest strategy evaluation Guide The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy may The performance of the post likely to work based on not have been fully tested harvest strategy has been prior experience or but evidence exists that it fully evaluated and plausible argument. is achieving its objectives. evidence exists to show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Met? Y Y N

Page 204 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Justifi The stock status is regularly monitored through the annual stock assessments, and cation the estimates of relative fishing mortality and spawning stock biomass indicate that the harvest strategy has been achieving its objectives. The evaluation of the harvest strategy is relatively complete. The harvest strategy laid down in the EU CFP is based on standard ‘best practice’ approach to fisheries management with sustainable exploitation objectives and hence SG 60 is met. The strategy has been effective for more than a decade and the stock biomass is increasing and evidence exists that the strategy is achieving its objectives. Therefore, SG 80 is met. The harvest strategy before the adoption of the multiannual management plan was not fully clear and although ICES in 2009 tested a proposal for management plan this plan was not adopted and implemented. The performance of the harvest strategy has not been fully tested. The Multiannual Plan has been tested theoretically and the general framework is within the EU CFP and therefore is expected to achieve the objectives of CFP. However, considering that the plan will be fully operative from 2017 onward there is no evidence yet that HS is able to maintain stocks at target levels consistent with the ecosystem needs. Therefore SG 100 is not fulfilled. c Harvest strategy monitoring Guide Monitoring is in place that post is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Met? Y Justifi Considerable data are collected on the fishery, including data on catches, vessels cation and stock abundance. These are sufficient to monitor the stock, vessel operations, and catch by area and time. These, through review and various analyses, provide a strong basis to evaluate all parts of the harvest strategy. This meets SG60. d Harvest strategy review Guide The harvest strategy is post periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. Met? Y Justifi The harvest strategy was review regularly under the IBSFC regime (1974-2006). The cation technical regulation within the CFP is reviewed at irregular intervals. The CFP itself is reviewed every 10 years latest in 2013 with implementation of the revised Basic regulation for 2014. The Multiannual Plan for Baltic fisheries is expected to be reviewed in 2019 (Article 15). The BALTFISH forum (an organization of Baltic State Governments (BALTFISH 2016)) reviews the harvest strategy at irregular intervals. SG 100 is met. e Shark finning Guide It is likely that shark finning It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of post is not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is not taking place. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi The species fished is not a shark. cation f Review of alternative measures Guide There has been a review There is a regular review There is a biennial review post of the potential of the potential of the potential effectiveness and effectiveness and effectiveness and practicality of alternative practicality of alternative practicality of alternative

Page 205 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

measures to minimise measures to minimise measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of the unwanted catch of the unwanted catch of the target stock. target stock and they are target stock, and they are implemented as implemented, as

appropriate. appropriate. Met? Y Y N Justifi The fishery has no direct discards and very limited slippage during haul back, as cation reported by a participant in the fishery stated during the site visit and in ICES advice for this stock. All landings are used either for direct human consumption or used in the fish oil/ meal market. There is therefore considered to be virtually no unwanted catch in the fishery. Regulation 2187/2005 requires a minimum mesh size for the trawl and trap net fisheries and there is no minimum landing size is set for herring. There are valuable markets for both human food and meal/ oil, such that there are requirements that the fish must go to the human market first (quality dependent). Furthermore, the EU, has introduced a discard ban (EU 2013), however this is not expected to affect the herring fishery significantly as there is no discards. The team has concluded there is no incentive to discard herring (regardless of the ban) and no mortality of unwanted catch. There has been a review for discarding (unwanted catch), resulting in the discard ban, SG60 is met. The discard regulation calls for the ban to be implemented for no more than 3 years, thus resulting in a review prior to reauthorization, SG80 is met. Because the measures are not revised every two years SG 100 is not met. References EC 2016; EU 2013, BALTFISH 2016; ICES, 2016e. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

10.4.3.1.1.1

PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 A HCRs design and application Guide Generally understood Well defined HCRs are in The HCRs are expected to post HCRs are in place or place that ensure that the keep the stock fluctuating available that are exploitation rate is at or above a target level expected to reduce the reduced as the PRI is consistent with MSY, or exploitation rate as the approached, are expected another more appropriate point of recruitment to keep the stock level taking into account impairment (PRI) is fluctuating around a target the ecological role of the approached. level consistent with (or stock, most of the time. above) MSY, or for key LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. Met? Y Y N

Justifi As noted under the scoring of PI1.2.1, there are no reference points for the target cation stock, so it is appropriate to consider how the harvest control rules & tools manage

Page 206 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place the “susceptibility” attributes of the fishery used in the PSA assessment (see Table 1.2.2b) to ensure that it does not adversely affect the target species stock. The harvest strategy for this fishery is delivered mainly through Total Allowable Catch. The advice is based on an exploratory assessment as an indicator of SSB. The uncertainty of this index is not available. The methods applied to derive quantitative advice for stocks without an analytical assessment are expected to evolve as they are further developed and validated. The herring stocks in subdivisions 30 and 31 are currently assessed separately, but they are managed by a common TAC. Adding up the catch advice for the two stocks in 2017 results in a total herring catch of 134 556 t + 6 442 t = 140 998 t in subdivisions 30 and 31 in 2017. A combined TAC may pose a risk and not adequately protect the smaller stock. However, the recent development of both stocks and the low fishing effort currently in Subdivision 31 suggest a low risk of overexploitation of the smaller stock (ICES 2016e). The variation of the TAC is carried out in response of the SSB trend from the exploratory stock assessment, used as the index of stock development. The advice is based on a comparison of the two latest index values (index A) with the three preceding values (index B), multiplied by the recent advised catch. The index is estimated to have decreased by less than 20% and thus the uncertainty cap was not applied when calculating the catch advice in 2017. Considering that the fishing effort has been decreasing since the 1980s and is considered to be low, no additional precautionary buffer was applied. Such evidences show that the harvest control rules and tools are responsive of the status of the stock. These harvest control rule serve to limit the susceptibility of the Bothnian Bay herring stock to fishery removals. The SG60 and 80 requirements are therefore met. However, considering the absence of a proper reference point for the stock is not possible to judge whether the HCRs will keep the susceptibility at level consistent with MSY. Therefore, SG 100 is not met. B HCRs robustness to uncertainty Guide The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account of post robust to the main a wide range of uncertainties. uncertainties including the ecological role of the stock, and there is evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties. Met? Y N Justifi The main uncertainty for the Bothnian Bay herring fishery is recruitment. The cation harvest control rules respond to this uncertainty by ensuring that a significant proportion of the stock remains unfished year after year, optimising the chance of there being a large broodstock present when climatic conditions are favourable for recruitment. The harvest control rules have responded to uncertainty by adjusting the TAC (and thus area fished) annually in response to changes in stock status. The precautionary nature of the harvest control rules and tools with respect to protecting the stock meets the SG80 requirements. However considering that the assessment is exploratory is not possible to argue that it takes into account a wide range of uncertainties and there is no evidence that the HRC are robust to the main uncertainties. Therefore, SG 100 is not met. HCRs evaluation

Page 207 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place C Guide There is some evidence Available evidence Evidence clearly shows that post that tools used or available indicates that the tools in the tools in use are effective to implement HCRs are use are appropriate and in achieving the exploitation appropriate and effective effective in achieving the levels required under the in controlling exploitation. exploitation levels HCRs. required under the HCRs.

Met? Y Y N

Justifi The tools implied by the HCR (TAC) combined with the EU technical regulations have cation been in force since many years and taking into account the results of the exploratory assessment as well as the outcome of the population size in the CA, there is evidence that are effective in controlling the exploitation. Therefore, SG60 is met. The herring stocks in subdivisions 30 and 31 are currently managed by a common TAC and the change in the advice for Bothnian bay herring is based on a comparison of the two latest index values (index A) with the three preceding values (index B), multiplied by the recent advised catch. The combined catches (Subdivision 30+31) were always below the agreed TAC. Such evidences indicate that the tool in use is appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCR, meeting SG 80. However, taking into account that a combined TAC may pose a risk and not adequately protect the smaller stock, SG100 is not met.

References ICES 2016e OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Range of information Guide Some relevant information Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of post related to stock structure, information related to information (on stock stock productivity and fleet stock structure, stock structure, stock composition is available to productivity, fleet productivity, fleet support the harvest composition and other composition, stock strategy. data is available to support abundance, UoA the harvest strategy. removals and other information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. Met? Y Y N

Justifi Information is comprehensive across fleet, stock distribution, catch for all the cation countries involved in the fisheries. Commercial catches (Finnish and Swedish landings, ages from catch sampling, length frequencies from catch sampling) from 1980 to 2015 are available for the assessment. Annual maturity data from Finnish

Page 208 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

commercial trawl catches before spawning are also collected and used in the assessment. Discarding is not allowed and it is considered negligible. Therefore, the fishery meets the SG80. Taking into account the absence of an abundance time series coming from an acoustic survey is not possible to argue that a comprehensive range of information are available. Therefore SG 100 is not met. b Monitoring Guide Stock abundance and Stock abundance and All information required by post UoA removals are UoA removals are the harvest control rule is monitored and at least one regularly monitored at a monitored with high indicator is available and level of accuracy and frequency and a high monitored with sufficient coverage consistent with degree of certainty, and frequency to support the the harvest control rule, there is a good harvest control rule. and one or more indicators understanding of inherent are available and uncertainties in the monitored with sufficient information [data] and the frequency to support the robustness of assessment harvest control rule. and management to this uncertainty. Met? Y Y N Justifi All fisheries targeting herring in the Bothnian Bay are well monitored and the cation coverage is consistent with the HCR. There is sampling of the catches available and data are annually presented to ICES. No scientific surveys are conducted for the herring in Bothnian Bay and stock abundance is monitored with two CPUE data series, used as tuning index in the exploratory XSA, one from the Finnish trawl fishery (demersal and pelagic) and one from the Finnish trap net fishery. According to ICES, the level of accuracy of stock abundance and fishery removals is adequate to carry out an exploratory assessment and estimate a relative value of SSB that is used as the index of stock development. Therefore, SG 60 and 80 are met. Taking into account the absence of a survey index the robustness of the assessment is not completely sure. Hence SG100 is not met. c Comprehensiveness of information Guide There is good information post on all other fishery removals from the stock. Met? Y

Justifi Other fisheries on Bothnian Bay Herring are conducted by Sweden under the DCF cation regulation. Fisheries are well documented through fisheries statistics (landings), logbooks (effort) and VMS (geographical area of fishing). The fisheries are sampled at comparable levels and the data that are available ICES. There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. SG80 is met.

References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Page 209 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

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

Justifi If the RBF is used to score PI 1.1.1, this PI is not scored and is awarded a default cation score of 80 (see MSC CRv2, Reference: FCR PF1.1.2 & Table PF1). b Assessment approach Guide The assessment The assessment post estimates stock status estimates stock status relative to generic relative to reference points reference points that are appropriate to the appropriate to the species stock and can be category. estimated. Met? NA NA

Justifi If the RBF is used to score PI 1.1.1, this PI is not scored and is awarded a default cation score of 80 (see MSC CRv2, Reference: FCR PF1.1.2 & Table PF1). c Uncertainty in the assessment Guide The assessment The assessment takes The assessment takes post identifies major sources uncertainty into account. into account uncertainty of uncertainty. and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Met? NA NA NA

Justifi If the RBF is used to score PI 1.1.1, this PI is not scored and is awarded a default cation score of 80 (see MSC CRv2, Reference: FCR PF1.1.2 & Table PF1). d Evaluation of assessment Guide The assessment has been post tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Met? NA

Justifi If the RBF is used to score PI 1.1.1, this PI is not scored and is awarded a default cation score of 80 (see MSC CRv2, Reference: FCR PF1.1.2 & Table PF1). e Peer review of assessment Guide The assessment of stock The assessment has been post status is subject to peer internally and externally review. peer reviewed. Met? NA NA

Page 210 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status

Justifi If the RBF is used to score PI 1.1.1, this PI is not scored and is awarded a default cation score of 80 (see MSC CRv2, Reference: FCR PF1.1.2 & Table PF1). References MSC CRv2, Reference: FCR PF1.1.2 & Table PF1 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Principle 2

PI 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder PI 2.1.1 recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Main primary species stock status Guide Main primary species are Main primary species are There is a high degree of post likely to be above the PRI highly likely to be above certainty that main the PRI primary species are above the PRI and are OR fluctuating around a level OR consistent with MSY. If the species is below the PRI, the UoA has If the species is below the measures in place that are PRI, there is either expected to ensure that evidence of recovery or the UoA does not hinder a demonstrably effective recovery and rebuilding. strategy in place between all MSC UoAs which categorise this species as main, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? See table below See table below See table below

Justifi Primary non-target species are defined by the MSC as species for which reference cation points have been set (see FCR v2.0 at SA3.1.3). The distinction between “main” and “minor” non-target species depends on the abundance of the species in the catch, and also their resilience to fishing impacts (“main” species are those making up 5% or more of the total catch (2% if they are “less resilient”); minor species are those making up less of the catch (see FCR at SA 3.4.2)). Information about the catch of non-target species is presented in section 4.7.1 of this report, and forms the foundation of the decisions about which are primary and secondary species, and which are “main” or “minor” species. Unit of Assessment (UoA) 1: Sprat Trawl Fishery, SD22-32 LUKE data indicate that the only “primary” species are caught in this unit of assessment are herring (Clupea harengus). In the targeted sprat fishery, herring made up around 19% of the total catch. The status of the herring stocks in the Central Baltic, Bothnian Sea and Bothnian Bay are reviewed in sections 4.6.2, 4.6.2.2 & 4.6.2.3 of this report, and are in each instance considered to be at a level consistent with MSY (noting that the RBF has

Page 211 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder PI 2.1.1 recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. been used to score the Bothnian Bay stock). The SG60, 80 and 100 requirements are therefore met for this UoA. Note - a score of 100 for this SI was also awarded for the harmonised Latvian sprat fishery assessment. Unit of Assessment 2 (Bothnian Bay herring trawl fishery) All of the available information (see section 4.7.1) indicates that there are no “main” non-target species in this fishery. In the absence of any “main” primary non-target species in the catch for this UoA, a default score of 100 is appropriate. Unit of Assessment 3 (Bothnian Bay herring trap fishery) All of the available information indicates that there are no “main” non-target species in this fishery. In the absence of any “main” primary non-target species in the catch for this UoA, a default score of 100 is appropriate. Unit of Assessment 4 (Bothnian Sea herring trawl fishery) Information from LUKE indicates that sprats (Sprattus sprattus) make up between 3- 6% of pelagic trawl catches in the Bothnian Sea. The data for the past 5 years indicated that landings have been in the range 1.5-4.3%. As a precautionary measure, the assessment team has categorised sprats as a “main” non-target species because they may from time to time make up more than 5% of the catch. The status of the Baltic Sea sprat stocks is described in detail section 4.6.1 of this report. In summary, the stock is at a level that is consistent with MSY. The SG60, 80 and 100 requirements are therefore met. Unit of Assessment 5 (Bothnian Sea herring trap fishery) All of the available information indicates that there are no “main” non-target species in this fishery. In the absence of any “main” primary non-target species in the catch for this UoA, a default score of 100 is appropriate. Unit of Assessment 6 (Central Baltic herring trawl fishery) Information from LUKE indicates that sprats (Sprattus sprattus) are caught in the Central Baltic herring fishery. Landings data indicate that sprat averaged around 9% of landings from the targeted herring fishery over the past 5 years, and are thus a “main” non-target species. The status of the Baltic Sea sprat stocks is described in detail section 4.6.1 of this report. In summary, the stock is at a level that is consistent with MSY. The SG60, 80 and 100 requirements are therefore met. Unit of Assessment 7 (Central Baltic herring trap fishery) Landing information indicates that there are no “main” non-target species in this fishery. In the absence of any “main” primary non-target species in the catch for this UoA, a default score of 100 is appropriate.

b Minor primary species stock status Guide Minor primary species are post highly likely to be above the PRI

OR

If below the PRI, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the

Page 212 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder PI 2.1.1 recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. recovery and rebuilding of minor primary species Met? Y

Justifi Information about the catch of non-target species is presented in section 4.7.1 of this cation report. In summary, all of the information provided by stakeholders including the scientists from LUKE indicates that no “minor” “primary” non-target species are caught in any of the UoAs. The scoring rationale for each UoA is set in this context and is presented below. Unit of Assessment (UoA) 1: Sprat Trawl Fishery, SD22-32 All of the available information indicates that there are no “minor” primary non-target species in this fishery. In the absence of any “minor” primary non-target species in the catch for this UoA, a score of 100 is appropriate. UoA 1 - note A score of 100 for this SI was also awarded for the harmonised Latvian sprat fishery assessment. Unit of Assessment 2 & 3, : Bothnian Bay Herring trawl and trap fisheries Landings data from LUKE indicate that there is a catch of vendace in the Bothnian Bay trawl fishery (averaging 12.6t per year over the past 5 years, 0.29% of total landings); and also from the Bothnian Bay trap fishery (6.4t pa over the past 5 years and 2.45% of landings by this métier). The most recent stock assessment of the Baltic vendace population indicates that it is being harvested sustainably, with a stock biomass above Bmsy and fishing mortality close to Fmsy (see section 4.7.1.4.1 of this report). The species is therefore considered highly likely to be above PRI, meeting the SG100 requirements for this SI for both Bothnian Bay UoAs. Unit of Assessment 4: Bothnian Sea Herring trawl fishery LUKE landings data indicate that the only landings of “minor” primary non-target species in this UoA are of sprat. As a precaution, this species has been considered a “main” catch component. There are not, therefore, considered to be any “minor” primary non-target species in this UoA and SG100 is therefore met. Unit of Assessment 5, : Bothnian Sea Herring trap fishery Landings data from LUKE indicate that vendace (Coregonus albula) are a minor non- target species in this fishery. Landings averaging 59kg per year are reported by LUKE for herring traps in this area. The most recent stock assessment of the Baltic vendace population indicates that it is being harvested sustainably, with a stock biomass above Bmsy and fishing mortality close to Fmsy (see section 4.7.1.4.1 of this report). The species is therefore considered highly likely to be above PRI, meeting the SG100 requirements for this SI. Unit of Assessment 6: Central Baltic Herring trawl fishery LUKE landings data indicate that the only landings of “minor” primary non-target species in this UoA are of sprat. As a precaution, this species has been considered a “main” catch component. There are not, therefore, considered to be any “minor” primary non-target species in this UoA and SG100 is therefore met. Unit of Assessment 7: Central Baltic Herring trap fishery The only “minor” primary non-target species recorded in landings from this fishery are vendace (an average of 0.6kg per year over the past 5 years). The most recent stock assessment of the Baltic vendace population indicates that it is being harvested sustainably, with a stock biomass above Bmsy and fishing

Page 213 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder PI 2.1.1 recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. mortality close to Fmsy (see section 4.7.1.4.1 of this report). The species is therefore considered highly likely to be above PRI, meeting the SG100 requirements for this SI.

References Sections 4.6.1, 4.6.2, 4.6.2.2, & 4.6.2.3 of this report; SLU 2015, Bureau Veritas Iberia 2016, ICES 2016a, 2016b, 2016c, 2016d OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: See scoring calculation table CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

10.5.1.1 PI 2.1.1 – Scoring Calculation for each UoA

SIa Main / SIb Element PI UoA Description Species (60, 80, minor (100 only) Score Score 100)

Sprat Trawl Herring Main 100 NA 100 1 100 None minor NA 100 100

Bothnian Bay None Main 100 NA 100 2 Herring Trawl 100 Vendace minor NA 100 100

Bothnian Bay None Main 100 NA 100 3 Herring Trap 100 Vendace minor NA 100 100

Bothnian Sea Sprat Main 100 NA 100 4 Herring Trawl 100 None minor NA 100 100

Bothnian Sea None Main 100 NA 100 5 Herring Trap 100 Vendace Minor NA 100 100

Central Baltic Sprat Main 100 NA 100 6 Herring trawl 100 None minor NA 100 100

Central Baltic None Main 100 NA 100 7 Herring Trap 100 Vendace minor NA 100 100

Key: NA = Not Applicable to this element NR = Not Relevant - = No score awarded for SI

Page 214 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 2.1.2 – Primary species management strategy

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place

Guidep There are measures in There is a partial strategy There is a strategy in ost place for the UoA, if in place for the UoA, if place for the UoA for necessary, that are necessary, that is managing main and minor expected to maintain or to expected to maintain or to primary species. not hinder rebuilding of the not hinder rebuilding of the main primary species at/to main primary species at/to levels which are likely to levels which are highly above the point where likely to be above the point recruitment would be where recruitment would impaired. be impaired.

Met? Y Y

Justific Under the MSC FCR, the terms “measures”, “partial strategy” and “strategy” have a ation particular meaning (see Table SA8). The only “main” primary species that are considered likely to be affected by the UoAs are sprat by the herring trawl fisheries in the Central Baltic and Bothnian Sea (UoAs 4 & 6) and herring in the sprat trawl fishery (UoA 1). These have been assessed as “main” primary species in PI2.1.1. The only “minor” primary non-target species reported to be caught in any of the UoAs are vendace (in UoAs 2, 3, 5 & 7). UoAs 1, 4, 6: Trawl fisheries for Baltic Sea Sprats, Baltic Sea herring, Bothnian Sea herring. There is a management strategy in place for both herring and sprats in throughout the Baltic Sea (including all of the Bothnian Sea and Bothnian Bay). The strategy comprises the EU Baltic Multi-Annual Plan (MAP) which was implemented by the EU in July 2016. The object of the MAP are to aim to maintain populations of harvested species above MSY (Article 3(1)), deliver fishing mortality rates that are consistent with MSY (Article 4(1)) and to implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management (Article 5(3)). The MAP sets out harvest control rules (HCRs) for determining the level of fishing effort for each primary non-target species. The fishing mortality set out in the HCRs in the MAP is compatible with ICES advice on multi-species management in the Baltic Sea. The harvest control rules set out in the 2016 MAP were used by ICES as the basis for fishing advice in 2017, and have been implemented through the agreed Total Allowable Catches for the Baltic Sea in 2017 (which serve as harvest control tools). EU TACs are enforced by EU Member States. The TACs apply to all catches of herring and sprat by all métiers including trawling and fish traps throughout all of the UoAs being assessed, irrespective of whether the fish were caught as the target or non-target species. This EU management strategy for primary non-target species represents a cohesive and strategic arrangement which has the objectives of both maintaining exploited stocks above MSY and implementing the ecosystem approach. It is implemented through statutory measures which ensure that these objectives are met. This strategy therefore meets all of the SG60, 80 and 100 requirements for all primary non-target species.

Page 215 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of PI 2.1.2 primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. UoAs 2, 3, 5, 7: Trap fisheries for herring in the Baltic Sea, Bothnian Sea, Bothnian Bay, and Trawl fishery for herring in the Bothnian Bay The management strategy described above applies to any sprat caught in these fisheries, but does not apply to the vendace catch in these fisheries, which is a “minor” element of the catch in each case. Although a stock assessment has been carried out for vendace in the Bothnian Bay and a TAC is recommended, this is not supported by a formal “management strategy”. The management strategy in place therefore meets the SG60 and 80 requirements (for the “main” catch element); but does not meet the SG100 requirements because there is evidence that there is a “minor” catch element that is not addressed by a specific management strategy.

All UoAs The MSC FCR (at SA3.4.7) requires the team to consider whether “Alternative Measures” (PI2.2.2 SIe) have any effect on the catch or mortality of unwanted species. The team concludes that this is not the case; the “Alternative Measures” comprise of a regulatory regime that creates no incentive to discard fish; and a market which can utilise any and all fish landed; there is therefore no unwanted catch.

b Management strategy evaluation

Guidep The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high ost considered likely to work, basis for confidence that confidence that the based on plausible the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g., general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on some information information directly about comparison with similar directly about the fishery the fishery and/or species fisheries/species). and/or species involved. involved.

Met? Y Y Y

Justific For All UoAs. ation The strategy used to manage impacts on primary non-target species is implemented through the annual TAC for that stocks of both species concerned (the Baltic sprat stock and the relevant herring stocks). Information on the effectiveness of this strategy is kept under review by ICES. This is done through the fishery-independent assessment of pelagic fish stocks in the Baltic International Acoustic Survey; and also by monitoring the catches from the commercial fleet to ensure compliance with harvest control rules & tools. ICES produces annual stock assessments for herring and sprats to test whether the harvest strategy is working. For the Baltic Sprats, Baltic Herring and Bothnian Sea herring UoAs in which there are considered to be catches of primary non-target species, ICES have concluded that fishing mortality is below Fmsy and stock status is above MSY Btrigger (ICES 2017b, 2017e). There is therefore evidence that the harvest strategy for herring (the primary non- target species in UoA 1) and for sprats (the primary non-target species in UoAs 4 & 6) has been tested, and that this testing provides a high degree of confidence that the harvest strategy is working, meeting the SG60, 80 & 100 requirements.

c Management strategy implementation

Page 216 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

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

Guidep There is some evidence There is clear evidence ost that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully successfully. and is achieving its overall objective as set out in scoring issue (a).

Met? Y Y

Justific The only primary species that are considered likely to be affected by the UoAs are ation sprat by the herring trawl fisheries in the Central Baltic and Bothnian Sea (UoAs 4 & 6) and herring in the sprat trawl fishery (UoA 1). The implementation of the management strategy for these species is achieved through the annual TACs that are used as the harvest control tool to limit fishing effort. TAC uptake over the year is monitored by EU Member States. Compliance with the TACs over time is reported by ICES in its annual advice. UoA 4 & 6: Baltic Sea Herring & Bothnian Sea Herring Trawl Fisheries Sprat are the only primary non-target species in these UoAs. For sprats, ICES reported in 2017 that there had been a TAC overshoot in 2009, 2015 and 2016 but that in all other years in the 30-year time series, the total catches were less than the annual TAC (ICES 2017e). The objective of maintaining the stock at a level consistent with MSY is being attained, and fishing mortality is currently below Fmsy. This evidence satisfies the SG80 and SG100 requirements for this SI. UoA 1: Baltic Sea Sprat Trawl Fishery Herring are the only primary non-target species in this UoA. ICES reported in 2017 that there had been a TAC overshoot in 2012 and 2014 but that in all other years in the 30-year time series, the total catches were less than the annual TAC (ICES 2017b). The objective of maintaining the stock at a level consistent with MSY is being attained, and fishing mortality is currently below Fmsy. This evidence satisfies the SG80 and SG100 requirements for this SI.

d Shark finning

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

Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

Justific No sharks are caught in the Units of Assessment. This SI is therefore not relevant ation (see MSC FCR at SA3.5.2)

e Review of alternative measures

Guidep There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial review ost potential effectiveness of the potential of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative measures to practicality of alternative practicality of alternative minimise UoA-related measures to minimise measures to minimise mortality of unwanted UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of main unwanted catch of all

Page 217 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of PI 2.1.2 primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. catch of main primary primary species and they primary species, and they species. are implemented as are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate.

Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

Justific All stakeholder comments and information available about the UoAs under ation assessment indicates that the catch of primary non-target species is limited to a proportion of herring in the targeted sprat fishery (UoA1) and sprats in the targeted herring fishery (UoAs 2-7). These non-target species, and indeed any other non- target species are retained and sold for fish meal, and are thus fully utilised. There are no reports of discarding or mortality of unwanted catch in any of the UoAs. This SI is therefore considered not relevant (see MSC FCR at SA3.5.3 and GSA 3.5.3.)

References ICES 2009, 2012, 2013a, 2017a, 2017b, EC 2016a, 2016b

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: See scoring calculation table.

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

10.5.2.1 PI 2.1.2 – Scoring Calculation for each UoA

SIa SIb SIc SId SIe Main / PI UoA Description (60, 80, (60, 80, (80, (60, 80, (60, 80, minor Score 100) 100) 100) 100) 100) 1 Sprat Trawl NA 100 100 100 NR NR 100 Bothnian Bay 100 NR NR 2 NA 80 100 100 Herring Trawl Bothnian Bay 100 NR NR 3 NA 80 100 100 Herring Trap Bothnian Sea 100 NR NR 4 NA 100 100 100 Herring Trawl Bothnian Sea 100 NR NR 5 NA 80 100 100 Herring Trap Central Baltic 100 NR NR 6 NA 100 100 100 Herring trawl Central Baltic 100 NR NR 7 NA 80 100 100 Herring Trap

Key: NA = Not Applicable to this element NR = Not Relevant - = No score awarded for SI

Page 218 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 2.1.3 – Primary species information

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main primary species

Guidep Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is ost adequate to estimate the information is available available and is adequate impact of the UoA on the and is adequate to to assess with a high main primary species with assess the impact of the degree of certainty the respect to status. UoA on the main primary impact of the UoA on main species with respect to primary species with

status. respect to status. OR

OR If RBF is used to score PI

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

Met? Y N N

Justific The information available to assess the catch of primary non-target species by the ation UoAs is described in section 4.7.1.2 of this report. The status of the primary non- target species (sprat in the UoA 4 & 6 herring fisheries; herring in the UoA 1 sprat fishery) is summarised in sections 4.6.1, 4.6.2 & 4.6.2.2 respectively, and is reported annually by ICES (ICES 2017e, 2017b). In summary, although there is good quantitative information available about the landings of all fish by trawl and trap fishing activities within all of the UoAs from the LUKE database, there is only qualitative and some limited quantitative information available about the actual catch composition from the targeted fishery for herring and sprats. The qualitative information available from all stakeholders at the site visit was consistent, and indicated that there is a very low catch of non-target species in all of the UoAs (see section 13.2 of this report). LUKE has provided some evidence from trawl surveys to support these anecdotal reports. This quantitative information indicates that sprat are likely to be the only primary non-target species caught in the herring trawl fisheries in the Central Baltic Sea and Bothnian Sea (UoAs 4 & 6); and herring are likely to be the only primary non-target species caught in the sprat fishery (UoA 1). ICES provide annual quantitative assessments of the status of these stocks (ICES 2017b) Overall, there is good quantitative information available about the landings of all fish species from all fishers in the UoAs, consistent qualitative information about the catch composition in the UoAs and good quantitative information about the status of the primary species caught in the UoAs. This information meets all of the SG60 requirements and much of the SG80 requirements. SG80 is not considered to be fully met however, because of the lack of detail in the catch and landings data

Page 219 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to determine the PI 2.1.3 risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species available which currently prevents an adequate quantitative evaluation of the catch composition in each UoA.

b Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor primary species

Guidep Some quantitative ost information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor primary species with respect to status.

Met? Y

Justific Quantitative information has been made available by LUKE on the specific landings ation composition for all of the UoAs. These data indicate that vendace are a “minor” primary species in UoAs 2, 3, 5, & 7 (Bothnian Bay trawl & trap fisheries; and the trap fisheries in the Bothnian Bay and Central Baltic). The status of this vendace stock has been assessed and is considered to be at a level consistent with MSY. The SG100 requirements are therefore met for these UoAs.

c Information adequacy for management strategy

Guidep Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to ost support measures to support a partial strategy support a strategy to manage main primary to manage main Primary manage all primary species. species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective.

Met? Y Y N

Justific Excellent information is available about catches and stock status for the main primary ation non-target species (sprat in the UoA 4 & 6 herring trawl fisheries; herring in the UoA 1 sprat fishery. This information supports the strategy for managing impacts on primary species in the Baltic Sea that is set out in the Baltic Sea MAP. Excellent information is also available about the other species in the UoA area that could be caught in the UoAs (such as vendace). The status of this species is known and monitored, and there is a partial management strategy in place. The information available meets all of the SG60 and SG80 requirements, and to a large extent meets the SG100 requirements. However in the absence of quantitative information about catch composition from each métier in each UoA there is an element of uncertainty about the catch of primary non-target species in each UoA, so the SG100 requirements are not considered to be met.

Sections 13.2 & 4.7.1.2 of this report. ICES 2017b, 2017a, LUKE 2017a, Raitaniemi References et al. 2017

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: See scoring calculation table.

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 1-7

Page 220 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

10.5.3.1 PI 2.1.3 – Scoring Calculation for each UoA

SIa SIc Main / (60, SIb (60, Element PI UoA Description Species minor 80, (100) 80, Score Score 100) 100) Sprat Trawl Herring Main 60 NA 70 1 80 70 None minor NA - 70 Bothnian Bay None Main 60 NA 70 2 80 70 Herring Trawl Vendace minor NA 100 70 Bothnian Bay None Main 60 NA 70 3 80 70 Herring Trap Vendace minor NA 100 70 Bothnian Sea Sprat Main 60 NA 70 4 80 70 Herring Trawl None minor NA - 70 Bothnian Sea None Main 60 NA 70 5 80 70 Herring Trap Vendace Minor NA 100 70 Central Baltic Sprat Main 60 NA 70 6 80 70 Herring trawl None minor NA - 70 Central Baltic None Main 60 NA 70 7 80 70 Herring Trap Vendace minor NA 100 70

Key: NA = Not Applicable to this element NR = Not Relevant - = No score awarded for SI

PI 2.2.1 – Secondary species outcome

The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit and PI 2.2.1 does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit.

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Main secondary species stock status

Guidep Main Secondary species Main secondary species There is a high degree of ost are likely to be within are highly likely to be certainty that main biologically based limits. above biologically based secondary species are limits within biologically based

limits.

OR OR

If below biologically based limits, there are measures If below biologically based in place expected to limits, there is either ensure that the UoA does evidence of recovery or not hinder recovery and a demonstrably effective rebuilding. partial strategy in place such that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. AND Where catches of a main secondary species outside of biological limits

Page 221 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit and PI 2.2.1 does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. are considerable, there is either evidence of recovery or a, demonstrably effective strategy in place between those MSC UoAs that also have considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding.

Met? Y Y Y

Justific Secondary non-target species are defined by the MSC as species for which reference ation points have not been set (see FCR v2.0 at SA3.1.4). The distinction between “main” and “minor” non-target species depends on the abundance of the species in the catch, and also their resilience to fishing impacts (“main” species are those making up 5% or more of the total catch (2% if they are “less resilient”); minor species are those making up less of the catch (see FCR at SA 3.4.2)). Information about the catch of non-target species is presented in section 4.7.1 of this report, and forms the foundation of the decisions about which are primary and secondary species, and which are “main” or “minor” species. UoA 1: Central Baltic sprat trawl fishery All of the available information indicates that there are no “main” secondary non- target species in this UoA. In the absence of any “main” secondary non-target species in the catch for this UoA, a score of 100 is appropriate. These findings are consistent with those for the overlapping Latvian sprat fishery. UoAs 2, 4, 6: Herring trap fisheries All of the available information indicates that there are no “main” non-target species in the herring trap UoAs. In the absence of any “main” secondary non-target species in the catch for these UoAs, a score of 100 is appropriate. UoAs 3, 5, 7: Herring trawl fisheries All of the available information indicates that there are no “main” non-target species in the herring trawl UoAs. In the absence of any “main” secondary non-target species in the catch for these UoAs, a score of 100 is appropriate. All UoAs The MSC FCR (at SA3.7.3) requires the team to consider whether “Alternative Measures” (PI2.2.2 SIe) have any effect on the catch or mortality of unwanted species. The team concludes that this is not the case; the “Alternative Measures” comprise of a regulatory regime that creates no incentive to discard fish; and a market which can utilise any and all fish landed; there is therefore no unwanted catch.

b Minor secondary species stock status

Guidep Minor secondary species ost are highly likely to be above biologically based limits.

Page 222 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit and PI 2.2.1 does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. OR

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

Met? N

Justific Minor secondary species are those which compose less than 5% of the catch. The ation information available indicates that there is a negligible catch of any non-target species in any of the UoAs. Qualitative information provided by stakeholders at the site visit and in response to the RBF questionnaire circulated as part of this assessment suggested that several secondary non-target species could be retained in the Units of Assessment (see Table 17). LUKE have reported that the only species recorded in any abundance in any scientific trawl hauls in the UoAs are the 3-spined stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus. This species can make up around 0.9% of catches in pelagic trawl hauls. This species is susceptible to capture in the sprat and herring trawl fisheries (UoAs 1, 3, 5 & 7). A review of data for this species has recently been published, and it is reported to have increased in abundance exponentially in the Central Baltic Sea, and to have increased in abundance 8-fold in the Bothnian Sea (Bergström et al. 2015). LUKE have also provided landings data which indicate that a very small quantity of smelt (Osmerus eperlanus) may be landed from all of the UoAs (quantities ranging from a few kg to a few tonnes per year are reported by LUKE, and summarised in section 4.7.1.2.2.2 of this report).On the basis of this quantitative information, it appears likely that the only “minor” secondary species caught in any of the UoAs are 3-spined sticklebacks and smelt. The initial intention of the assessment team had been to carry out an RBF assessment of the minor secondary species reported from the fishery. However, given the uncertainty about the detail of catch composition (the subject of conditions under PIs 2.1.3 and PI2.2.3 respectively), and the fact that the RBF would not affect the assessment outcome (other than to possibly increase the score for this SI), it is considered inappropriate to carry out an RBF assessment for the “minor” secondary species in the UoAs under consideration. SG100 is therefore not met. This view is consistent with the approach adopted in the LFPO sprat fishery assessment, where the RBF was carried out using data from independent catch monitoring studies, rather than using official landings data. This decision has been taken by the assessment team in accordance with the MSC FCR at PF4.1.4.

Section 4.7.1 of this report. HELCOM 2006, Bergström et al. 2015, Raitaniemi et al. References 2017

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: See scoring calculations.

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Page 223 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

10.5.4.1 PI 2.2.1 – Scoring Calculation for each UoA

SIa Main / SIb Element PI UoA Description Species (60, 80, minor (100 only) Score Score 100) Sprat Trawl Main None 100 NA 100 1 3-spined 80 minor NA NS - stickleback Bothnian Bay Main None 100 NA 100 Herring Trawl 3-spined 2 80 minor stickleback NA NS - Smelt Bothnian Bay Main None 100 NA 100 Herring Trap 3-spined 3 80 minor stickleback NA NS - Smelt Bothnian Sea Main None 100 NA 100 Herring Trawl 3-spined 4 80 minor stickleback NA NS - Smelt Bothnian Sea Main None 100 NA 100 Herring Trap 3-spined 5 80 Minor stickleback NA NS - Smelt Central Baltic Main None 100 NA 100 Herring trawl 3-spined 6 80 minor stickleback NA NS - Smelt Central Baltic Main None 100 NA 100 7 80 Herring Trap minor Smelt NA NS -

* See PF5.3.2.1.

Key: NA = Not Applicable to this element NS = Not Scored (MSC FCR PF4.1.4 applied). NR = Not Relevant - = No score awarded for SI

Page 224 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 2.2.2 – Secondary species management strategy

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place

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

at/to levels which are secondary species at/to highly likely to be within levels which are highly biologically based limits or likely to be within to ensure that the UoA biologically based limits or does not hinder their to ensure that the UoA recovery. does not hinder their recovery.

Met? Y Y N

Justific Under the MSC FCR, the terms “measures”, “partial strategy” and “strategy” have a ation particular meaning (see Table SA8). Secondary non-target species are those for which reference points have not been defined (see FCR v2.0 at SA3.1.4). These species are therefore not subject to the management strategy set out in the Baltic Sea Multi-Annual Plan, which defines reference points for a suite of commercial fish species. The management measures and strategies that apply to secondary non-target species therefore comprise the controls that are imposed on each UoA outside the MAP. The trawl and trap fisheries are each managed slightly differently but under rules that are consistent for each métier. The “trawl” and “trap” UoAs are therefore considered independently below. UoAs 1, 2, 4, 5: Trawl fisheries for sprat and herring The management controls that apply to fishing with trawls derive from EU legislation, Finnish legislation, and also the relationship between the trawl fishermen and riparian owners. EU and Finnish legislation applies technical and administrative controls on pelagic trawling. Vessels are, for instance, required to fish with a cod-end mesh of 19mm; to fish within constraints imposed by their quota allocation for the target species; to nominate their landing port in advance; and to submit landings records within 48h of landing. The EU technical measures applying to the trawl fishery were introduced in 2005 (EC Regulation 2187/2005) in order to limit catches of non-target species in the herring and sprat trawl fishery in the Baltic Sea. The Finnish Government introduced new fisheries legislation in 2015 to replace the earlier (1982) Act. The new legislation applies to all fish resources in Finland, whether they are marine or freshwater. It also sets out controls for both commercial and recreational fishing. The key features and objectives of this new Act are described in section 4.8.1.3 of this report. Very briefly, it creates an overall objective for sustainable management of all fish resources, and sets out a clear framework for the administration of Finnish sea waters, private coastal fisheries and inland freshwater areas. New arrangements for regional fisheries management were

Page 225 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA regularly PI 2.2.2 reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. established under this Act, which will result in the creation of regional fisheries management plans. In the shallow coastal waters around Finland, all fishing activity is also subject to agreement with riparian owners. Trawl fishing is consequently confined to waters further offshore, simply because of the logistical difficulty that trawl fishermen would face in trying to secure the agreement of (potentially) dozens of riparian owners for a single trawl haul. The rights of riparian owners to regulate fishing activities are supported by national legislation. These management controls are directed at managing impacts on target species (herring and sprats) rather than non-target species. However the effect of these controls is to limit the spatial extent of fishing activity and also the overall level of fishing effort. In addition to these formal statutory controls, the fishing industry employ measures to target sprat and herring specifically (for instance by using acoustic equipment to identify fish shoals before fishing, and by moving between fishing areas to follow the movements of fish). The pelagic fishing gear used in the fishery is deployed either at the surface or in mid-water, which avoids the capture of anything other than pelagic species. Anecdotal reports and some quantitative evidence about pelagic trawl haul catch composition provide evidence that these measures are effective, because the catches of herring and sprat are reported to contain very few other species. The combination of EU, national and riparian management controls represents a “partial strategy” for managing potential impacts on secondary non-target species. The EU CFP and national legislation both identify an appropriate management outcome and incorporate the need to review measures to ensure that they remain effective. The available evidence indicates that there is no necessity for a strategy to manage impacts on “main” secondary non-target species, so no specific management controls have been introduced to address this issue. However, the management regime is clearly designed to address such impacts should they occur; hence there is considered to be a “partial strategy” that would prevent the trawl UoAs from adversely impacting non-target species. The SG60 and 80 requirements are therefore considered to be met. In the absence of a strategy, SG100 is not met. UoAs 3, 5, 7: Trap fisheries for herring The management controls that apply to fishing with traps derive from EU legislation, Finnish legislation, and also the relationship between the trap fishermen and riparian owners. Trap fishermen are subject to the same suite of EU and national statutory technical and effort (catch) controls as trawl fishermen. The mesh size used in traps must be 16mm or larger, and trap fishermen are also required to report all landings of fish from their traps. The Finnish Government introduced new fisheries legislation in 2015 to replace the earlier (1982) Act. The new legislation applies to all fish resources in Finland, whether they are marine or freshwater. It also sets out controls for both commercial and recreational fishing. The key features and objectives of this new Act are described in section 4.8.1.3.2 of this report. Very briefly, it creates an overall objective for sustainable management of all fish resources, and sets out a clear framework for the administration of Finnish sea waters, private coastal fisheries and inland freshwater areas. New arrangements for regional fisheries management were established under this Act, which will result in the creation of regional fisheries management plans.

Page 226 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA regularly PI 2.2.2 reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. In addition to this, national legislation imposes spatial and temporal controls on the location and operation of fish traps in order to protect migratory fish in coastal waters (traps are not permitted to be set within 3km of river mouths during the period 15th August – end of October). Trap fishermen are reported to set their traps at locations which favour the capture of their target fish, and in addition to the choice of mesh size, the design of the fish trap optimises the catch of the intended target species while discouraging the capture of non-target species. Trap fishing is only possible within the shallow coastal waters around Finland, and only in areas where the riparian owner permits fishing to take place. The spatial extent of the trap fishery is therefore quite limited (see Figure 49). Riparian owners are empowered by national legislation to confiscate unauthorised fishing gear. Anecdotal reports from all stakeholders interviewed during the site visit, including LUKE scientists, indicate that the combination of statutory controls, riparian ownership, and fishing practices are effective at keeping catches of non-target species very low in the herring trap fishery. The combination of EU, national and riparian management controls represents a “partial strategy” for managing potential impacts on secondary non-target species. The EU CFP and national legislation both identify an appropriate management outcome and incorporate the need to review measures to ensure that they remain effective. The available evidence indicates that there is no necessity for a strategy to manage impacts on “main” secondary non-target species, so no specific management controls have been introduced to address this issue. However, the management regime is clearly designed to address such impacts should they occur; hence there is considered to be a “partial strategy” that would prevent the trap UoAs from adversely impacting non-target species. The SG60 and 80 requirements are therefore considered to be met. In the absence of a strategy, SG100 is not met.

b Management strategy evaluation

Guidep The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high ost considered likely to work, basis for confidence that confidence that the based on plausible the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g. general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on some information information directly about comparison with similar directly about the UoA the UoA and/or species UoAs/species). and/or species involved. involved.

Met? Y Y N

Justific The management regime is evaluated in the context of information from all ation stakeholders, including LUKE scientists, which indicates that catches of secondary non-target species in the trawl and trap fisheries are very low indeed. UoAs 1, 2, 4, 5: Trawl fisheries for sprat and herring The partial strategy for managing the catch of secondary non-target species in the trawl fishery comprises EU and national legislation, coupled with control of fishing by riparian owners and fishing practices implemented by the trawl fleet to target herring and sprat specifically.

Page 227 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA regularly PI 2.2.2 reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. The new Finnish Fisheries Act was introduced in 2015 after several years of consultation with the fishing industry and stakeholders. The objective of this Act is to use the best available information to ensure the sustainable management of fish resources (§1 of this Act). The new management processes that are intended to deliver this objective at the regional level are due to deliver regional fisheries management plans in the next few years. The only secondary non-target species reported from the trawl fishery are 3-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). The increasing abundance of this species in the Bothnian Sea and Central Baltic Sea provides an objective basis for confidence that the management regime is working for this non-target species. Overall, the low level of catches of non-target species reported under the current management regime provides some objective basis for confidence that the management controls currently in place are working, which meets the SG60 and SG80 requirements for this SI. There is no evidence of any testing of the strategy or partial strategy, so the SG100 requirements are not met. UoAs 3, 5, 7: Trap fisheries for herring The partial strategy for managing the catch of secondary non-target species in the trawl fishery comprises EU and national legislation, coupled with control of fishing by riparian owners and fishing practices implemented by the trap fishermen (such as the design of fish traps) to target herring and specifically. The new Finnish Fisheries Act was introduced in 2015 after several years of consultation with the fishing industry and stakeholders. The objective of this Act is to use the best available information to ensure the sustainable management of fish resources (§1 of this Act). The new management processes that are intended to deliver this objective at the regional level are due to deliver regional fisheries management plans in the next few years. Overall, the low level of catches of non-target species reported under the current management regime provides some objective basis for confidence that the management controls currently in place are working, which meets the SG80 requirements for this SI, as well as the lower standard SG 60. There is no evidence of any testing of the strategy or partial strategy, so the SG100 requirements are not met.

c Management strategy implementation

Guidep There is some evidence There is clear evidence ost that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully successfully. and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a).

Met? Y N

Justific All UoAs ation Evidence of good compliance with regulations by both the trawl and trap fisheries was presented to the assessment team by the Ministry of Agriculture & Forestry (see section 13.2.4 of this report). LUKE scientists also confirmed that records of all fish

Page 228 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA regularly PI 2.2.2 reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. landings (both primary and secondary species) were submitted by fishermen, and the LUKE database shows records of landings for both primary and secondary species. The evidence of good compliance with regulations, coupled with the evidence that catches of secondary non-target species in all UoAs are negligible, meets the SG80 requirements for the SI. SG100 is not met because objectives have not been defined for any secondary non-target species, and because of the limited evidence available about catch composition (an issue that is addressed in the scoring of PI2.2.3).

d Shark finning

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

Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

Justific There is no evidence of any catches of sharks in any of the UoAs. This SI is therefore ation considered not relevant.

e Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch

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

appropriate. appropriate.

Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

Guidep All stakeholder comments and information available about the UoAs under ost assessment indicates that the catch of secondary non-target species is negligible in all of the UoAs. Any non-target species are retained and sold for fish meal, and are thus fully utilised. There are no reports of discarding or mortality of unwanted catch in any of the UoAs. This SI is therefore considered not relevant (see MSC FCR at SA3.5.3 and GSA 3.5.3.) Sections 4.7.1, 4.8.1 & 13.2 of this report; (Government of Finland 1982, EC 2005, 2006, Lundin 2014, Government of Finland 2015a, Bergström et al. 2015, LUKE References 2017b, Raitaniemi et al. 2017)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: See scoring calculation table.

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Page 229 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

10.5.5.1 PI 2.2.2 – Scoring Calculation for each UoA

SIa SIb SIc SId SIe Main / PI UoA Description (60, 80, (60, 80, (80, (60, 80, (60, 80, minor Score 100) 100) 100) 100) 100) 1 Sprat Trawl NA 80 80 80 NR NR 80 Bothnian Bay 2 NA 80 80 80 NR NR 80 Herring Trawl Bothnian Bay 3 NA 80 80 80 NR NR 80 Herring Trap Bothnian Sea 4 NA 80 80 80 NR NR 80 Herring Trawl Bothnian Sea 5 NA 80 80 80 NR NR 80 Herring Trap Central Baltic 6 NA 80 80 80 NR NR 80 Herring trawl Central Baltic 7 NA 80 80 80 NR NR 80 Herring Trap

Key: NA = Not Applicable to this element NR = Not Relevant - = No score awarded for SI

PI 2.2.3 – Secondary species information

Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is adequate to PI 2.2.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species.

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on main secondary species

Guidep Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is ost adequate to estimate the information is available available and adequate to impact of the UoA on the and adequate to assess assess with a high main secondary species the impact of the UoA on degree of certainty the with respect to status. main secondary species impact of the UoA on main with respect to status. secondary species with

respect to status.

OR OR

If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA:

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

Met? Y N N

Justific The information available to assess the catch of non-target species by the UoAs is ation described in section 4.7.1.2 of this report.

Page 230 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is adequate to PI 2.2.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. In summary, although there is good quantitative information available about the landings of all fish by trawl and trap fishing activities within all of the UoAs from the LUKE database, there is only qualitative and some limited quantitative information available about the actual catch composition from the targeted fishery for herring and sprats. The qualitative information available from all stakeholders at the site visit was consistent, and indicated that there is a very low catch of any non-target species in all of the UoAs (see section 13.2 of this report). LUKE has provided some evidence from trawl surveys to support these anecdotal reports. This quantitative information there are probably no “main” secondary non- target species caught in the pelagic trawl fisheries in the Central Baltic Sea and Bothnian Sea (UoAs 1, 4 & 6). Overall, there is good quantitative information available about the landings of all fish species from all fishers in the UoAs, consistent qualitative information about the catch composition in the UoAs, and some very limited information about catch composition. Thus for all of the UoAs, the SG60 requirements are met, but not the SG80 requirements.

b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species

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

Met? N

Justific The only species that have been identified as minor secondary species are 3-spined ation sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus) and smelt . It is possible that some other secondary non-target species may be caught in these UoAs as well, but the quantities of fish caught (as distinct from landed) have not been reported. Although excellent landings data have been provided, no quantitative information has been made available on the specific catch composition in any of the UoAs. The SG100 requirements are therefore not met.

c Information adequacy for management strategy

Guidep Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to ost support measures to support a partial strategy support a strategy to manage main secondary to manage main manage all secondary species. secondary species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective.

Met? Y Y N

Justific Excellent information is available about the landings of all species from all fisheries ation within all of the UoAs. This information is adequate to identify overall trends, and

Page 231 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is adequate to PI 2.2.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. would support a strategy for managing catches of non-target species in all Finnish fisheries (see for instance, LUKE 2017a). Although there are some shortcomings in the information available (notably the lack of any detailed catch data), all of the available information is that there are no “main” secondary species in the landings from any of the UoAs, and in fact that catches of non-target species are consistently low in all UoAs. This information is considered adequate to meet the SG60 and 80 requirements. SG100 is not met because this information is not adequate to support a strategy to manage all secondary species (i.e. both “main” and “minor”).

Section 4.7.1.2 of this report; HELCOM 2006, Bergström et al. 2015, LUKE 2017a, References 2017b

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: See scoring calculation table.

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

10.5.6.1 PI 2.2.3 – Scoring Calculation for each UoA

SIa SIc Main / (60, SIb (60, 80, Element PI UoA Description Species minor 80, (100) 100) Score Score 100) Sprat Trawl None Main 60 NA 80 70 1 3-spined 70 minor NA - - - stickleback Bothnian Bay None Main 60 NA 80 70 Herring Trawl 3-spined 2 70 stickleback minor NA - - - Smelt Bothnian Bay None Main 60 NA 80 70 Herring Trap 3-spined 3 70 stickleback minor NA - - - Smelt Bothnian Sea None Main 60 NA 80 70 Herring Trawl 3-spined 4 70 stickleback minor NA - - - Smelt Bothnian Sea None Main 60 NA 80 70 Herring Trap 3-spined 5 70 stickleback Minor NA - - - Smelt Central Baltic None Main 60 NA 80 70 Herring trawl 3-spined 6 70 stickleback minor NA - - - Smelt 7 None Main 60 NA 80 70 70

Page 232 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Central Baltic Smelt minor NA - - - Herring Trap

Key: NA = Not Applicable to this element NR = Not Relevant - = No score awarded for SI

PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP PI 2.3.1 species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

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

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

Met? See scoring calculation table

Justific The ETP species that are at risk of capture in the UoAs being considered in this ation assessment are identified, and their status reviewed in section 4.7.2 of this report. The ETP species that may interact with the UoAs are listed in Table 23. In summary, these are:- • Cormorants (Phallacrocorax carbo sinensis • Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) • Harbour / common seal (Halichoerus grypus) • Grey seal (Phoca vitulina vitulina) • Baltic ringed seal (Phoca hispida botnica) Although there are conservation measures in place for all of these species, the only species that is subject to a national or international limit set for protection or rebuilding is the harbour porpoise. Scoring issue (a) must therefore be scored for this species but not for the other species (see MSC FCR at SA3.10.1). Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) The status of the harbour porpoise population in the Baltic Sea is described in section 4.7.2.4.2.1 of this report. In summary, there are considered to be two sub- populations of harbour porpoise in the Baltic Sea: one in the Belt Sea to the south- west Baltic (which does not overlap with any of the UoAs under consideration here) and another, smaller, population in the Central Baltic (see Figure 36). This Central Baltic population overlaps with the areas fished by the Central Baltic sprat trawl fishery (UoA 1) and the Central Baltic herring trawl fishery (UoA 6). The harbour porpoise range does not extend into the Bothnian Sea, nor to the Finnish coast. ASCOBANS consider that the limit on bycatch for harbour porpoise should be 1.7% of the population or sub-population. The Central Baltic harbour porpoise population

Page 233 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP PI 2.3.1 species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species is currently estimated at around 599 individuals, indicating that the limit on bycatch should be around 10 individuals per year. The most recent report on the bycatch of marine mammals in fishing gear produced by the ICES Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (WGBYC) produced in 2016 records no catches of harbour porpoise in any pelagic trawl fisheries in the area covered by ICES (North East Atlantic, North Sea and Baltic Sea). A bycatch of harbour porpoise is reported in net fisheries in all areas. This pattern of bycatch is consistent with that reported in earlier studies, which found that harbour porpoise were very rarely caught in pelagic trawls in the Kattegat and were not reported to be caught at all in the Skagerrak or Baltic Sea around Gotland (Berggren 1994). The ICES WGBYC report is based on the reports made by EU Member States in accordance with EU Regulation 812/2004. It is noted that although some Baltic States have submitted annual reports in accordance with this Regulation, Finland has not done so since 2007 (see Annex 4, Tables 1 & 2 in ICES 2016j). Nevertheless ICES WGBYC concluded that on the basis of the evidence available the total bycatch of harbour porpoise was within ASBOBANS limits. With regard to cumulative impacts of MSC UoAs, the only UoA that overlaps with the UoAs under assessment and which has been assessed under MSC FCR v2.0 is the Latvian FPO sprat trawl fishery. The assessment team reported that fishery observers aboard the vessels working in this UoA recorded no cetacean bycatch. This information provides the basis for assessing each of the UoAs in the Finnish Baltic herring and sprat fisheries.

UOA 1: Central Baltic sprat trawl fishery UoA 6: Central Baltic herring trawl fishery These pelagic trawl fisheries overlap with the known range of harbour porpoise in the Baltic, and include the range of the small Central Baltic sub-population of harbour porpoise. The available evidence is that harbour porpoise are only rarely caught in this fishing métier, even in the southern Baltic where both fishing intensity and the abundance of harbour porpoises is higher. Information on cetacean bycatch and monitoring effort is compiled by ICES WGBYC, and although Finland has not submitted information since 2007, all of the available evidence from other nations’ vessels working in these UoAs is that there is no bycatch of harbour porpoise. The recent assessment of the Lithuanian FPO sprat trawl fishery against the MSC standard reached the same conclusion. On the basis of the available evidence, there is no evidence that the Central Baltic pelagic trawl fisheries for either herring or sprat have a harbour porpoise bycatch, meeting the SG60 and SG80 requirements both for the individual UoAs and in respect of their cumulative impact. The SG100 requirements for this SI are not considered to be met because it is clear that there are some data deficiencies which prevent there from being a high degree of certainty about the level of harbour porpoise in the Baltic Sea overall.

UoAs 2-5: Herring Trap and trawl fisheries in the Bothnian Bay & Bothnian Sea UoA 7: Central Baltic herring trap fishery

Page 234 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP PI 2.3.1 species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species These UoAs are all located beyond the known range of harbour porpoise. There are no records of any harbour porpoise bycatch by any fishing métier from any Member State in the ICES subdivisions in these fishery areas. The only records are from subdivisions 22 & 23, which overlap with the Belt Sea harbour porpoise sub- population. It is therefore considered highly likely that these UoAs operate within the ASCOBANS limits both individually and cumulatively, meeting the SG60 and SG80 requirements.

b Direct effects

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

Met? See scoring calculation table

Justific Information about the known direct effects of Baltic fisheries and the métiers in the ation UoAs under consideration is summarised in section 4.7.2 of this report. The impact of each UoA on each ETP species element is considered below. Cormorants Cormorants are coastal piscivorous bird species. There is a risk that they could become entangled in coastal fish traps. Interactions with pelagic trawls are considered unlikely to arise because trawling in coastal waters is essentially prevented by the management regime in Finland, whereby the coastal waters are privately owned. The information available from HELCOM and from the “INTERCAFE” project (Interdisciplinary Initiative to Reduce Pan-European Cormorant-Fisheries Conflicts) indicates that cormorants are thriving in the Baltic Sea. In Finland, the first breeding pair of cormorants was recorded in 1996 and there are presently thought to be just over 25,000 breeding pairs. No reports of cormorant bycatch in trap or trawl fisheries in any of the UoAs have been submitted to the assessment team or documented in the reports that have been reviewed in this assessment. Cormorants: All UoAs The absence of reports of any direct impacts (bycatch) of cormorants in any of the UoAs, coupled with the sustained and rapid growth of the cormorant population provides a high degree of confidence that no human activities are having a significant detrimental effect on this species in any of the UoAs, meeting that SG60, 80 and 100 requirements. Harbour porpoise Harbour porpoise: UoAs 1 & 6 (Central Baltic Sprat and Herring trawl fisheries) The available evidence is that there are no direct interactions between the Central Baltic trawl fisheries for sprat or herring and the Central Baltic harbour porpoise sub- population (see scoring rationale at SIa above). This information about known direct effects is adequate to demonstrate that these UoAs are highly unlikely to hinder the recovery of have any significant detrimental

Page 235 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP PI 2.3.1 species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species effect on harbour porpoises. The information available about direct impacts is considered adequate to meet the SG60 and 80 requirements, but not the SG100 requirements. Harbour porpoise: UoAs 2-5 & 7 There is no spatial overlap between these UoAs and the current geographic range of harbour porpoise (see Figure 36). It is not therefore appropriate to score this element for these UoAs. Harbour seal Information about the distribution and status of harbour seals in the Baltic Sea is set out in section 4.7.2.4.3.1 of this report. In brief, there are two populations in the Baltic Sea. The smaller population in the Kalmar Sound lies at the south-western end of the Central Baltic herring and sprat trawl fishery UoAs. Although this population is considered by HELCOM to be “Vulnerable” it has been recovering from the impact of the Phocine Distemper Virus epidemics of 1988 and 2002 at around 10% per year. The most recent ICES WGBYC report does not record any seal bycatch in the pelagic trawl fisheries in this area. Harbour seal: UoAs 1 & 6 (Central Baltic Sprat and Herring trawl fisheries) The available evidence indicates that the harbour seal population in these UoAs is recovering at a rate of 10% per year following the Phocine Distemper Virus outbreaks of 1988 and 2002. There are no records of any seal bycatch in the pelagic trawl fisheries in this area. The SG60 and 80 requirements are therefore met. Harbour seal: UoAs 2-5 & 7 There is no spatial overlap between these UoAs and the current geographic range of harbour seals (see Figure 38). It is not therefore appropriate to score this element for these UoAs. Grey seal The grey seal population in the Baltic Sea overlaps all of the UoAs under consideration in this assessment (see Figure 40). The population is presently growing rapidly, from an estimate of 2,000 individuals in the late 1970s to 28,000 individuals in 2012. This information provides confidence overall that none of the UoAs can be hindering the recovery of this species. Given the spatial distribution of this species, and the likelihood that the trawl and trap métiers pose a different level of risk to grey seals, it is appropriate to consider the trawl UoAs and trap UoAs together. Grey seals: Trawl UoAs (1, 2, 4, 6) Although it is known that seals can be caught in pelagic trawls, the most recent ICES WGBYC report does not record any grey seal impacts from this métier in the Baltic Sea, and estimates at total grey seal bycatch of 21 individuals throughout the North East Atlantic, North Sea and Baltic Sea. The combination of the growth of the grey seal population and the evidence available that interactions between grey seals and pelagic trawls are very infrequent provides a high degree of confidence that the trawl UoAs have no significant detrimental impact on this ETP species, meeting the SG60, 80 and 100 requirements. Grey seals: Trap UoAs (3, 5, 7) Coastal traps are known to catch seals, but at a much lower rate than coastal gill net fisheries. A recent study of bycatch reporting from coastal gill net and trap fisheries indicates that fishery-dependent reports are likely to considerably underestimate the

Page 236 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP PI 2.3.1 species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species level of interaction with seals: a total reported bycatch of 284 grey seals in Baltic trap fisheries (of which 50 were attributed to Finnish traps) was considered likely to represent an actual bycatch of around 2,000 animals (Vanhatalo et al. 2014). Despite the uncertainty about the precise level of impact of fish traps on grey seals, the evidence of the growing grey seal population through the Baltic Sea (Figure 39) indicates that the trap UoAs are highly likely to not hinder recovery of grey seals in the Baltic Sea, meeting the SG60 and 80 requirements. With better information about the level of grey seal bycatch in the trap fishery the SG100 requirements could be attained. Baltic ringed seal The Baltic ringed seal has a wide distribution that overlaps all of the UoAs under consideration in this assessment (Figure 41). The population of this species was estimated to have fallen to around 5,000 individuals in the late 1970s, but has been growing at a rate of over 4% per year since 1988 in the Bothnian Bay, where around 70% of the Baltic population is resident (Figure 42). The historic decline of this species resulted from targeted hunting and the impacts of organochlorine pollutants. The main threat to Baltic ringed seals at present is considered to be the reducing extent of sea ice which is important for breeding success. Given the spatial distribution of this species, and the likelihood that the trawl and trap métiers pose a different level of risk to Baltic ringed seals, it is appropriate to consider the trawl UoAs and trap UoAs together. Baltic ringed seal: Trawl UoAs (1, 2, 4, 6) Although it is known that seals can be caught in pelagic trawls, the most recent ICES WGBYC report does not record any Baltic ringed seal impacts from this métier; however the limited range of the species within the ICES WGBYC study area makes interactions outside the Baltic Sea highly unlikely; the lack of interactions could in part be due to the limited range of the species. Nevertheless, the growth of the Baltic ringed seal population makes it highly likely not to hinder recovery of Baltic ringed seals, meeting the SG60 and 80 requirements. With better information about the level of Baltic ringed seal bycatch in the trap fishery the SG100 requirements could be attained. Baltic ringed seal: Trap UoAs (3, 5, 7) Coastal traps are known to catch seals, but at a much lower rate than coastal gill net fisheries. A recent study of bycatch reporting from coastal gill net and trap fisheries indicates that fishery-dependent reports are likely to considerably underestimate the level of interaction with seals. Despite the uncertainty about the precise level of impact of fish traps on Baltic ringed seals, the evidence of the growing population through the Baltic Sea and in the Bothnian Bay in particular (Figure 42) indicates that the trap UoAs are highly likely to not hinder recovery of Baltic ringed seals, meeting the SG60 and 80 requirements. With better information about the level of seal bycatch in the trap fishery the SG100 requirements could be attained.

c Indirect effects

Guidep Indirect effects have been There is a high degree of ost considered and are confidence that there are thought to be highly likely no significant detrimental

Page 237 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP PI 2.3.1 species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species to not create unacceptable indirect effects of the impacts. fishery on ETP species.

Met? See table below. See table below.

Justific The potential indirect effects of fishing activities on the different ETP species that ation could be affected by the UoAs under consideration in this assessment are assessed below. The ICES WGMME report produced in 2015 considered the indirect effects of a wide range of human activities on marine mammals in the Baltic Sea (see Table 24). This assessment identified that the removal of prey species that are important in the diet of these mammals could have an impact on individuals but that impacts at the population level were not clear. The INTERCAFE project looked at interactions between cormorants and fisheries; it concluded that although cormorants and fishermen may be competing for the same fishery resource, this has not hindered the growth of the cormorant population throughout the Baltic Sea. The role of sprat and herring in the ecosystems for each UoA has been modelled (see sections 4.6.6 & 4.7.4 of this report). In the Central Baltic Sea, both sprat and herring are considered to be a low trophic level species which are an important prey item for species at higher trophic levels. In the Bothnian Sea and Bothnian Bay the dependence of higher trophic level species on sprat and herring is less marked. The indirect effect of fishing activities on the ETP species in each UoA is most likely to result from depletion of the primary species in each UoA to a level that would adversely affect any of the ETP species. It is therefore appropriate to consider the status of the target species in each UoA with respect to the ETP species in that area. UoA1: Central Baltic sprat trawl fishery The Central Baltic sprat stock is regarded as a key low trophic level species. ICES have reviewed the role of this species in the Central Baltic ecosystem, and have identified the stock status and fishing mortality levels that should enable this species to fulfil its role as a prey species for animal at higher trophic levels. The stock status and fishing mortality rates are considered by ICES to meet ecosystem requirements. This information demonstrates that the indirect effects of fishing on this species’ role in the ecosystem have been considered. All of the ETP species that occur in this area are increasing in abundance. This information provides indicates that there appear to be no unacceptable impacts on any ETP species in this UOA, meeting the SG80 requirements. UoAs 2 & 3: Bothnian Bay herring trap and trawl fisheries. Ecosystem modelling indicates that herring are not considered to be a key low trophic level species in this area. Both ICES and INTERCAFE have considered the indirect impacts that fishing could have on cormorants and marine mammals in this area. The population of all of the ETP species that occur in this area (Baltic ringed seals, grey seals and cormorants) are increasing. This information provides evidence that indirect effects have been considered and are highly likely to not create unacceptable impacts, meeting the SG80 requirements. UoAs 4 & 5: Bothnian Sea herring trap and trawl fisheries. Ecosystem modelling indicates that herring are not considered to be a key low trophic level species in this area. Both ICES and INTERCAFE have considered the indirect impacts that fishing could have on cormorants and marine mammals in this area. The population of all of the ETP species that occur in this area (Baltic ringed seals, grey seals and cormorants) are increasing. This information provides evidence that

Page 238 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP PI 2.3.1 species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species indirect effects have been considered and are highly likely to not create unacceptable impacts, meeting the SG80 requirements. UoAs 6 & 7: Central Baltic herring trawl & trap fisheries The Central Baltic herring stock is regarded as a key low trophic level species. ICES have reviewed the role of this species in the Central Baltic ecosystem, and have identified the stock status and fishing mortality levels that should enable this species to fulfil its role as a prey species for animal at higher trophic levels. The stock status and fishing mortality rates are considered by ICES to meet ecosystem requirements. This information demonstrates that the indirect effects of fishing on this species’ role in the ecosystem have been considered. All of the ETP species that occur in this area are increasing in abundance. This information provides indicates that there appear to be no unacceptable impacts on any ETP species in this UOA, meeting the SG80 requirements.

Section 4.6.6 4.7.2 & 4.7.4 of this report; Sandberg et al. 2000, Holmgren et al. 2012, ICES 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, HELCOM 2013a, 2013b, 2013c, 2013d, 2013e, References 2017c, 2017d, Vanhatalo et al. 2014, Oksanen et al. 2015, Königson et al. 2015, SAMBAH 2016, INTERCAFE 2017, IUCN 2017

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: See scoring calculation table

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Page 239 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

10.5.7.1 PI 2.3.1 Scoring Calculation SIa SIb SIc Element PI UoA ETP species (60, 80, 100) (60, 80, 100) (80, 100 only) Score Score Cormorant NS 100 80 90 Harbour porpoise 80 80 80 80 1 Harbour seal NS 80 80 80 85 Grey seal NS 100 80 90 Baltic ringed seal NS 80 80 80 Cormorant NS 100 80 90 Harbour porpoise NA NA NA NA 2 Harbour seal NA NA NA NA 85 Grey seal NS 100 80 90 Baltic ringed seal NS 80 80 80 Cormorant NS 100 80 90 Harbour porpoise NA NA NA NA 3 Harbour seal NA NA NA NA 85 Grey seal NS 80 80 80 Baltic ringed seal NS 80 80 80 Cormorant NS 100 80 90 Harbour porpoise NA NA NA NA 4 Harbour seal NA NA NA NA 85 Grey seal NS 100 80 90 Baltic ringed seal NS 80 80 80 Cormorant NS 100 80 90 Harbour porpoise NA NA NA NA 5 Harbour seal NA NA NA NA 85 Grey seal NS 80 80 80 Baltic ringed seal NS 80 80 80 Cormorant NS 100 80 90 Harbour porpoise 80 80 80 80 6 Harbour seal NS 80 80 80 85 Grey seal NS 100 80 90 Baltic ringed seal NS 80 80 80 Cormorant NS 100 80 90 Harbour porpoise 80 80 80 80 7 Harbour seal NS 80 80 80 85 Grey seal NS 80 80 80 Baltic ringed seal NS 80 80 80

Key NS Not Scored. No international or national limits set for this species (FCR SA3.10.1). NA Not applicable. There is no interaction between the métier and the species concerned because there is no spatial overlap in distribution.

Page 240 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 2.3.2 – ETP species management strategy

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

A Management strategy in place (national and international requirements)

Guidep There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a ost place that minimise the place for managing the comprehensive strategy UoA-related mortality of UoA’s impact on ETP in place for managing the ETP species, and are species, including UoA’s impact on ETP expected to be highly measures to minimise species, including likely to achieve national mortality, which is measures to minimise and international designed to be highly mortality, which is requirements for the likely to achieve national designed to achieve protection of ETP species. and international above national and requirements for the international requirements protection of ETP species. for the protection of ETP species.

Met? Y Y N

Justific As noted for the scoring of PI2.3.1 SIa, the only ETP species identified for the UoAs ation which is subject to international or national requirements for protection is the harbour porpoise, Phocoena phocoena. This SI is therefore only scored for this species (see MSC FCR at SA3.11.2). Harbour porpoise, Phocoena phocoena The international requirement for the protection of harbour porpoise is set by ASCOBANS as the requirement to ensure that mortality of populations or sub- populations is kept below 1.7% per annum. This requirement is achieved through combination of international agreements (including ASCOBANS), EU legislation and national legislation. The international agreements that help to manage impacts on harbour porpoise include ASCOBANS itself and the ASCOBANS Recovery Plan for Baltic Harbour Porpoises (known as the “Jastarnia Plan”) which was agreed in 2016. This recovery plan serves as a framework for international collaboration towards the goal of restoring the population of at least 80% of carrying capacity. Finland has been a party to the ASCOBANS treaty since 1999 and is an active participant in ASCOBANS projects, such as the SAMBAH monitoring project for harbour porpoise. Both EU fisheries and nature conservation legislation acts to manage impacts on harbour porpoise. The “Habitats Directive” (Directive 92/43/EC) grants strict protection to all species of cetacean, and Article 12 requires Member States to monitor and report incidental capture or killing. Harbour porpoise are listed in Annex II has a species whose conservation may require the creation of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), but there are no SACs in the Baltic that have been created for the protection of harbour porpoise at present. The EU Common Fisheries Policy (Regulation 1380/2013) sets out obligations to minimise impacts of fishing on marine ecosystems, both in the preamble and in Article 2(3). The CFP allows for technical measures to be specified in order to minimise negative impacts on ecosystems and reduce the capture of ETP species (Article 8(2)(b)). It also allows for multiannual plans (such as the Baltic MAP agreed in 2016)

Page 241 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species. Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. to set out conservation measures to minimise the negative impact of fishing on the ecosystem. In 1998 the EC introduced measures to protect cetaceans from marine fisheries under the CFP (EC Regulation, 88/98 subsequently amended by Regulations 812/2004 and 809/2007 (EC 2004, 2007)). Whilst principally directed at drift net fisheries, these measures also apply to trawl fisheries. They require, inter alia, that observers are carried on fishing vessels of more than 15m overall length to monitor cetacean by-catch, and that Member States establish appropriate means for recording bycatch incidence. At the national level, the Finnish Government has legislation in place (the Nature Conservation Act 1996) which protects all species of wild birds, cetaceans and pinnipeds, and establishes a basis for applying further protection measures if they are considered necessary. The strategy is made up of measures, therefore meeting SG60. Taken together, this framework of international agreements, EU legislation and national legislation creates a strategy for the protection of harbour porpoise that is designed to achieve the ASCOBANS targets, and has been demonstrably effective at doing so (on the basis of the low reported bycatch rates and the recovery of the population). This meets the SG80 requirements for the UoAs that are likely to encounter this species (UoAs 1 & 2), and which also applies throughout the Baltic Sea to the other UoAs. The SG100 requirements are not considered to be met because there is no evidence that the strategy in place has been designed to exceed international requirements.

B Management strategy in place (alternative)

Guidep There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a ost place that are expected to place that is expected to comprehensive strategy ensure the UoA does not ensure the UoA does not in place for managing ETP hinder the recovery of ETP hinder the recovery of ETP species, to ensure the species. species. UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species

Met? Y Y N

Justific This SI applies to the ETP species other than harbour porpoise. ation This SI is reviewed in the context of the information presented in section 4.7.2 of this report which shows that populations of all of the ETP species that may interact with the UoAs being considered here are increasing in the Baltic Sea; there is no evidence that any of the UoAs are hindering the recovery of any ETP species. For all of the ETP species considered (cormorants, harbour seals, grey seals and Baltic ringed seals) there are measures in place that minimise interactions with ETP species. These measures include the fishing métiers used in each UoA (pelagic trawls and fish traps), which are considered less likely than other métiers (such as gill nets) to have a direct impact on ETP species. The evidence from stakeholders consulted during this assessment indicates that these measures result in a very low bycatch of non-target species in the Central Baltic, Bothnian Bay and Bothnian Sea fisheries, meeting the SG60 requirements for all UoAs and all ETP species. The international agreements, EU and national legislation in place for the UoAs provide a strategy for ensuring that the UoAs do not hinder the recovery of any ETP species. The components of this strategy include the EU Habitat Directive (which

Page 242 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species. Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. sets out management measures for cetaceans and pinnipeds); the EU Birds Directive (which sets out management measures to protect birds); the EU Common Fisheries Policy (which addresses ecosystem impacts); and Finnish national nature conservation legislation, which protects birds, cetaceans and pinnipeds. The Finnish Government has also produced a seal management plan which sets out additional management actions (such as the creation of seal conservation areas, see Figure 37 of this report). This legislation at the EU and national level provides a management strategy that applies to all of the ETP species and all of the UoAs, and which meets the SG80 requirements. There is no evidence of a comprehensive strategy being in place for any of the ETP species or UoAs under consideration, so the SG100 requirements are not considered to be met.

c Management strategy evaluation

Guidep The measures are There is an objective The ost considered likely to basis for confidence that strategy/comprehensive work, based on plausible the measures/strategy will strategy is mainly based argument (e.g., general work, based on on information directly experience, theory or information directly about about the fishery and/or comparison with similar the fishery and/or the species involved, and a fisheries/species). species involved. quantitative analysis supports high confidence that the strategy will work.

Met? Y Y N

Justific There is good quantitative information available about the status of the ETP species ation considered likely to interact with the UoAs, and also a mixture of quantitative and qualitative information available which provides an indication of whether the measures and strategy will work. The population status for all of the ETP species concerned is well documented, and is reported in section 4.7.2 of this report. In summary, the populations of all of the ETP species (cormorants, harbour porpoises, harbour seals, grey seals and Baltic ringed seals) are all increasing within the UoA areas. Stakeholders have provided qualitative feedback indicating that catches of ETP species are very rare in either the trawl or trap UoAs under assessment. This qualitative information supplemented by information from scientific studies of ETP interactions with the trap fishery and observer records from pelagic trawlers. The research into trap fishery interactions with ETP species indicates that there are limited interactions with seals for this métier, but no evidence of interactions with cormorants or harbour porpoise. Observer records and ICES WGBYC reports suggest that there is little or no known interaction between pelagic trawlers and harbour porpoise. Overall, the evidence of growing populations of each ETP species coupled with low levels of interaction with each fishing métier in the UoA areas provides an objective basis for confidence that the management strategy in place is presently working, which meets the SG60 and SG80 requirements for each ETP species and each UoA.

Page 243 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species. Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. In the absence of a quantitative analysis of the strategy to support a high level of confidence that it will work, SG100 is not met.

d Management strategy implementation

Guidep There is some evidence There is clear evidence ost that the that the measures/strategy is strategy/comprehensive being implemented strategy is being successfully. implemented successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a) or (b).

Met? Y

Justific The available evidence is that catches of ETP species are negligible in the trawl ation UoAs, and occur at a very low level in the trap UoAs. The management regime in place requires that any catches of ETP species are reported. There were no reports of any transgressions of the management regime relating to ETP species protection by any Finnish fishermen. This information, along with the evidence that the populations of all of the ETP species concerned are growing meets the SG80 requirements.

e Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species

Guidep There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial review ost potential effectiveness of the potential of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative measures to practicality of alternative practicality of alternative minimise UoA-related measures to minimise measures to minimise mortality of ETP species. UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality ETP ETP species and they are species, and they are implemented as implemented, as appropriate. appropriate.

Met? Y Y N

Justific The effectiveness of measures to minimise UoA related mortality is kept under review ation by the ICES Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (WGBYC) which has met regularly since 2009. WGBYC reports and reviews progress being made with mitigation measures by Member States; for instance the 2016 WGBYC report included a report on the development of a Porpoise Alarm in German waters; seabird mitigation measures being tested in Polish fisheries; and the development of alternative fishing gears in Swedish and Danish waters to mitigate seal depredation. The Finnish Government has encouraged the implementation of such mitigation measures by, for instance, subsidising the purchase of fish traps that minimise seal catch and depredation. The work of the Finnish Government in producing a management plan for the Finnish Sea populations, participation in ASCOBANS projects (such as the SAMBAH survey), and participation in the INTERCAFE project looking at cormorant interactions demonstrates that measures to minimise mortality of all ETP species is also being kept under review at the national level.

Page 244 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species. Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. In addition to this work at the international and national level, scientists from research institution around the Baltic Sea are engaged in various projects to monitor ETP bycatch in fishing gear and to develop means of mitigating adverse impacts, for instance through the testing of new types of fishing gear. The regular reviews of measures to minimise mortality of ETP species that are carried out by ICES WGBYC coupled with the occasional reviews that have been carried out by the Finnish Government and Baltic scientists meet the SG60 and SG80 requirements for each ETP species in all métiers. In the absence of a biennial review of alternative measures, SG100 is not met.

(ASCOBANS 1992, 2016, 2017a, 2017c, 2017b, EC 1992, 1997, 2004, 2004, 2009a, Government of Finland 1993, 1996, 1997, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2007, References EU 2013, Lundin 2014, Oksanen et al. 2015, Königson et al. 2015, ICES 2016k, Calamnius 2017, INTERCAFE 2017)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: See scoring calculation table

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Page 245 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

10.5.8.1 PI 2.3.2: Scoring calculation table

SIa SIb SIc SId SIe Element PI UoA ETP species (60, 80, (60, 80, (60, 80, (80, (60, 80, Score Score 100) 100) 100) 100) 100) Cormorant NS 80 80 80 80 80 Harbour porpoise 80 NS 80 80 80 80 1 Harbour seal NS 80 80 80 80 80 80 Grey seal NS 80 80 80 80 80 Baltic ringed seal NS 80 80 80 80 80 Cormorant NS 80 80 80 80 80 Harbour porpoise NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 Harbour seal NA NA NA NA NA NA 80 Grey seal NS 80 80 80 80 80 Baltic ringed seal NS 80 80 80 80 80 Cormorant NS 80 80 80 80 80 Harbour porpoise NA NA NA NA NA NA 3 Harbour seal NA NA NA NA NA NA 80 Grey seal NS 80 80 80 80 80 Baltic ringed seal NS 80 80 80 80 80 Cormorant NS 80 80 80 80 80 Harbour porpoise NA NA NA NA NA NA 4 Harbour seal NA NA NA NA NA NA 80 Grey seal NS 80 80 80 80 80 Baltic ringed seal NS 80 80 80 80 80 Cormorant NS 80 80 80 80 80 Harbour porpoise NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 Harbour seal NA NA NA NA NA NA 80 Grey seal NS 80 80 80 80 80 Baltic ringed seal NS 80 80 80 80 80 Cormorant NS 80 80 80 80 80 Harbour porpoise 80 NS 80 80 80 80 6 Harbour seal NS 80 80 80 80 80 80 Grey seal NS 80 80 80 80 80 Baltic ringed seal NS 80 80 80 80 80 Cormorant NS 80 80 80 80 80 Harbour porpoise 80 NS 80 80 80 80 7 Harbour seal NS 80 80 80 80 80 80 Grey seal NS 80 80 80 80 80 Baltic ringed seal NS 80 80 80 80 80

Key NS Not Scored. No international or national limits set for this species (FCR SA3.10.1). NA Not applicable. There is no interaction between the métier and the species concerned because there is no spatial overlap in distribution.

Page 246 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 2.3.3 – ETP species information

Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including:

PI 2.3.3 • Information for the development of the management strategy; • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and • Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species.

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts

Guidep Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is ost adequate to estimate the information is adequate to available to assess with a UoA related mortality on assess the UoA related high degree of certainty ETP species. mortality and impact and the magnitude of UoA- to determine whether the related impacts,

UoA may be a threat to mortalities and injuries OR protection and recovery of and the consequences the ETP species. for the status of ETP species.

If RBF is used to score PI 2.3.1 for the UoA: OR

Qualitative information is If RBF is used to score PI adequate to estimate 2.3.1 for the UoA: productivity and Some quantitative susceptibility attributes information is adequate to for ETP species. assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species.

Met? Y N N

Justific For each of the UoAs under consideration, the only information about mortality of ation ETP species that has been available for this assessment is qualitative; no quantitative information has been presented to the assessment team about the mortality of ETP species in any of the UoAs. Whilst the qualitative information provided from the UoAs, coupled with quantitative information from other sources and the good information about the status of ETP species has been sufficient to allow the assessment of ETP species interactions, this information only satisfies the SG60 requirements for this SI. The lack of quantitative data means the SG 80 level is not met.

b Information adequacy for management strategy

Guidep Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to ost support measures to measure trends and support a manage the impacts on support a strategy to comprehensive strategy ETP species. manage impacts on ETP to manage impacts, species. minimize mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives.

Page 247 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including:

PI 2.3.3 • Information for the development of the management strategy; • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and • Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species.

Met? Y N N

Justific The qualitative information from the fishery concerning ETP species interactions, ation coupled with monitoring information about the status of these species, along with information about interactions between similar fisheries and ETP species is sufficient to support measures to manage impacts on ETP species, meeting the SG60 requirements. However, in the absence of quantitative information from the fishery describing the extent of interactions and the effectiveness of mitigation or management measures, the SG80 requirements are not met.

(Vanhatalo et al. 2014, Oksanen et al. 2015, Königson et al. 2015, ICES 2016k, References INTERCAFE 2017)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: See scoring calculation table

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Page 248 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

10.5.9.1 PI2.3.3: Scoring calculation

SIa SIb Element PI UoA ETP species (60, 80, (60, 80, Score Score 100) 100) Cormorant 60 60 60 Harbour porpoise NS 60 60 1 Harbour seal 60 60 60 60 Grey seal 60 60 60 Baltic ringed seal 60 60 60 Cormorant 60 60 60 Harbour porpoise NA NA NA 2 Harbour seal NA NA NA 60 Grey seal 60 60 60 Baltic ringed seal 60 60 60 Cormorant 60 60 60 Harbour porpoise NA NA NA 3 Harbour seal NA NA NA 60 Grey seal 60 60 60 Baltic ringed seal 60 60 60 Cormorant 60 60 60 Harbour porpoise NA NA NA 4 Harbour seal NA NA NA 60 Grey seal 60 60 60 Baltic ringed seal 60 60 60 Cormorant 60 60 60 Harbour porpoise NA NA NA 5 Harbour seal NA NA NA 60 Grey seal 60 60 60 Baltic ringed seal 60 60 60 Cormorant 60 60 60 Harbour porpoise 60 60 60 6 Harbour seal 60 60 60 60 Grey seal 60 60 60 Baltic ringed seal 60 60 60 Cormorant 60 60 60 Harbour porpoise 60 60 60 7 Harbour seal 60 60 60 60 Grey seal 60 60 60 Baltic ringed seal 60 60 60

Key NA Not applicable. There is no interaction between the métier and the species concerned because there is no spatial overlap in distribution.

Page 249 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Commonly encountered habitat status

Guidep The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that the ost reduce structure and unlikely to reduce UoA is highly unlikely to function of the commonly structure and function of reduce structure and encountered habitats to a the commonly function of the commonly point where there would encountered habitats to a encountered habitats to a be serious or irreversible point where there would point where there would harm. be serious or irreversible be serious or irreversible harm. harm.

Trawls Y Y Y

Traps Y Y N

Justific For the purposes of this scoring issue “commonly encountered habitats” are ation considered by the MSC to be a habitat that “…regularly comes into contact with the gear used by the UoA…” and “serious or irreversible harm” is “...reductions in habitat structure and function […] such that the habitat would be unable to recover at least 80% of its structure and function within 5-20 years if fishing were to cease entirely.” (MSC FCR at §SA3.13.3 & §SA3.13.4). All of the UoAs under consideration use fishing gear that is designed to catch pelagic fish swimming in the water column. The habitat that the fishing gear operates in most of the time is sea water, and there is no published evidence that the operation of either trawls (UoAs 1, 2, 4 & 6) or traps (UoAs 3, 5 & 7) can cause any harm to sea water. There is a possibility that seabed habitats could be impacted by fishing gear. For the trawl UoAs, this could occur from time to time by accident. For the trap UoAs, there is an interaction with the seabed associated with the anchoring of the traps. The likelihood and nature of such interactions with commonly encountered habitats are considered for each métier below. Trawl UoAs (1,2,4 & 6). The pelagic trawls used in the herring and sprat fisheries are not designed or constructed for contact with the seabed. The mesh of the nets is not sufficiently robust for this, and the footrope of the gear is very light (Figure 6). Skippers of fishing vessels use sonar transponders to determine the position of the fishing gear in the water column to avoid contact with the seabed. Information on catch and landings composition (section 4.7.1.2 of this report) supports this view, with no catches of demersal species reported from the trawl fishery in any of the UoAs. No evidence has been presented of any studies of the frequency with which pelagic trawls in these UoAs may contact the seabed. Information is available to identify the likelihood of pelagic trawls in these UoAs causing serious or irreversible harm to seabed habitats. This comprises the maps of seabed habitats (Figure 43) and of fishing activity (Figure 45); generic information about the impacts of fishing gears and sensitivity of marine habitats to harm (such as Jennings and Kaiser 1998). On this basis of this information, it is clear that the seabed beneath the areas where pelagic trawlers operate in all of the UoAs is typically mixed sediments, sand or mud. These are habitats types that are quite resilient to impacts from light trawl gear (unlike rock and reef habitats). The habitat types beneath the trawl grounds are also very extensive in each UoA.

Page 250 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, PI 2.4.1 considered on the basis of the area covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. Recent evidence from the BENTHIS study of impacts on the seabed in European fisheries overall which concluded that physical impacts of pelagic fisheries is “marginal” (Eigaard et al. 2013). The available information is therefore that pelagic trawls do not regularly come into contact with the seabed; that the seabed types beneath the main fishing areas are both widespread and resilient; and that the impacts of pelagic fisheries on benthic habitats are considered to be “marginal”. On this basis, there seem to be no “commonly encountered” benthic habitats, and the risk of the fishery causing serious or irreversible harm to them is negligible. This evidence meets the SG60, 80 and 100 requirements. Trap UoAs (3, 5, 7). The fish traps used in these UoAs are not mobile; they are anchored to the seabed at specific locations along the coast (see Figure 7). The number of traps operated in the fishery is monitored and regulated by the riparian owners and ELY. Fishing effort in these UoAs (measures by the number of operators and traps) is decreasing.

Each fish trap has between 20 and 45 anchoring poles or seabed anchors. The fish traps and anchors are removed at the end of fishing operations each year, and re- deployed at the same location the following year. In a recent assessment of the impacts of various types of fishing gear, the impacts of fish traps was considered to be limited to the catch of non-target species (Donaldson et al. 2010). However, the anchoring of fishing gear to the seabed can have an immediate local impact on benthic habitats (Jennings and Kaiser 1998). In this instance the fish traps are all anchored in shallow waters and on seabed types that are widespread in each UoA, typically “Photic mixed sediments” (see Figure 43). The total area occupied by all of the fish traps in each UoA therefore represents a very small proportion of the total area of these habitat types. The available information about the trap fishery indicates that although they commonly encounter “Photic mixed sediments” it is highly unlikely that this métier would cause serious or irreversible to these habitats, given their wide distribution and the very limited extent of the impacts from the fishing gear. On this basis, there is evidence available to meet the SG60 and 80 requirements. There is no fishery- specific evidence available to describe the interaction with commonly encountered habitats, so SG100 is not met.

b VME habitat status

Guidep The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that the ost reduce structure and unlikely to reduce UoA is highly unlikely to function of the VME structure and function of reduce structure and habitats to a point where the VME habitats to a function of the VME there would be serious or point where there would habitats to a point where irreversible harm. be serious or irreversible there would be serious or harm. irreversible harm.

Trawls Y Y N

Traps Y Y N

Justific For the purposes of this scoring issue “vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs)” are ation considered by the MSC to be a habitat that ““…shall be defined as is done in paragraph 42 subparagraphs (i)-(v) of the FAO Guidelines…” (i.e., that they have uniqueness or rarity, functional significance, fragility, life history traits that make

Page 251 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, PI 2.4.1 considered on the basis of the area covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. recovery difficult, and/or structural complexity) and “serious or irreversible harm” is “..reductions in habitat structure and function below 80% of its unimpacted level.” (MSC FCR at §SA3.13.3 & §SA3.13.4). The location of VMEs in the UOAs has been identified by habitat surveys (see Figure 43) and subsequent protection of many of the areas that meet the VME definition above (see Figure 44). HELCOM has also produced a red list of biotopes (see Table 25). All of the VMEs that have been identified in the Baltic Sea are located on the seabed, and as noted in the scoring of SIa above, the fishing métiers used in all of the UoAs have very little impact on the seabed. This is either because seabed contact is very infrequent (for pelagic trawls) or only affects a very small area (for fish traps). The potential impact of each métiers on VMEs is considered below. Trawl UoAs (1,2,4 & 6). Evidence is available about the areas where trawling takes place in the UoAs relative to protected areas (Figure 44 & Figure 45) and also from the distribution of the HELCOM red list of biotopes (Table 25) and their distribution (Figure 43) relative to the areas where fishing activity takes place relative to these areas (Figure 2 & Figure 45). This information coupled with the observations that trawl gear rarely makes contact with the seabed is sufficient to determine that trawling for pelagic fish in the UoAs concerned is highly unlikely to have a serious or irreversible effect on VMEs in the area. The SG60, 80 and 100 requirements are therefore met. Trap UoAs (3, 5, 7). The fish traps used in these UoAs are not mobile; they are anchored to the seabed at specific locations along the coast (see Figure 7).

Each fish trap has between 20 and 45 anchoring poles or seabed anchors. The fish traps and anchors are removed at the end of fishing operations each year, and re- deployed at the same location the following year.

Information is also available about the location of protected habitats (Figure 44) and also from the location of VMEs from the HELCOM red list of biotopes and their distribution (Table 25 and Figure 43) relative to the areas where fishing activity takes place relative to trap locations. This information, coupled with the observations that trap anchorages affect a very limited geographic area of any of the habitats in the Baltic Sea, is sufficient to determine that the herring trap fishery UoAs area highly unlikely to have a serious or irreversible effect on VMEs in the area. The SG60, and 80 requirements are therefore met. SG100 is not considered to be met because the evidence available does not quantify the impact of the métiers on VMEs.

c Minor habitat status

Guidep There is evidence that the ost UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the minor habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.

Trawls Y

Page 252 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

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

Traps Y

Justific For the purposes of this scoring issue “minor habitats” are those that are neither ation “commonly encountered” or “vulnerable marine ecosystems”. The term “serious or irreversible harm” means “reductions in habitat structure and function […] such that the habitat would be unable to recover at least 80% of its structure and function within 5-20 years if fishing were to cease entirely.” (MSC FCR at §SA3.13.3 & §SA3.13.4). As previously noted, the level of interaction with seabed habitats by both the pelagic trawl and trap métiers is very limited indeed. The level of interaction of each métier with minor habitats is considered below. Trawl UoAs (1,2,4 & 6). Information is available to describe the pattern of fishing activities for herring and sprats (Figure 2), and the distribution of trawl activity in the UoAs (Figure 45), and also the distribution of all marine habitats (Figure 43), This information, coupled with the information from the fishery that interactions with the seabed occur very rarely, enables the “minor habitats” that are within the UoA but outside the main area of fishing to be identified. These habitats are sublittoral rock and hard substrata. Pelagic trawls are operated in the water column above the seabed, and the trawl fisheries take place in geographic areas that do not overlap with the minor habitats that have been identified. The trawl fisheries are therefore highly unlikely to have a serious or irreversible effect on minor habitats, meeting the SG100 requirements. Trap UoAs (3, 5, 7). Fish traps do not move; their habitat interaction is limited to their direct contact with the seabed (i.e. with a “commonly encountered habitat”). The MSC definition of “minor habitats” therefore precludes any interaction with them. On this basis there is no interaction, and the evidence (from the nature of this fishing métier) is that the SG100 requirements are met.

Section 4.7.3 & 4.7.1.2 of this report; Figure 2, Figure 43; Figure 45; Figure 51. References Jennings and Kaiser 1998, Donaldson et al. 2010, Eigaard et al. 2013, HELCOM 2013, 2015, 2016

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Trawl UoAs 90

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Trap UoAs 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Page 253 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 2.4.2 – Habitats management strategy

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk PI 2.4.2 of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats.

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place

Guidep There are measures in There is a partial strategy There is a strategy in ost place, if necessary, that in place, if necessary, that place for managing the are expected to achieve is expected to achieve the impact of all MSC the Habitat Outcome 80 Habitat Outcome 80 level UoAs/non-MSC fisheries level of performance. of performance or above. on habitats.

Trawls Y Y Y

Traps Y Y Y

Justific Trawl UoAs (1, 2, 4, 6) ation All of the trawl UoAs considered here target pelagic fish using fishing gear that is designed to operate in the water column. As noted in the scoring of PI 2.4.1 there is no evidence of an impact on marine habitats. Because of this, the MSC requirement (at FCR §SA3.14.2.3(b) for fisheries to have a “move-on” rule at SG60 is “not necessary”; and the fishing practices that avoid impacts on benthic habitats represent an appropriate “partial strategy” (MSC 2015, 2017). Both the SG60 and SG80 requirements are therefore met. Trap UoAs (3, 5, 7) The anchors used to secure fish traps to the seabed result in an interaction with seabed habitats. Fish traps can only be secured to the seabed at approved locations, which are used by the fishermen year after year as they have been for generations. There are spatial and temporal constraints in place to minimise interactions with non- target fish species. The number and location of traps is monitored, and there is no indication of any adverse interaction with either commonly encountered habitats or VMEs. As a result, the MSC requirement (at FCR §SA3.14.2.3(b) for fisheries to have a “move-on” rule at SG60 is “not necessary”; and the fishing practices that avoid impacts on benthic habitats represent an appropriate “partial strategy” (MSC 2015, 2017). Both the SG60 and SG80 requirements are therefore met. All UoAs At the SG100 level, evidence is required that there is a strategy in place for the UoA areas, whether or not there is any impact. For the Baltic Sea, the key strategy in place for managing all impacts on marine habitats (including fishing impacts) is the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) that has been developed by HELCOM. In brief, this plan was adopted by the HELCOM parties in 2007 as a means for achieving the targets set by the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) target of protected 10% of marine and coastal areas. In a recent appraisal of progress with the BSAP, HELCOM reported that a total of 174 “HELCOM MPAs” have now been established, which cover 11.8% of the Baltic Sea overall, meeting the CBD target. The CBD target has not, however, been met for all of the Baltic Sea Basins. Within the UoA areas, the Western Gotland Basin, Northern Baltic Proper, Bothnian Sea and Bothnian Bay all fall below the CBD target. HELCOM noted, however, that Finland has now designated 33 HELCOM MPAs, covering 12% of Finnish Territorial Waters. (All data from HELCOM 2016). In addition to the HELCOM BSAP, the European Union’s Natura 2000 programme represents an additional strategy for managing impacts on marine habitats both within Territorial Waters and the EU EEZ. The Natura 2000 sites that have been designated under the “Wild Birds” and “Habitats” Directives are illustrated in Figure 44 of this report. EU legislation allows for management plans to be drawn up for

Page 254 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk PI 2.4.2 of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. these areas and requires that the impacts of all licensed activities (“plans or projects”) taking place within these sites are assessed under Article 6 of the Habitats Directive in order to avoid significant effects or damage to the integrity of the site (EC 1992, 2009a, 2017c, 2017d). The definition of “plans or projects” is broad, and includes fishing activities. The combination of the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan and the EU Natura 2000 network represent a strategy for managing impacts of all fisheries on marine habitats in the Baltic Sea, meeting the SG100 requirements.

b Management strategy evaluation

Guidep The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high ost considered likely to basis for confidence that confidence that the work, based on plausible the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g. general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on information directly information directly comparison with similar about the UoA and/or about the UoA and/or UoAs/habitats). habitats involved. habitats involved.

Trawls Y Y N

Trap Y Y N

Justific Trawl UoAs (1, 2, 4, 6) ation Information about the limited interaction between pelagic trawls and seabed habitats provides a plausible argument that the trawl fishery is not likely to have any impacts marine habitats in the UoAs. This finding is also consistent with that for other MSC- certified pelagic fisheries in the Baltic Sea, and meets the SG60 requirements. An objective basis for confidence that the management measures and strategies in place will work is provided by the information that there is little or no interaction with the seabed; that there is little or no overlap between the fishery and VMEs; and from studies of the impacts of pelagic trawl fisheries on benthic habitats which conclude that such impacts negligible. This information meets the SG80 requirements. There is some generic information available about the impacts of trawling in general and pelagic trawls in particular on marine habitats similar to those found in the UoA, which considers that such impacts are insignificant. However there is no evidence available to demonstrate testing of this within the UoA. HELCOM’s recent evaluation of the MPA network in the Baltic Sea concluded that further progress is required to support “high confidence” that this network will work. The available evidence is that SG 100 is not met. Trap UoAs (3, 5, 7) Information about the fishing methods and studies of fishing impacts provide a plausible argument that the trap fishing métier is not likely to have any impacts on marine habitats in the UoAs, meeting the SG60 requirements. An objective basis for confidence that the management measures and strategies in place will work is provided by the information that there is very limited impact of traps on the seabed; and from studies of the impacts of trap fisheries on benthic habitats which conclude that such impacts negligible. This information meets the SG80 requirements. There is some generic information available about the impacts of fish traps on marine habitats similar to those found in the UoA, which considers that such impact are insignificant. However there is no evidence available to demonstrate testing of this within the UoA. HELCOM’s recent evaluation of the MPA network in the Baltic Sea

Page 255 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk PI 2.4.2 of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. concluded that further progress is required to support “high confidence” that this network will work. The available evidence is that SG 100 is not met.

c Management strategy implementation

Guidep There is some There is clear ost quantitative evidence quantitative evidence that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented successfully. implemented successfully and is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a).

All Y N UoAs

Justific The implementation of the strategies for marine habitat protection in the Baltic Sea ation apply in equal measure to all fishing activities. The scoring rationale below therefore applies to all UoAs. The designation of 174 HELCOM MPAs in the Baltic Sea, along with a similar number of Natura 2000 sites provides evidence that both the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) and the EU Natura 2000 strategies are being implemented successfully. As part of the HELCOM BSAP initiative, and as a party to HELCOM, Finland has created 33 HELCOM MPAs, covering 12% of Finnish Territorial Sea (6,285km²). This quantitative evidence of the successful implementation of both strategies meets the SG80 requirements. The recent appraisal of the MPA network in the Baltic by HELCOM found that some of the original BSAP objectives have been partially met (such as protecting 10% or more of coastal and marine areas in order to meet UN CBD commitments). However there are other objectives of BSAP that have not yet been accomplished (such as updating and assessing management plans for HELCOM MPAs). Although this appraisal provides clear quantitative evidence that the strategy is being implemented, it also shows that its objectives have not yet been met, so SG100 is not met.

d Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs

Guidep There is qualitative There is some There is clear ost evidence that the UoA quantitative evidence quantitative evidence complies with its that the UoA complies with that the UoA complies with management both its management both its management requirements to protect requirements and with requirements and with VMEs. protection measures protection measures afforded to VMEs by other afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, where relevant. fisheries, where relevant.

Trawl Y Y Y

Trap Y Y Y

Page 256 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk PI 2.4.2 of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats.

Justific The management requirements to protect VMEs within the UoA are those ation established by signatories to HELCOM with respect to HELCOM MPAs, and also by the EU and its Member States with respect to Natura 2000 sites. The assessment team has reviewed the published material relating to relevant MSC UoAs within the UoAs under assessment here (the LFPO sprat fishery and the NKF Bothnian Bay Vendace fishery). Neither of these MSC UoAs has adopted any additional protection requirements for VMEs. All of the VMEs that have been identified in the Baltic Sea are located on the seabed, and as noted in the scoring of PI2.4.1 above, the fishing métiers used in all of the UoAs have very little impact on the seabed. This is either because seabed contact is very infrequent (for pelagic trawls) or only affects a very small area (for fish traps). The potential impact of each métier on VMEs is considered below. Trawl UoAs (1,2,4 & 6). Evidence is available about the areas where trawling takes place in the UoAs relative to protected areas (Figure 44 & Figure 45) and also from the distribution of the HELCOM red list of biotopes (Table 25) and their distribution (Figure 43) relative to the areas where fishing activity takes place relative to these areas (Figure 2 & Figure 45). This information includes electronic monitoring of fishing activities by statutory bodies, and provides clear and quantitative evidence that the protection measures for VMEs are met by the trawl UoAs. The SG60, 80 and 100 requirements are therefore met. Trap UoAs (3, 5, 7). Information is also available about the location of protected habitats (Figure 44) and also from the location of VMEs from the HELCOM red list of biotopes and their distribution (Table 25 and Figure 43) relative to the areas where trap fishing activity takes place. The number and location of traps is monitored by enforcement bodies from the Finnish Government. This information provides clear and quantitative evidence that the protection measures for VMEs are met by the trap UoAs. The SG60, 80 and 100 requirements are therefore met.

Section 4.7.3 of this report; (EC 1992, 2009a, 2017e, 2017d, HELCOM 2015, References 2016, 2017b, MSC 2015, 2017, Convention on Biological Diversity 2017)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Trawl UoAs 90

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Traps 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Page 257 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information

Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA and PI 2.4.3 the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat.

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information quality

Guidep The types and distribution The nature, distribution The distribution of all ost of the main habitats are and vulnerability of the habitats is known over broadly understood. main habitats in the UoA their range, with particular area are known at a level attention to the occurrence

of detail relevant to the of vulnerable habitats. OR scale and intensity of the UoA.

If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: OR

Qualitative information is If CSA is used to score PI adequate to estimate the 2.4.1 for the UoA: types and distribution of

the main habitats. Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats.

All Y Y Y UoAs

Justific This scoring issue relates to the information that is available about marine habitats, ation and therefore applies to (and across) all of the UoAs under assessment. Good and readily accessible information is available on the nature, distribution and vulnerability of habitats within the UoA. This information includes published reports and also GIS-based interactive websites (such as the European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) and the HELCOM Map and Data Service (EMODNET 2017, HELCOM 2017g)). The most recent assessment of marine habitats in the Baltic Sea by HELCOM identified the extent of vulnerable habitat types within and outside MPAs as part of the appraisal of the coherence of the MPA network and demonstrating that the distribution of habitats and in particular vulnerable habitats is known. The information available about habitats, including vulnerable habitats, meets the SG60, 80 and 100 requirements for this SI.

b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts

Guidep Information is adequate to Information is adequate to The physical impacts of ost broadly understand the allow for identification of the gear on all habitats nature of the main impacts the main impacts of the have been quantified fully. of gear use on the main UoA on the main habitats, habitats, including spatial and there is reliable overlap of habitat with information on the spatial fishing gear. extent of interaction and

Page 258 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA and PI 2.4.3 the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. OR on the timing and location of use of the fishing gear.

If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: OR

Qualitative information is If CSA is used to score adequate to estimate the PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: consequence and spatial

attributes of the main habitats. Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the consequence and spatial attributes of the main habitats.

Trawls Y Y N

Traps Y Y N

Justific Trawls (UoA 1, 2, 4, 6) ation As noted previously pelagic trawls are not considered to generate habitat impacts on the water column, and any impacts on benthic marine habitats can only arise from inadvertent contact with the seabed. The available information indicates that this happens rarely and is avoided by operators. There is, however, generic information available from numerous studies of demersal trawl impacts on marine habitats that allows the main impacts that pelagic trawls could have on the seabed to be identified, if they should make contact with it. There is also good information available on the spatial extent, timing, and location of the use of pelagic trawls within the UoAs from the monitoring of fishing vessel movements using VMS and through catch reporting requirements (see, for instance, Figure 45). This information meets the SG60 and SG80 requirements. There is no information available to quantify the impact of pelagic trawls on either the most commonly encountered habitat (water) or those habitats may from time to time be encountered by the gear (benthic habitats) within these UoAs. SG100 is therefore not met.

Traps (UoA 3, 5, 7) The anchors used to tether fish traps are known to impact the seabed, and the sensitivity of marine habitats to such impacts is known from generic studies in other areas. These studies provide sufficient information to allow the likely impact of the traps used in these UoAs to be identified. The location of fish traps is known (see Figure 7) and the timing of their operation varies little from year to year (the herring trap fishing season is typically between April and July). The information available about impacts of fish traps from generic studies and the location of the fish traps in all of the UoAs is sufficient to meet the SG60 an SG80 requirements. There is no information available to quantify the impact of fish traps on habitats within these UoAs. SG100 is therefore not met.

Page 259 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA and PI 2.4.3 the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat.

c Monitoring

Guidep Adequate information Changes in habitat ost continues to be collected distributions over time are to detect any increase in measured. risk to the main habitats.

Trawl Y N

Traps Y N

Justific Trawls (UoA 1, 2, 4, 6) ation An increase in risk to habitats from the trawl fishery could arise if trawling vessels adopted new fishing methods that resulted in more contact between the fishing gear and the seabed and / or a change in fishing practices that could result in a greater intensity of fishing in VME areas. Both of these changes would be detected by the monitoring arrangements in place for the fishery, including the reporting and monitoring of catches (which would detect a change in catch composition indicative of a change in practice); and also electronic monitoring of vessel movements using VMS. This information meets the SG80 requirement. Although the extent of marine habitats in the Baltic Sea is well known and has been monitored for a long time, there is no systematic programme in place for detecting changes in habitat distributions (indeed this is a data deficiency that has been identified by HELCOM). The SG100 requirement is therefore not met. Traps (UoA 3, 5, 7) An increase in risk to habitats from the trap fishery could arise if traps were moved into new areas where anchorage adversely impacted on seabed habitats. This change would be detected by the requirement to obtain permission to locate traps in new areas and through routine monitoring of trap locations by the MAF. The SG80 requirement is therefore met. Although the extent of marine habitats in the Baltic Sea is well known and has been monitored for a long time, there is no systematic programme in place for detecting changes in habitat distributions (indeed this is a data deficiency that has been identified by HELCOM). The SG100 requirement is therefore not met.

Section 4.7.3 of this report; Jennings and Kaiser 1998, EC 2009b, Donaldson et al. References 2010, Eigaard et al. 2013, HELCOM 2013b, 2015, 2017c, EMODNET 2017

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Trawl UoAs 85

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Trap UoAs 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Page 260 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of PI 2.5.1 ecosystem structure and function.

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Ecosystem status

Guidep The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that the ost disrupt the key elements unlikely to disrupt the key UoA is highly unlikely to underlying ecosystem elements underlying disrupt the key elements structure and function to a ecosystem structure and underlying ecosystem point where there would function to a point where structure and function to a be a serious or irreversible there would be a serious point where there would harm. or irreversible harm. be a serious or irreversible harm.

Met? Y Y Y

Justific The MSC Certification Requirements stipulate that this PI should consider the ation impacts of the fishery on the key characteristics of ecosystem structure and function rather than the sum total of impacts on the other components of the assessment (i.e. target species, retained and discarded species, ETP species and habitats). The assessment should consider whether the fishery has any serious or irreversible effect on the capacity of the ecosystem to deliver ecosystem services. The key characteristic of the ecosystem supporting the fishery is the oceanographic regime in the Baltic Sea which provides conditions that are favourable for pelagic ecosystem species ranging from phytoplankton and their consumers through to higher predators. The Baltic Sea is characterised as a large brackish water ecosystem where the main impacts on ecosystem components are saline inputs from the North Sea, eutrophication from fresh water impacts, the effect of fishery removals, and climate change. The effects of these influences on the Baltic Sea ecosystem have been studied in each of the Units of Certification, and are summarised in section 4.7.4 of this report. The most significant potential ecosystem impact of either the herring or sprat fisheries in any of the Units of Certification is the removal of herring or sprat biomass. Both species are a potential source of food for demersal fish (cod), for birds and for sea mammals. These interactions have potentially different implications for the different UoCs, each of which is considered here. UoCs: Bothnian Bay Trawl (UoC2) & Trap (UoC3); Bothnian Sea Trawl (UoC4) & Trap (UoC5) For the Bothnian Bay and Bothnian Sea units of certification, studies of the ecosystem function and carbon flows indicate that there are very few higher predators that feed on either herring or sprat in this area (see Figure 24 of this report); and the available evidence is that populations of fish eating birds and pinnipeds are increasing (see sections 4.7.2.2 & 4.7.2.4 of this report). This information provides confidence and quantitative that the removal of herring from the ecosystem is not likely to cause a trophic cascade, changes in species diversity or to deplete top predators in these UoCs (all considered to be among the indicators of “serious or irreversible harm” in MSC FCR GSA3.16.2). Neither the physical activity of trawling nor the deployment of fish traps are considered likely to disrupt the large-scale physical oceanographic processes in the Baltic Sea or to prevent these processes for providing ecosystem services (Jennings and Kaiser 1998, Donaldson et al. 2010). The main influences on physical oceanography in the Baltic Sea are the saline incursions from the North Sea and climate change (Margonski et al. 2010, Lessin et al. 2014, Pekcan-Hekim et al. 2016)

Page 261 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of PI 2.5.1 ecosystem structure and function. For the UoCs in the Bothnian Bay and Bothnian Sea it is therefore considered that the evidence of little physical impact on ecosystem processes from either fishing gear (traps or trawls); limited dependence on the target species stocks derived from ecosystem modelling; and the evidence from stock assessments that herring are being harvested sustainably in these geographic areas demonstrates that the fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the underlying ecosystem function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm, meeting the SG60, 80 and 100 requirements. UoCs: Baltic Sea Sprat Trawl (UoC1) Baltic Sea Herring Trawl (UoC6) & Trap (UoC7) In the Central Baltic Sea, there is an important interaction between herring, sprats and cod. Herring and sprats are an important source of food for cod, and the removal of these species could have adverse implications for cod. The interaction between these species has been investigated by ICES and others (Casini et al. 2008, Heikinheimo 2011, ICES 2013b) and is considered in some detail in section 4.6.6 of this report. In summary, ICES have concluded that at current levels of fishing mortality neither the sprat nor the herring fishery are likely to adversely impact ecosystem structure and function. This conclusion is underpinned by modelling studies and quantitative analysis of ecosystem function (see Figure 23). Neither the physical activity of trawling nor the deployment of fish traps are considered likely to disrupt the large-scale physical oceanographic processes in the Baltic Sea or to prevent these processes for providing ecosystem services (Jennings and Kaiser 1998, Donaldson et al. 2010). The main influences on physical oceanography in the Baltic Sea are the saline incursions from the North Sea and climate change (Margonski et al. 2010, Lessin et al. 2014, Pekcan-Hekim et al. 2016) For the UoCs in the Baltic Sea it is considered that the evidence of little physical impact on ecosystem processes from either fishing gear (traps or trawls); modelling of multi-species interactions; and the evidence from stock assessments that herring are being harvested sustainably in this geographic area demonstrates that both the sprat and herring fisheries are highly unlikely to disrupt the underlying ecosystem function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm, meeting the SG60, 80 and 100 requirements.

Sections 4.6.5, 4.6.6, 4.7.2.2, 4.7.2.4 & 4.7.4 of this report. Jennings and Kaiser 1998, Harvey et al. 2003, Casini et al. 2008, Donaldson et al. References 2010, Margonski et al. 2010, Heikinheimo 2011, HELCOM 2013e, 2013f, 2013g, 2013h, Herrmann et al. 2014, Arula et al. 2014, Bergström et al. 2015, SYKE 2016, INTERCAFE 2017

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE (All UoCs): 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Page 262 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management strategy

There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function.

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place

Guidep There are measures in There is a partial strategy There is a strategy that ost place, if necessary which in place, if necessary, consists of a plan, in place take into account the which takes into account which contains measures potential impacts of the available information to address all main fishery on key elements of and is expected to impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. restrain impacts of the the ecosystem, and at UoA on the ecosystem so least some of these as to achieve the measures are in place. Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance.

Met? Y Y Y

Justific The strategy in place for managing the impacts of the UoAs on the Baltic Sea ation ecosystem comprises of both an overall international agreement for managing anthropogenic impacts on the Baltic Sea, set out in the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) and the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC); and a strategic approach to fisheries management in the Baltic Sea, set out in the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and the Baltic Sea Multi Annual Plan (MAP) that was made in accordance with the CFP and implemented in 2016. These are each considered briefly here. The Baltic Sea MAP sets out a strategy for managing the main commercial fisheries in the Baltic Sea, including the herring and sprat fisheries. The objective of the Baltic MAP is set out in Article 3(3) of the MAP which states:- “The plan shall implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management in order to ensure that negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are minimised. It shall be coherent with Union environmental legislation, in particular with the objective of achieving good environmental status by 2020 as set out in Article 1(1) of Directive 2008/56/EC.” This objective links the management of Baltic Sea fisheries to the overall attainment of “good environmental status” in the Baltic Sea under the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive. The Baltic Sea MAP sets reference points for Central Baltic herring and sprat fisheries that are consistent with ICES advice on the multispecies ecosystem requirements in this geographic area. The HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan sets out both a strategy and a plan that are based on the ecosystem approach, and are structured around a set of ecological objectives that define indicators and targets. Whilst most of these are concerned with managing nutrient inputs to the Baltic Sea, some are relevant to fishing activities: for instance the BSAP calls for national management plans for Baltic seal populations to be produce by 2012 (Finland produced its seal management plan in response to this recommendation in 2007); and it calls for fisheries to be managed according to the ecosystem approach, and asks for immediate action to develop long-term management plans for commercially exploited fish stocks (the EU Baltic Sea MAP is a response to this element of the BSAP). The HELCOM BSAP and the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive are complementary: both seek to attain “good environmental status” of the marine environment (the MSFD deadline for this is 2020; BSAP is 2021). Like the BSAP, the MSFD sets out some broad objectives and specific targets for actions that will

Page 263 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. form a plan to achieve this goal. The key difference between the BSAP and MSFD is that Russia is a signatory to the BSAP, which ensures that all coastal states around the Baltic Sea, and not just EU Member States, are engaged in the implementation of this plan. In summary, the Baltic Sea Action Plan, EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive and EU Common Fisheries Policy provide a strategic framework for managing the impact of all fishery UoAs on marine ecosystems in the Baltic Sea. This meets the SG60 and SG80 requirements. These strategies set out plans for attaining ecosystem objectives (such as attaining good environmental status under the MSFD and BSAP by 2020 and 2021 respectively; and attaining MSY for commercial fish stock by 2015 or 2020 at the latest under the CFP), and there is evidence that plans for managing specific activities have been generated by these strategies (such as the Finnish seal management plan and the EU Baltic Sea Multi-Annual Plan). The evidence that there are plans which contain measures to address UoA impacts and that these are in place meets the SG100 requirements.

b Management strategy evaluation

Guidep The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high ost considered likely to work, basis for confidence that confidence that the based on plausible the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g., general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on some information information directly about comparison with similar directly about the UoA the UoA and/or ecosystem fisheries/ ecosystems). and/or the ecosystem involved involved

Met? Y Y N – for Bothnian Bay / Sea UoAs Y – for Central Baltic UoAs (1, 6, 7)

Justific With regard to the application of the strategies (BSAP, MSFD, CFP and Baltic Sea ation MAP) to all of the UoAs, there is evidence that the potential impacts of the UoAs on key ecosystem features are being effectively managed. The key potential impacts of the UoAs on the Baltic ecosystem are considered to be the effect of fishery removals on fish-eating birds, mammals and other fish; and the direct impact of fishing activities on ETP species. ICES have reviewed the status of the target species stocks in all of the areas and have concluded on the basis of the available information that they are being managed appropriately and that fishery removals are not likely to have adverse impacts on stock status and thus on the ecosystem. The status of all of the ETP species that may be impacted by the UoAs is reviewed under PI2.3.1 and described in section 4.7.2 of this report. Very briefly, the available evidence is that the abundance of all relevant ETP species is increasing and direct fishery impacts are not considered to adversely affect these populations. The information concerning ETP species status and the sustained abundance of the target stocks in each UoA provides an objective basis for confidence that the strategy in place is working in all of the UoAs, meeting the SG80 requirements. There is no evidence that the management strategy has been tested in the Bothnian Bay (UoA 2 & 3) or Bothnian Sea (UoA 4 & 5) areas. However, for the Central Baltic fisheries (UoA 1 for sprat and UoAs 6 & 7 for herring), there is evidence that ICES

Page 264 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. have tested the harvest control rules and have concluded that they are both compatible with the MSY approach and meet ecosystem requirements for this geographic area. The testing of the strategy for managing UoA impacts and the confidence that they will work meets the additional SG100 requirements for these UoAs.

c Management strategy implementation

Guidep There is some evidence There is clear evidence ost that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully successfully. and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a).

Met? Y N

Justific The most important measures in place for constraining the impact of the UoAs on the ation Baltic Sea ecosystem are the harvest controls (TACs) which limit the quantity of fish removed and ensure that the target fish populations are maintained at a level that is compatible with MSY and ecosystem requirements. For all of the UoAs, there is evidence from the fishery that fishery removals by each UoA are within the limits imposed by the TAC. The other measures that are important to the Baltic Sea ecosystem are those that limit the mortality of ETP species. Again, there is some evidence from the fishery that ETP impacts are low. Quantitative evidence from monitoring of these populations of ETP species shows that their abundance is increasing. The information available provides some evidence that the strategy for managing ecosystem impacts is being implemented successfully, meeting the SG80 requirements. The Baltic Sea ecosystem is currently heavily modified and has been subject to at least two substantial regime changes in the past century (see section 4.7.4 & Figure 48). The dynamic nature of the ecosystem under the influence of a wide range of anthropogenic and natural factors. Each of these may affect that objective of attaining “good environmental status” on time. Although there is considered to be clear evidence that the elements of the strategy that relate to managing fishery impacts are being successfully implemented, the complexity of the impacts on “good environmental status” in the Baltic Sea mean that there is not presently clear evidence that the overall objectives of the strategy are being achieved, so SG100 is not considered to be met.

(HELCOM 2007, BalticSTERN 2013, EU 2013, ICES 2013a, 2016d, 2016e, 2016c, References 2016b, EC 2016b)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: See scoring calculation table.

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Page 265 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

10.5.14.1 PI2.5.2: Scoring calculation

SIa SIb SIc UoA Score (60, 80, 100) (60, 80 100) (80, 100 only) 1 100 100 80 95 2 100 80 80 90 3 100 80 80 90 4 100 80 80 90 5 100 80 80 90 6 100 100 80 95 7 100 100 80 95

Page 266 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 2.5.3 – Ecosystem information

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem.

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information quality

Guidep Information is adequate to Information is adequate to ost identify the key elements broadly understand the of the ecosystem. key elements of the ecosystem.

Met? Y Y

Justific Recent comprehensive reviews of research into the current status and functioning of ation the Baltic Sea ecosystem have been published by BalticSTERN and HELCOM. This information identifies the elements of the ecosystem and how they have changed over time in response to anthropogenic and natural changes. Some key aspects of these reviews is summarised in section 4.7.4 of this report. The information demonstrates a good understanding of the key elements of the ecosystem, meeting (and exceeding) the SG80 and SG60 requirements for all UoAs.

b Investigation of UoA impacts

Guidep Main impacts of the UoA Main impacts of the UoA Main interactions between ost on these key ecosystem on these key ecosystem the UoA and these elements can be inferred elements can be inferred ecosystem elements can from existing information, from existing information, be inferred from existing but have not been and some have been information, and have investigated in detail. investigated in detail. been investigated in detail.

Met? Y Y Y – for Central Baltic UoAs N – for Bothnian Bay / Sea UoAs

Justific The main impact of the UoAs on the ecosystem is likely to arise from the removal of ation herring and sprats, which are prey species for other marine animals (notably cod, birds and marine mammals). For all of the UoAs, the main impacts of fishery removals on key ecosystem elements have been investigated in detail through Ecopath modelling (see Figure 24 of this report). This work has considered all of the UoAs, and demonstrates that this impact has been investigated in detail, meeting the SG60 & SG80 requirements for all UoAs. For the Central Baltic Sea sprat and herring stocks, more detailed investigations have been carried out to examine the interaction between herring, sprats and cod. This work has allowed ICES to identify ranges for stock biomass and fishing mortality for each species that are compatible with the ecosystem needs of the Central Baltic. This detailed investigation of interactions of these UoAs with ecosystem elements meets the SG100 requirements for UoAs 1, 6 & 7. In the absence of comparable invesigations for the Bothnian Bay and Bothnian Sea, SG100 is not met for UoAs 2, 3, 4 & 5.

c Understanding of component functions

Guidep The main functions of the The impacts of the UoA on ost components (i.e., P1 P1 target species, target species, primary, primary, secondary and

Page 267 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. secondary and ETP ETP species and Habitats species and Habitats) in are identified and the main the ecosystem are functions of these known. components in the ecosystem are understood.

Met? Y Y – for Central Baltic trawl UoAs N – for Bothnian Bay / Sea UoAs & CB trap.

Justific The main functions of the ecosystem components are known from monitoring of the ation Baltic Sea ecosystem and modelling of energy flows in the Central Baltic Sea, Bothnian Sea and Bothnian Bay (see Figure 24& section 4.7.4. of this report). This information satisfies the SG80 requirements for all UoAs. For the Central Baltic Sea sprat and herring stocks, more detailed investigations have been carried out to examine the interaction between herring, sprats and cod. This work has allowed ICES to identify ranges for stock biomass and fishing mortality for each species that are compatible with the ecosystem needs of the Central Baltic. This detailed investigation of interactions of these UoAs with ecosystem elements including non-target species and ETP species. In addition to this, the (lack of) impact of pelagic trawls on marine habitats and ETP species has been documented in studies elsewhere and are understood. The habitat impacts of the Central Baltic trap fishery are not presently understood however. It is therefore considered that the SG100 requirements are met for the Central Baltic trawl fisheries for sprat and herring (UoAs 1 & 6), but the lack of understanding of habitat impacts of the trap fishery (UoAs 2, 3, 4, 5 & 7) prevents this UoA from attaining this standard.

d Information relevance

Guidep Adequate information is Adequate information is ost available on the impacts of available on the impacts of the UoA on these the UoA on the components to allow some components and of the main consequences elements to allow the for the ecosystem to be main consequences for inferred. the ecosystem to be inferred.

Met? Y Y – for Central Baltic UoAs N – for Bothnian Bay / Sea UoAs

Justific The main consequence of the UoAs for the components of the Baltic Sea ecosystem ation can be understood from monitoring of fishery removals and the studies of the status of the Baltic Sea environment carried out by coastal states and reported through HELCOM and BalticSTERN. More detailed information about these interactions is provided by the ecosystem models for the Central Baltic, Bothnian Sea and Bothnian Bay. This information meets the SG80 requirements for all UoAs. For the Central Baltic Sea sprat and herring stocks, more detailed investigations have been carried out to examine the interaction between the UoAs and specific ecosystem elements (herring, sprats and cod). This work has allowed ICES to identify ranges for stock biomass and fishing mortality for each species that are compatible with the ecosystem needs of the Central Baltic. This information about the impact of these UoAs on ecosystem elements meets the SG100 requirements

Page 268 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. for UoAs 1, 6 & 7. In the absence of comparable invesigations for the Bothnian Bay and Bothnian Sea, SG100 is not met for UoAs 2, 3, 4 & 5.

e Monitoring

Guidep Adequate data continue to Information is adequate to ost be collected to detect any support the development increase in risk level. of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts.

Met? Y Y

Justific The Baltic Sea ecosystem is constantly monitored by coastal states through ation programmes coordinated under the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive, and by HELCOM, ICES and through other initiatives such as BalticSTERN. This information is used to detect changes in ecosystem status resulting from either human or natural influences, and to support the development of strategies and plans to address adverse impacts. The SG80 & 100 requirements are fully met for all UoAs.

(Sandberg et al. 2000, Harvey et al. 2003, Adjers et al. 2006, HELCOM 2010, Margonski et al. 2010, Ljunggren et al. 2010, Ojaveer and Eero 2011, MacKenzie et al. 2011, Heikinheimo 2011, Tomczak et al. 2012, 2013, BalticSTERN 2013, ICES References 2013b, Lajus et al. 2013, Arula et al. 2014, Lessin et al. 2014, Bergström et al. 2015, Mustamäki and Mattila 2015) Sections 4.6.5, 4.6.6 & 4.7.4 of this report.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: See scoring calculation table.

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

10.5.15.1 PI 2.5.3: Scoring calculation table

SIa SIb SIc SId SIe UoA Score (60, 80, only) (60, 80 100) (80, 100 only) (80, 100 only) (60, 80, 100) 1 80 100 100 100 100 95 2 80 80 80 80 100 85 3 80 80 80 80 100 85 4 80 80 80 80 100 85 5 80 80 80 80 100 85 6 80 100 100 100 100 95 7 80 100 80 100 100 90

Page 269 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Principle 3

PI 3.1.1 – Legal and/or customary framework (All UoAs) The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: PI 3.1.1 • Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management Guide There is an effective There is an effective There is an effective post national legal system and national legal system and national legal system and a framework for organized and effective binding procedures cooperation with other cooperation with other governing cooperation parties, where necessary, parties, where necessary, with other parties which to deliver management to deliver management delivers management outcomes consistent with outcomes consistent with outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2 MSC Principles 1 and 2 MSC Principles 1 and 2. UoAs Y Y Y 2, 3, 4, 5. UoAs Y Y N 1, 6, 7 Justifi Management of all of the UoAsis conducted under the EU Common Fisheries Policy cation and Finnish legislation. For the Central Baltic stocks of herring and sprats (UoAs 1, 6 & 7), the EC-Russia fisheries agreement is also relevant. It is appropriate to distinguish the scoring of the different UoAs on this basis.

For UoA 2, 3, 4, 5The management of Baltic Sea herring within these UoAs (which lie entirely in the EU EEZ) is in line with best scientific advice as provided through ICES (the International Council on the Exploration of the Seas), and exercised through the setting of an annual TAC (Total Allowable Catch). The TAC is allocated between fishing nations via the EU-Russia Agreement (discussed annually at the Baltic Sea Fisheries Committee meeting).

The quota allocation to the EU is then sub-divided between Member States according to the binding EU principle of “relative stability”, meaning that the quota is consistently shared between member states according to a fixed ratio informed by historical track record in the fishery.

The principal legislative instrument for fisheries management in the EU is the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), which aims at achieving sustainable fisheries management across the EU. The objectives of the CFP are:-

Article 2: Objectives 1. The CFP shall ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities are environmentally sustainable in the long-term and are managed in a way that is consistent with the objectives of achieving economic, social and employment benefits, and of contributing to the availability of food supplies.

2. The CFP shall apply the precautionary approach to fisheries management, and shall aim to ensure that exploitation of living marine biological resources restores and maintains populations of harvested

Page 270 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: PI 3.1.1 • Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. species above levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield.

In order to reach the objective of progressively restoring and maintaining populations of fish stocks above biomass levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield, the maximum sustainable yield exploitation rate shall be achieved by 2015 where possible and, on a progressive, incremental basis at the latest by 2020 for all stocks.

3. The CFP shall implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management so as to ensure that negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are minimised, and shall endeavour to ensure that aquaculture and fisheries activities avoid the degradation of the marine environment.

This clearly aims to achieve both P1 (stock management) and possibly to a lesser extent P2 (wider ecosystem impacts). For example, the regulation states:

As an EU Regulation, the CFP has “direct effect” and is enacted into law in all Member States, directly reflecting the scope and objective of the CFP and as such aim at achieving sustainable fisheries in accordance to MSC P1 and P2.

Underneath the umbrella of the CFP, there are many binding EC regulations covering all aspects of fisheries, which are amended and updated as required. For example, some of the key recent pieces of legislation include the Technical Regulation, Control Regulation and requirement for Registration of Buyers & Sellers of first sale fish and the Baltic Sea MAP.

Recent infraction proceedings taken by the Commission against several Member States demonstrate that the at EU level the mechanism can be ‘considered effective’.

Within Finnish waters, fisheries management is carried out under the authority of the Fisheries Act 2015. The objectives of this Act are set out in §1:

“The objective of this Act is to use the best available information to ensure ecologically, economically and socially sustainable management of fish resources in such a way as to secure a sustainable and diversified return on fish resources, the natural life cycle of fish stocks, and the diversity and protection of fish resources and other aquatic flora and fauna.”

This domestic legislation applies a national dimension to the protection of fish stocks (MSC Principle 1) and the marine environment (Principle 2) in addition to that established at the EU and international level.

There is evidence that these national and international systems for cooperation are delivering TACs for the Bothnian Bay and Bothnian Sea stocks that are consistent with ICES advice, and that protection measures for the marine environment (established by HELCOM and under the EU Natura 2000 network) are being implemented. It is therefore clear that within the EU EEZ there are clear and binding procedures in place to govern cooperation, and that these are consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. The SG60, 80 and 100 requirements are therefore met for this SI.

Page 271 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: PI 3.1.1 • Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. UoAs 1, 6 & 7: Central Baltic Sprat and Herring The EU shares some Baltic Sea waters with Russia, in the Gulf of Finland and also in ICES area 26 between Lithuania & Poland (see Figure 1). For these UoAs the international collaboration between the EU and Russia has to be taken into account in addition to the management system that pertains in the EU EEZ (described above).

There is an international agreement in place between the EU and Russia to govern the management of shared fishery resources. The objectives of this agreement are stated as:-

Article 4: Objectives 1. The objective of this Agreement is to ensure a close cooperation between the Parties on the basis of the principle of equitable and mutual benefit for the purpose of conservation, sustainable exploitation and management of any straddling, associated and dependent stocks in the Baltic Sea.

2. The Agreement lays down the principles and procedures relating to the close cooperation between the Parties with the purpose of ensuring that the exploitation of the straddling, associated and dependent stocks in the Baltic Sea provides sustainable economic, environmental and social conditions.

3. The Parties shall base their cooperation on the best scientific advice available and on any other relevant data, shall apply the precautionary approach and shall agree to develop an eco-system-based approach to fisheries management.

Within Russia, fisheries are managed under the Federal Law On Fisheries and the Conservation of Aquatic Biological Resources 2004. This law provides for, inter alia, the allocation of a TAC to fishing operators within Russia.

The available evidence is that Russia has declared an autonomous TAC for Baltic sprat that is not bound by the terms of this agreement. Nevertheless, F is at a level close to Fmsy and stock biomass is considerably higher than Bmsy which demonstrates that the management outcomes of MSC Principle 1 are being met.

It is therefore clear that for the Central Baltic herring and sprat stocks, the SG60 and 80 requirements are met, because there is an effective and organised the management system in place that is currently meeting MSC requirements. The SG100 requirements are not met because there is evidence that the EC-Russia agreement is not “binding” in the sense of MSC Certification Requirements at SA4.3.4.2.

b Resolution of disputes Guide The management system The management system The management system post incorporates or is subject incorporates or is subject incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism by law to a transparent by law to a transparent for the resolution of legal mechanism for the mechanism for the disputes arising within the resolution of legal disputes resolution of legal disputes system. which is considered to be that is appropriate to the effective in dealing with context of the fishery and most issues and that is has been tested and proven to be effective.

Page 272 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: PI 3.1.1 • Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. appropriate to the context of the UoA. Met? Y Y N Justifi Procedures for the resolution of disputes have been established for Baltic Sea cation fisheries at the international, EU and national levels of management.

At the international level of the EU-Russia agreement, the agreement has established a Baltic Sea Fisheries Committee that meets at least once a year, with one of its objectives being to “Serve as a forum for the amicable resolution of disputes which might arise regarding the interpretation or application of this Agreement.” (Article 14(4)).

At the EU level, mechanisms exist through the Council of Ministers (Fishery Council), and the European Commission for the airing, debate and settlement of disputes between Member States. All EU Member States are bound by the EU Treaty to comply with the requirements of the CFP, and any transgressions or disputes can be addressed by the European Court of Justice. Any complaints about the actions of EU institutions can be addressed by appealing to the EU Ombudsman. Other organisations (such as the Baltic Sea Advisory Council and STECF) provide alternative non-statutory avenues for raising concerns and seeking the resolution of disputes. At the national level, the Finnish Fisheries Act 2015 (at Chapter 14) sets out a clear and transparent legal mechanism for resolving disputes between fishermen and management bodies (including both Government institutions and riparian owners). Likewise, the Act which implements the CFP in Finland (1048/2016) contains a transparent appeals process to address disputes with MAF (at §48); and the Act which allows for compliance with CFP measures also contains a clear appeal procedure (at §71). These are new mechanisms; there is no evidence that they have been tested yet. Overall, there is evidence that at the international, EU and national level there are mechanisms in place for resolving disputes, meeting the SG60 requirements. At all levels of management, the mechanisms in place are transparent and set out in legislation. Although the Russian Federation have set an autonomous TAC in recent years out with the EU-Russia agreement, the extent of the Russian fishery is limited by international agreements on access to fishing areas, and fishing effort in all of the UoAs is currently managed at an appropriate level, so the SG80 requirements are met. At the national level, the new management arrangements introduced in Finland in 2015 are transparent and are considered to be effective, but there is no evidence that they have been tested. The concerns about the autonomous Russian TAC prevent the SG100 requirements from being met. c Respect for rights Guide The management system The management system The management system post has a mechanism to has a mechanism to has a mechanism to generally respect the observe the legal rights formally commit to the legal rights created created explicitly or legal rights created explicitly or established by established by custom of explicitly or established by custom of people people dependent on custom of people dependent on fishing for fishing for food or dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a livelihood in a manner food and livelihood in a

Page 273 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: PI 3.1.1 • Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. manner consistent with consistent with the manner consistent with the objectives of MSC objectives of MSC the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The objectives of the EU CFP are set out in the rational for SIa above. The CFP also cation contains a formal commitment to observe the legal and customary rights of people dependent on fishing, through its objectives and a commitment to relative stability (meaning Member States are consistently allocated the same proportion of particular stocks) and through specific provisions for people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood:

“In view of the precarious economic state of the fishing industry and the dependence of certain coastal communities on fishing, it is necessary to ensure relative stability of fishing activities by the allocation of fishing opportunities among the Member States, based upon a predictable share of the stocks for each Member State.”

The objectives of the CFP are further defined out in Article 2(5) of the CFP, and include:

(f) contribute to a fair standard of living for those who depend on fishing activities, bearing in mind coastal fisheries and socio-economic aspects;

(i) promote coastal fishing activities, taking into account socio- economic aspects;

These objectives apply throughout the EU EEZ, including all Finnish waters. They demonstrate an overarching commitment of the management system to the rights of people dependent on fishing that is consistent with MSC Principles 1 & 2.

At the national level, Finnish legislation formally sets out an overall objective that is consistent with MSC Principles 1 & 2 (see SIa above) and also commits to the legal rights of people dependent on fishing for their food & livelihood. The Fisheries Act 2015 grants a general right to fish to all EEA citizens, subject to the appropriate permit. There are also specific provisions in the Fisheries Act to protect the interests of people that have been traditionally dependent on fisheries for food or livelihood. For instance, the Regional Fisheries Committees are required, where appropriate, to have a representative from those dependent on fishing for their food and livelihood; including the representatives of the Sámi people living in northern Finland. Fishery administrators are required to be able to communicate with fishermen in their chosen language (Finnish / Swedish / and the Sámi languages of northern Finland). The Sámi Language Act of 2003 demonstrates the commitment of the Finnish Government to “…the constitutional right of the Sámi to maintain and develop their own language and culture.” In the freshwater fisheries of Upper Lapland, the residents of Enontekiö, Inari & Utsjoki are entitled to fish in state-owned waters in these areas free of charge. The legal mechanisms set out in the EU CFP and in Finnish legislation represents a formal commitment to the legal rights of people dependent on fishing for their food and livelihood, in a manner consistent with MSC Principles 1 & 2, which meets the SG60, 80 and 100 requirements for this SI.

Page 274 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: PI 3.1.1 • Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. Section 4.8.1 References (Government of Finland 1982, 2003, 2014, 2015a, 2015b, 2016a, Russian Government 2004, EC 2009b, 2009c, 2009c, 2016a, EU 2013)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoAs 1, 6 ,7 85 UoAs 2, 3 , 4, 5 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

PI 3.1.2 – Consultation, roles and responsibilities The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Roles and responsibilities Guide Organisations and Organisations and Organisations and post individuals involved in the individuals involved in the individuals involved in the management process management process management process have been identified. have been identified. have been identified. Functions, roles and Functions, roles and Functions, roles and responsibilities are responsibilities are responsibilities are generally understood. explicitly defined and explicitly defined and well understood for key well understood for all areas of responsibility and areas of responsibility and interaction. interaction. Met? Y Y Y Justifi All of the vessels under assessment operate under a flag of an EU Member State cation within which the organisations and roles associated with the fisheries management process are well defined and understood. Exploitation of Baltic Sea fisheries by these and other vessels takes place under the management regime established by the EC-Russia Agreement and the EU CFP. Organisations and their roles are well defined in legislation and agreements at the international level (for instance in the EU-Russia fisheries agreement and in international conventions such as ASCOBANS and the Helsinki Convention); at the EU level (in the CFP and daughter regulations) and in national legislation (the Finnish Fisheries Act 2015, at Chapter 11). Section 4.8.3.1 of this assessment report provides a description of the key roles and responsibility in the fishery management process. Their roles and responsibilities are listed in Table 26 of this report and summarised below:- » Management / administration: Baltic Sea Fisheries Committee; EU DG Mare, Ministry of Agriculture & Forestry. » Scientific Advice: ICES, EU’s STECF & ACOM, LUKE

Page 275 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties » Control & Enforcement: EU Community Fisheries Control Agency (CFCA), ELY. » Industry Representation: Finnish Fishermen’s Association; Baltic Sea Advisory Council. The Baltic Sea region also features active international organisations, such as HELCOM, BALTFISH and ASCOBANS, each of which provides a forum for discussion and developing the agenda for improving environmental protection and ecosystem management of the Baltic Sea. The explicit definition of the functions, roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals participating in all aspects of fishery management meets the SG60, 80 and 100 requirements.

b Consultation processes Guide The management system The management system The management system post includes consultation includes consultation includes consultation processes that obtain processes that regularly processes that regularly relevant information seek and accept relevant seek and accept relevant from the main affected information, including information, including parties, including local local knowledge. The local knowledge. The knowledge, to inform the management system management system management system. demonstrates demonstrates consideration of the consideration of the information obtained. information and explains how it is used or not used. Met? Y Y N Justifi At the EU level the Baltic Sea Advisory Council (BSAC) is the main consultation cation mechanism through which industry engages with management authorities. It includes European industry and NGO representatives ensuring local knowledge is considered within the management system. SG 60 is met. The BSAC meets regularly (in 2017 for instance, there was one General Assembly meeting; the Executive Committee met 4 times; and there were 3 BSAC workshop meetings focussing on specific aspects of fishery management in the Baltic Sea). BSAC actively develops policy and advises the European Commission and is considered as part of the EU’s management system. Scientific, industry and stakeholder input is also accepted as part of the EU fisheries management processes (see Figure 50 of this report). Fishing Industry organisations, NGOs and other stakeholders also participate in the consultation processes of the EU Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (ACFA), a cross-cutting mechanism established under the European Commission. ACFA has four permanent working groups Scientific advice on fisheries management is provided to the Commission by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) and by the International Council on the Exploration of the Seas (ICES). STECF has a formal role set out in the CFP (Article 26). There were 20 meetings of STECG working groups and 3 meetings of the STECF plenary group during 2017. ICES provide an umbrella for international collaboration between scientists, with regular working group meetings held to ensure that annual advice on fisheries management is provided to the management system.

Page 276 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties

During the course of the site visit MAF and ELY outline the extensive consultation process, lasting for several years, which led to the agreement of the revised Fisheries Act in Finland in 2015. Within this new Act, there are arrangements set out that require consultation with stakeholders and statutory bodies is required in the formulation of fishery management plans in Finland (Chapter 4 of the Fisheries Act 2015); and regional fisheries committees are required to have broad membership. There is therefore evidence that at the EU and national level the management system has consultation processes in place that regularly accept and consider relevant information, meet the SG80 requirements for this SI. In the case of EU consideration of BSAC proposals, there is not always a clear explanation provided (minuted outputs or summaries) of how the information is used or not used. On this basis SG 100 is not met. c Participation Guide The consultation process The consultation process post provides opportunity for provides opportunity and all interested and affected encouragement for all parties to be involved. interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement. Met? Y Y Justifi There is extensive involvement of all interested and affected parties in regular cation consultation and EC consultation is an open, public process. For the Baltic Sea herring fishery, effective engagement is facilitated through the Baltic Sea Advisory Council including the active involvement of Environmental NGOs, along with consultation exercises. The EU provides financial support to the BSAC to enable it to provide these opportunities for stakeholder engagement in the management process. The EC must develop and consult on policies and regulations based on the Better regulation guidelines (EC 2017f), which set out the EC requirements for effective consultation processes. At the national level, the Finnish Fisheries Act 2015 creates an obligation to develop new regional fisheries management plans, with an emphasis on securing wide stakeholder engagement in their development and implementation (including specific requirements that fishery supervisors have all of the appropriate language skills (Finnish / Swedish / Sámi) to engage with local stakeholders.

There is therefore evidence at the national level, and from the 2013 reform of the CFP of a greater emphasis on regionalization and sea basin-level management (enhancing and facilitating the role of the Baltic Sea Advisory Council). These developments, along with the development of the Better Regulation Guidelines ensures more effective consultation and is a recent improvement in performance that meets SG80 and 100 requirements for this SI.

Section 4.8.1 References (Government of Finland 1982, 2003, 2014, 2015a, 2015b, 2016, EC 2009a, 2009b, 2009b, 2016, 2017a, 2017b, 2017c, EU 2013, BSAC 2017, HELCOM 2017a, 2017b, 2017c, LUKE 2017, European Commission 2018)

Page 277 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

PI 3.1.3 – Long term objectives The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision- PI 3.1.3 making that are consistent with MSC fisheries standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Objectives Guide Long-term objectives to Clear long-term objectives Clear long-term objectives post guide decision-making, that guide decision- that guide decision- consistent with the MSC making, consistent with making, consistent with fisheries standard and the MSC fisheries standard MSC fisheries standard precautionary approach, and the precautionary and the precautionary are implicit within approach are explicit approach, are explicit management policy. within management within and required by policy. management policy. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The long-term objectives that guide decision making in the Baltic Sea and that apply cation to these UoAs are set out in the EU-Russia Fisheries Agreement, the EU CFP and in Finnish national legislation. The EU-Russia fisheries agreement sets out clear long-term objectives for international collaboration in the management of Baltic Sea fisheries: Article 4: Objectives 1. The objective of this Agreement is to ensure a close cooperation between the Parties on the basis of the principle of equitable and mutual benefit for the purpose of conservation, sustainable exploitation and management of any straddling, associated and dependent stocks in the Baltic Sea.

2. The Agreement lays down the principles and procedures relating to the close cooperation between the Parties with the purpose of ensuring that the exploitation of the straddling, associated and dependent stocks in the Baltic Sea provides sustainable economic, environmental and social conditions.

3. The Parties shall base their cooperation on the best scientific advice available and on any other relevant data, shall apply the precautionary approach and shall agree to develop an eco-system-based approach to fisheries management.

The EU CFP contains clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making and are consistent with MSC principles. These are presented below: Article 2 Objectives 1. The CFP shall ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities are environmentally sustainable in the long-term and are managed in a way that is consistent with the

Page 278 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision- PI 3.1.3 making that are consistent with MSC fisheries standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach. objectives of achieving economic, social and employment benefits, and of contributing to the availability of food supplies. 2. The CFP shall apply the precautionary approach to fisheries management and shall aim to ensure that exploitation of living marine biological resources restores and maintains populations of harvested species above levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield. In order to reach the objective of progressively restoring and maintaining populations of fish stocks above biomass levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield, the maximum sustainable yield exploitation rate shall be achieved by 2015 where possible and, on a progressive, incremental basis at the latest by 2020 for all stocks. 3. The CFP shall implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management so as to ensure that negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are minimised and shall endeavour to ensure that aquaculture and fisheries activities avoid the degradation of the marine environment. 4. The CFP shall contribute to the collection of scientific data. 5. The CFP shall, in particular: (a) gradually eliminate discards, on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the best available scientific advice, by avoiding and reducing, as far as possible, unwanted catches, and by gradually ensuring that catches are landed; (b) where necessary, make the best use of unwanted catches, without creating a market for such of those catches that are below the minimum conservation reference size; (c) provide conditions for economically viable and competitive fishing capture and processing industry and land-based fishing related activity; (d) provide for measures to adjust the fishing capacity of the fleets to levels of fishing opportunities consistent with paragraph 2, with a view to having economically viable fleets without overexploiting marine biological resources; (e) promote the development of sustainable Union aquaculture activities to contribute to food supplies and security and employment; (f) contribute to a fair standard of living for those who depend on fishing activities, bearing in mind coastal fisheries and socio-economic aspects; (g) contribute to an efficient and transparent internal market for fisheries and aquaculture products and contribute to ensuring a level–playing field for fisheries and aquaculture products marketed in the Union; (h) take into account the interests of both consumers and producers; (i) promote coastal fishing activities, taking into account socio- economic aspects; (j) be coherent with the Union environmental legislation, in particular with the objective of achieving a good environ mental status by 2020 as set out in Article 1(1) of Directive 2008/56/EC, as well as with other Union policies.

Other EU legislation, notably the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD, Directive 2008/56/EC)) sets long term objectives for attaining “Good Environmental Status” in the EU marine environment by 2020. The MSFD sets targets for, inter alia: maintaining populations of commercially exploited fish and shellfish species within Sustainable Biological Limits; protecting food webs; maintaining biodiversity; and protecting the seabed.

At the national level within Finland, the objective of the Fishing Act 2015 is set out in §1: “The objective of this Act is to use the best available information to ensure ecologically, economically and socially sustainable management of fish resources in

Page 279 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision- PI 3.1.3 making that are consistent with MSC fisheries standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach. such a way as to secure a sustainable and diversified return on fish resources, the natural life cycle of fish stocks, and the diversity and protection of fish resources and other aquatic flora and fauna.”

It is therefore apparent that there are clear long-term objectives in place for guiding decision making at the international, EU and national level that meet all of the SG60, 80 and 100 requirements. Sections 4.8.1 & 4.8.2.1 of this report. References (EC 2008, 2009b, EU 2013, Government of Finland 2015a)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

PI 3.2.1 Fishery-specific objectives The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives PI 3.2.1 designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Objectives Guide Objectives, which are Short and long-term Well defined and post broadly consistent with objectives, which are measurable short and achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving long-term objectives, expressed by MSC’s the outcomes expressed which are demonstrably Principles 1 and 2, are by MSC’s Principles 1 and consistent with achieving implicit within the fishery- 2, are explicit within the the outcomes expressed specific management fishery-specific by MSC’s Principles 1 and system. management system. 2, are explicit within the fishery-specific management system. Met? Y Y Y Justifi Fishery specific objectives for the Baltic Sea herring and sprat fisheries were cation developed and implemented through the agreement of the EU Baltic Sea Multi- Annual Plan. This plan is described in section 4.8.1.2.1.5 of this report and its objectives are considered in section 4.8.2.2 of this report.

In summary, the Baltic Sea MAP sets out the following objectives for Baltic Sea fisheries:- Article 3 Objectives 1.The plan shall contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the common fisheries policy (CFP) listed in Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, in particular by applying the precautionary approach to fisheries management, and shall aim to ensure that exploitation of living marine biological resources restores and maintains populations of harvested species above levels which can produce MSY. 2.The plan shall contribute to the elimination of discards by avoiding and reducing, as far as possible, unwanted catches, and to the implementation of the landing obligation established in Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 for the species which are subject to catch limits and to which this Regulation applies. 3.The plan shall implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management in order to ensure that negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are minimised. It shall be coherent with Union environmental legislation, in particular

Page 280 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives PI 3.2.1 designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. with the objective of achieving good environmental status by 2020 as set out in Article 1(1) of Directive 2008/56/EC. In particular the plan shall aim to: (a) ensure that the conditions described in descriptor 3 contained in Annex I to Directive 2008/56/EC are fulfilled; and (b) contribute to the fulfilment of other relevant descriptors contained in Annex I to that Directive in proportion to the role played by fisheries in their fulfilment. 4.Measures under the plan shall be taken in accordance with the best available scientific advice. These objectives are to be attained for the sprat and herring stocks in the Baltic Sea by attaining the target fishing mortalities and biomass reference points specified in the Annexes of the MAP as soon as possible, and by 2020 at the latest. These target values of biomass and fishing mortality were set in line with ICES advice on both individual fish stocks and taking account of multi-species considerations in the Central Baltic Sea. These targets are considered to be compatible with the MSY approach and the ecosystem functions for each stock. The Baltic Sea MAP therefore sets out well-defined and measurable short and long- term objectives for the management of sprat and herring stocks, which take account of both Principle 1 (target stock) and Principle 2 (wider environmental) issues, meeting the SG60, 80 and 100 requirements for this PI.

Section 4.8.1.2.1.5 & 4.8.2.2 of this report .(ICES 2013b, 2016j, EC 2016a) References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Decision-making processes Guide There are some decision- There are established post making processes in place decision-making that result in measures processes that result in and strategies to achieve measures and strategies the fishery-specific to achieve the fishery- objectives. specific objectives. Met? Y Y Justifi The main decision-making processes that deliver the fishery-specific objectives for cation all of the UoAs under assessment are those that are set out in the Baltic Sea Multi- Annual Plan (MAP). This EU Regulation sets out (in Articles 4 & 5) a clear set of harvest control rules that are intended to ensure that the fishing mortality for each stock is set at a level that is compatible with current stock status. The approach that is set out in these Articles and the corresponding Annexes of the Regulation determine a harvest rate that has been evaluated by ICES to be compatible with both intra- and inter- species stock dynamics and interactions. The MAP also sets out remedial measures that should be applied if the stock(s) should become depleted.

Page 281 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. The procedure set out in the new MAP builds upon the decision-making processes that were already in place under the EU CFP and which had resulted in fishing mortality for all of the UoAs being set at a level consistent with precautionary and MSY management requirements. The most recent (October 2017) Fisheries Council meeting resulted in, inter alia, a 40% reduction of the Bothnian Sea herring TAC in response to the most recent stock advice, demonstrating a clear commitment to the fishery-specific objectives set out in the MAP.

The evidence from the past implementation of the decision-making processes set out in the CFP, along with the explicit processes set out in the new Baltic Sea MAP that have been used to determine fishing opportunities in 2017 meets the SG60 and SG80 requirements for this SI.

b Responsiveness of decision-making processes Guide Decision-making Decision-making Decision-making post processes respond to processes respond to processes respond to all serious issues identified serious and other issues identified in in relevant research, important issues relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and identified in relevant monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a research, monitoring, consultation, in a transparent, timely and evaluation and transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take consultation, in a adaptive manner and take some account of the wider transparent, timely and account of the wider implications of decisions. adaptive manner and take implications of decisions. account of the wider implications of decisions. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The decision-making processes in place for managing the impacts of the UoAs on cation their target species and on the wider marine environment include the processes established within the EU fisheries management regime (the CFP and Baltic Sea MAP); and also the wider processes established under other EU legislation (notably the Marine Strategy Framework Directive) and international agreements such as the Helsinki Convention and ASCOBANS that the Finnish Government is taking steps to implement. The EU CFP and MAP respond to annual assessments of stock status conducted by ICES as well as advice from other parties (STECF and BSAC) in the determination of annual fishing opportunities for target species. The CFP has also in the past served as the basis for introducing regulations to protect marine mammals from the impact of fishing activity (Regulation 812/2004) in response to concerns about cetacean bycatch in salmon drift nets. Outside the EU CFP, the EU has several strategies in place to respond to other management in the Baltic Sea. The Natura 2000 programme establishes a management framework, including decision making processes, for the protection of species of wildlife and for natural habitats. There are links between this Natura 2000 programme and the CFP which allow for the protection of areas of seabed outside a Member State’s area of jurisdiction (for instance for the protection of areas of seabed in the North Sea and the southern Baltic Sea under Commission Delegate Regulations 117/2017 and 118/2017 (EC 2016c, 2016d)). The EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive establishes a programme for delivering the “good environmental status” (GES) of regional seas in the EU, including the Baltic Sea. The MSFD is based upon an objective assessment of impacts on the marine environment by all human activities that forms the decision base for management actions by the EU and Member States that are intended to achieve GES by 2020.

Page 282 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. In the Baltic Sea the work on the MSFD is complementary to the 1974 Helsinki Convention and the work of HELCOM and the signatories to this convention (all of the EU Member States and Russia) to achieve the objectives of this convention (also “good environmental status”) by 2021. As with the MSFD process, HELCOM responds to all management issues in the Baltic Sea. Evidence of the success of HELCOM can be seen in the reduction of pollution inputs to the Baltic Sea and the recovery of marine mammal populations. The ASCOBANS agreement can also lead to management decisions that are relevant to the management of the UoAs. For instance, the Finnish Government agreed and implemented its seal management plan in response to its commitment to ASCOBANS. This plan sets out a strategy that responds to concerns about the status of seals in the Baltic Sea and has resulted in constraints on fishing activity in 7 seal conservation areas around the Finnish coast. The evidence from these Baltic Sea management activities that are carried out by the EU and the Finnish Government, as well as other Baltic Sea coastal states and EU Member states is that there are a range of decision making processes in place (in the EU institutions, the EU CFP, HELCOM, ASCOBANS and the Finnish Government) that respond to all management issues in the Baltic Sea in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner, meeting the SG60, 80 and 100 requirements. c Use of precautionary approach Guide Decision-making post processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. Met? Y Justifi The key decision taken annually for all of the UoAs is the determination of the TAC cation for following year. This decision is informed by advice from ICES, STECF and the BASC. ICES base their advice on the most up-to-date information available about fishery removals and using a stock assessment approach that is regularly scrutinized. The advice is based upon precautionary and MSY approaches. The most recent ICES advice shows that all of the UoAs are being harvested at levels consistent with MSY, and that the decisions about exploitation levels have been based on ICES advice for at least the past 10 years. As noted in SIb above, the decision-making processes in the Baltic Sea have resulted in, inter alia, EU Regulations to protect marine mammals; action by the Finnish Government to protect seals; and the introduction of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive which aims to attain Good Environmental Status throughout the Baltic Sea. This evidence of the quality of the information used to inform decisions and their precautionary nature meets the SG80 requirements for this SI.

d Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process Guide Some information on the Information on the Formal reporting to all post fishery’s performance and fishery’s performance interested stakeholders management action is and management action provides generally available on is available on request, comprehensive request to stakeholders. and explanations are information on the provided for any actions or fishery’s performance lack of action associated and management with findings and relevant actions and describes recommendations how the management

Page 283 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. emerging from research, system responded to monitoring, evaluation and findings and relevant review activity. recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Met? Y Y N Justifi For these UoAs the most important performance measure is the status of the different cation stocks with respect to the reference points that have been identified by ICES; and the most important information concerning management action is the evidence that ICES advice on appropriate levels of exploitation have been transposed into appropriate TACs to limit fishing effort. This information is provided on the ICES and EU websites (so is available on request) and provides a comprehensive information on the fishery’s performance (in terms of catches, fishing mortality and stock biomass) and provides a clear explanation of the basis for management recommendations. The results of research into other aspects of fishery performance in the Baltic Sea are provided by HELCOM, through which the Baltic States collaborate to investigate issues of concern, agree management actions, and also provide a review of progress with management action. ASCOBANS fulfils a similar, wider-reaching role for marine mammal interactions. Information about progress with implementing HELCOM and ASCOBANS recommendations is provided on their respective websites, and regular meetings of both organisations provide an opportunity for stakeholder participation and review of progress, meaning information is available on request. The information provided by ICES, ASCOBANS and HELCOM meets all of the SG60, 80 and 100 requirements for the key aspects of the management regime. However, the lack of evidence of formal reporting from the Baltic Joint Sea Fisheries Committee that administers the EU-Russia agreement means that the SG100 requirements are not fully met. A score of 80 is therefore considered appropriate.

e Approach to disputes Guide Although the management The management system The management system post authority or fishery may be or fishery is attempting to or fishery acts proactively subject to continuing court comply in a timely fashion to avoid legal disputes or challenges, it is not with judicial decisions rapidly implements judicial indicating a disrespect or arising from any legal decisions arising from defiance of the law by challenges. legal challenges. repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery. Met? Y Y Y Justifi There is no evidence that either the management authority (the Finnish Government) cation or the fishery (the Finnish Fishermen’s Association members who are included in the UoAs) are subject to any court challenges or breaching any of the other legal requirements listed in SG60. There is also no evidence that either the management system or the fishery is subject to any judicial decisions at present. The SG60 and SG80 requirements are therefore considered to be met. At the international level, the EU and Russia have established the Baltic Sea Fisheries Committee, with the aim that this will “Serve as a forum for the amicable resolution of disputes which might arise regarding the interpretation or application of this Agreement”; this is a proactive approach to avoid disputes.

Page 284 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. At the EC level, the review of the CFP in 2012 put a greater emphasis on regional fisheries management and engagement with Advisory Councils such as the Baltic Sea Advisory Council as a means to proactively raise mutual understanding, develop regional fisheries management approaches, and avoid legal disputes. As a practical example of how the EU is working to avoid legal disputes, its institutions are now producing interpretative information to help fishermen to comply with complicated technical regulations. The EU “Better Regulation Guidelines” emphasise the importance of proactive stakeholder engagement in regulation and management of activities in all aspects of the EU’s activity. At the national level, formal procedures have been set out in the Fisheries Act 2015 to enable the resolution of disputes between fishermen and statutory bodies or riparian owners in Finland (see Chapter 14 of this Act). The Fisheries Act also encourages stakeholder engagement in management processes as a means of proactively avoiding disputes. There is therefore evidence that the international, EU and national management systems are working proactively to avoid legal disputes, meeting the SG100 requirements for this SI.

(ASCOBANS 1992, 2016, EC 1992, 2004, 2008, 2009b, 2009a, 2016c, 2016d, References 2017a, 2017g, 2017f, HELCOM 2007, 2017c, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2007, EU 2013, 2017, Government of Finland 2015a, ICES 2016f, 2016d, 2016e, 2016c, 2016b, BSAC 2017) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management PI 3.2.3 measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a MCS implementation Guide Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive post surveillance mechanisms surveillance system has monitoring, control and exist, and are been implemented in the surveillance system has implemented in the fishery fishery and has been implemented in the and there is a reasonable demonstrated an ability to fishery and has expectation that they are enforce relevant demonstrated a consistent effective. management measures, ability to enforce relevant strategies and/or rules. management measures, strategies and/or rules. Met? Y Y N Justifi The key fisheries rules and regulations in place for the Baltic Sea herring and sprat cation fisheries are the catch constraints imposed by the annually agreed TACs, and the technical measures in place that govern the specification of fishing gear (as well as some spatial and seasonal constraints). The TAC constraints are applied to Finnish fishermen through the new system of Individual Fishing Concessions (IFCs) that are allocated to individual fishers. SG 60 is met. The EU “Landing Obligation” also applies to Baltic Sea fisheries but has had limited impact on the UoA sprat and herring fisheries which are not subject to any Minimum

Page 285 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management PI 3.2.3 measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. Conservation Reference Sizes (MCRS), and for which there has therefore been no incentive to discard. The monitoring, control and surveillance system in place in Finland is therefore focused on ensuring that individual fishers comply with the catch allocation associated with their IFC, and to track the movements of fishing vessels so that the location and timing of their activities are known. Compliance with the requirement to report all fish catches and landings is monitored in Finland by ELY. Landings data are collated and reported on the LUKE on-line database, and are also submitted to the EC in accordance with EU requirements and in accordance with the Finnish Work Plan for data collection submitted by MAF and LUKE to the EC. The movements of vessels at sea are tracked using VMS (see Figure 51 of this report) to monitor where vessels are fishing and landing their catch. At the site visit MAF and LUKE officials confirmed that the Finnish fleet has a high level of compliance with quota allocations. No transgressions of quota allocations were reported. Some administrative transgressions had been detected by the MCS systems in place, mostly connected with estimates of catches being more than 10% different from actual landings. The available evidence is that the national and EU management system in place has demonstrated an ability to enforce the EU management measures for the sprat and herring fisheries, meeting the SG80 requirements. The evidence of a TAC overshoot in the sprat fishery on one occasion in 2015 does not demonstrate a “consistent ability” to enforce relevant management measures or rules across the entire UoA, so the SG100 requirements are not met.

b Sanctions Guide Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with post non-compliance exist and non-compliance exist, are non-compliance exist, are there is some evidence consistently applied and consistently applied and that they are applied. thought to provide demonstrably provide effective deterrence. effective deterrence. Met? Y Y Y Justifi Sanctions are available under EU and national legislation to deter non-compliance cation with regulations. The Finnish Government has made legislation to transpose the sanctions and controls set out in the CFP into enforceable national legislation. Statutory bodies in Finland can enforce CFP and national fisheries legislation, and fishermen may be subject to fines, confiscation of catches and equipment, and also suspension of fishing licences (under the CFP “points system” for a period of 2 months (for 18 penalty points) incrementally increasing to suspension for a year (for 72 penalty points).

MAF and ELY officials interviewed at the site visit felt that these sanctions provided an effective incentive for deterrence, citing the low levels of non-compliance with regulations detected by the enforcement agencies in Finland in support of this.

The available evidence is that all UoAs meet the SG60, 80 and 100 requirements.

c Compliance Guide Fishers are generally Some evidence exists to There is a high degree of post thought to comply with demonstrate fishers confidence that fishers the management system comply with the comply with the for the fishery under management system management system

Page 286 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management PI 3.2.3 measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. assessment, including, under assessment, under assessment, when required, providing including, when required, including, providing information of importance providing information of information of importance to the effective importance to the effective to the effective management of the management of the management of the fishery. fishery. fishery. Met? Y Y Y Justifi During the site visit, officials from MAF and ELY confirmed fishers comply with the cation management system. LUKE scientists confirm that fisheries provide information (catch and landings data) that are important for the effective management of the fishery. The only evidence of non-compliance was for relatively minor administrative offences. These offences are not considered to have compromised the overall objectives of the management system.

The available evidence is that all UoAs meet the SG60, 80 and 100 requirements. d Systematic non-compliance Guide There is no evidence of post systematic non- compliance. Met? Y Justifi The information presented to the assessment team at the site visit by MAF and ELY cation enabled the assessment team to conclude that there is no evidence of systematic non-compliance in the sprat and herring UoAs under assessment. The only fishery- related offences that were reported were minor administrative offences. It is concluded that the fishery meets the SG80 requirements.

(EC 2014, 2016e, Government of Finland 2014, 2015a, 2015b, 2016a) References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

PI 3.2.4 – Monitoring and management performance evaluation There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. PI 3.2.4 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Evaluation coverage Guide There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in post place to evaluate some place to evaluate key place to evaluate all parts parts of the fishery- parts of the fishery- of the fishery-specific specific management specific management management system. system. system Met? Y Y Y Justifi All parts of the management system are regularly evaluated through established cation mechanisms. The CFP is reviewed every decade (most recently 2012), and its component parts are reviewed internally and externally by independent evaluators via a statutory system of impact assessments and evaluations. On occasion, specific

Page 287 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. PI 3.2.4 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system. aspects of the CFP are independently evaluated by the European Court of Auditors (ECA). The scientific component is delivered by ICES. Its outputs are subject to peer review and assessments subject to periodic benchmarking. ICES itself has been subject to evaluation and recently restructured to better ensure management needs could be addressed. At the national level, the Finnish Government has recently reviewed the domestic fisheries management regime in consultation with stakeholders and scientific advisors, resulting in the replacement of the old (1982) fisheries legislation with a comprehensive and revised new Fisheries Act in 2015 All parts of the EC and national fisheries management systems (policy, management and enforcement) are therefore subject to evaluation and SG 100 is met, as well as the lower standards of SG 60 and 80.

b Internal and/or external review Guide The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific post management system is management system is management system is subject to occasional subject to regular internal subject to regular internal internal review. and occasional external and external review. review. Met? Y Y N Justifi The fishery specific management system is made up principally of the EU Common cation Fisheries Policy and the EU Baltic Sea Multi Annual Plan (MAP), and the advice provided by ICES to guide the management system. The EU CFP is subject to decadal review, a process which engages a wide range of stakeholders and scientific experts from both within the EU institutions and from external stakeholders. SG 60 is met. The Baltic Sea MAP includes a requirement for quinquennial evaluation of the plan: Article 15 Evaluation of the plan By 21 July 2019, and every five years thereafter, the Commission shall report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the results and impact of the plan on the stocks to which this Regulation applies and on the fisheries exploiting those stocks, in particular as regards the achievement of the objectives set out in Article 3. The Commission may report at an earlier date if this is deemed necessary by all Member States concerned or by the Commission itself.

ICES advice is subject to regular internal review by scientists from participating institutions, and external review (e.g. by STECF on behalf of the EU or directly by the Coastal States). Overall, it is clear that the management system (legislation and scientific) advice is subject to regular internal and occasional external review. The majority of the evaluations undertaken are ‘internal’ either within ICES or the EC. However, ICES brings together a wide range of national scientists, and in so doing builds external perspectives into the assessments. Additionally, this work is periodically externally reviewed. One way in which this is done is by inviting visiting scientists (from outside of the Europe) to attend benchmarking evaluation exercises. SG80 is met. As such external review is ad hoc, it is interpreted that SG100 is not met.

References (ICES 2009, 2012, 2016j, EU 2013, EC 2016a)

Page 288 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. PI 3.2.4 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Page 289 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs

The announcement for this fishery assessment indicated that the Risk Based Framework (RBF) could be used for Principle 1 in the Bothnian Bay herring fishery (UoAs 2 & 3); and also in Principle 2 for “secondary” species. The RBF findings associated with this aspect of the assessment are set out in this section of the report.

Principle 1: Bothnian Bay Herring

10.7.1.1 Appendix 1.2.1 Consequence Analysis (CA) for Principle 1 The RBF outputs for Principle 1 Bothnian Bay herring are set out in this section.

Page 290 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Table 39: Principle 1 CA Scoring Template - Target Species

Scoring element Consequence subcomponents Consequence Score

Population size 80

PRINCIPLE ONE: Bothnian Bay Herring Stock status outcome Reproductive capacity (Clupea harengus)

Age/size/sex structure

Geographic range Population size was considered the most vulnerable subcomponent taking into account the trend of the Rationale for most vulnerable relative SSB available from the exploratory assessment. subcomponent

Information on catches and relative SSB trends show stability or increasing patterns over the last 10 years. Relative fishing mortality shows a fluctuating pattern in the last 10 years. Recruitment indices showed no major changes in the period 2010–2015. The two CPUE time series, one from the Finnish trawl fishery and one from the Finnish trap net fishery, show a strong decreasing pattern since the begin of the series. From 2000, the number of trawling hours in SD 31 has been fairly stable. Since the year 2000, when essential changes are not regarded to have occurred in the trawl fishery, a gradually increasing trend can be seen in the trawl CPUE. The fishing effort in all fleets (also gill net) has had a declining trend from the 1980’s on. The catch level remained at a steady level at around 7000–9000 Rationale for consequence score tons/year from the end of the 1970s till 1994, when it declined rapidly in the same time as especially pelagic trawl effort dropped from 3880 trawling hours in 1993 to 1192 hours in 1994. The decreasing trend in both trawling hours and trap net effort has continued since, as the fishers have retired. Therefore, the fishery has occurred under low exploitation rates in the last years. The fishing pressure is estimated not to pose a risk on population size or population dynamics and considering the recruitment in the last years is possible to conclude that the stock is considered to be above the point where recruitment could be impaired. Therefore, it is possible to conclude that detectable change in size/growth rate (r) are occurring but there is minimal impact on population size and none on dynamics.

Page 291 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

10.7.1.2 Appendix 1.2.2 Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis (PSA)

Table 40: PSA Rationale Table

PI number P 1.1.1

A. Productivity Scoring element (species) Bothnian Bay Herring (Clupea harengus) Attribute Rationale Score According to the data used in the assessment (Table 6.5.6 in ICES Average age at maturity. 2016f) the stock is mature at age 1-2. 1 According to the data used in the assessment (Table 6.5.4 in ICES Average maximum age 1 2016f) the average maximum age is 9. The mean individual potential fecundity prior to spawning ranges Fecundity from about 30,000 to 70,000 eggs in different herring populations 1 (van Damme et al. 2009) According to (Permanne 1990)) the average maximum size of Average maximum size 1 Bothnian Bay herring is 21 (TL) cm. According to (Permanne 1990)) the average size maturity for male Average size at maturity and female of Bothnian Bay herring is respectively 14 and 15 (TL) 1 cm. According to fishbase (http://www.fishbase.org/summary/24) Reproductive strategy 1 herring reproduces by broadcast spawning. According to fishbase (http://www.fishbase.org/summary/24) the Trophic level 3 herring trophic level is 3.4 ±0.1 (s.e.). Based on diet studies. [To be used when scoring invertebrate species only – delete if not Density dependence - applicable]

B. Susceptibility

Fishery only where the The fisheries impacting the scoring element are:- scoring element is scored • Trawl fishery cumulatively • Trapnet fishery • Gill net fishery Attribute Rationale Score Taking into account Figure 2, Figure 15, Figure 45 & Figure 51 the Areal Overlap areal overlap between the fishing effort from all métiers and the 2 species distribution in the Bothnian Bay is between 10 and 30%. Encounterability Default score for target species (P1) 3 According to the data used in the assessment (Table 6.5.4 in ICES 2016f) age 1 individuals, corresponding to a size below the size at maturity) are regularly caught.

Selectivity of gear type 3 Given the limited data available for this fishery and following comments from the MSC on the Public Comment Draft Report, the score for this attribute has been increased from 2 to 3 as a precautionary measure. Post capture mortality Default score for target species (P1) 3 Gear 2015 catch (t) Trawl 4345 Catch (weight) Trapnet 136 Gill net 46

Page 292 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The scores awarded above are used to determine an MSC score for Performance Indicator 1.1.1 using a spreadsheet provided by the MSC. This spreadsheet uses an algorithm that has been developed by the MSC to determine a “Productivity” and a “Susceptibility” score for the fishery, and then to allocate a corresponding MSC score. A copy of the spreadsheet that is used to perform this calculation is shown in this report. For interested readers, the spreadsheet can be downloaded from the MSC website2.

2 https://www.msc.org/documents/scheme-documents/forms-and-templates/msc- productivity-susceptibility-analysis-worksheet-v1-1/view

Page 293 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Table 41: Productivity Susceptibility Analysis for herring, Clupea harengus, in the Bothnian Bay (copy of worksheet from MSC PSA spreadsheet). Productivity Scores [1-3] Susceptibility Scores [1-3] Cumulative only

First of each

Scoring scoring

PSA Score

Average Average max age Fecundity Average max size Average size at Maturity strategyReproductive Trophic level Density Dependance Total Productivity (average) Availability Encounterability Selectivity Post-capture mortality Total (multiplicative) Catch (tons) Weighting Total Weighted PSAWeighted Score MSC PSA-derived score Risk Name Category MSC scoring guidepost Score (CA) Consequence Final MSCscoring (per score element) element element Family name Scientific name Common name Species type Fishery descriptor at Average age maturity 1 First Clupeidae Clupea harengus Herring Non-invertebrate Trawl 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1.29 2 3 3 3 2.33 2.66 4345 1.00 2.66 2.66 80 Low ≥80 80 80 2 First Clupeidae Clupea harengus Herring Non-invertebrate Trapnet 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1.29 2 3 3 3 2.33 2.66 136 1.00 2.66 2.66 80 Low ≥80 80 80 3 First Clupeidae Clupea harengus Herring Non-invertebrate Gill net 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1.29 2 3 3 3 2.33 2.66 46 1.00 2.66 2.66 80 Low ≥80 80 80

Page 294 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Principle 2

10.7.2.1 Secondary species After carefully evaluating all of the quantitative and qualitative information presented during and after the site visit, the assessment team has concluded that there are no “main” secondary species in this fishery.

LUKE have provided landings data which indicate that a very small quantity of smelt may be landed from all of the UoAs (quantities ranging from a few kg to a few tonnes per year are reported by LUKE, and summarised in section 4.7.1.2.2.2 of this report).

On the basis of this quantitative information, it appears likely that the only “minor” secondary species caught in any of the UoAs are 3-spined sticklebacks and smelt.

The initial intention of the assessment team had been to carry out an RBF assessment of the minor secondary species reported from the fishery. However, given the uncertainty about the detail of catch composition (the subject of conditions under PIs 2.1.3 and PI2.2.3 respectively), and the fact that the RBF would not affect the assessment outcome (other than to possibly increase the score for PI2.2.1), it is considered inappropriate to carry out an RBF assessment for the “minor” secondary species in the UoAs under consideration.

This view is consistent with the approach adopted in the LFPO sprat fishery assessment, where the RBF was carried out using data from independent catch monitoring studies, rather than using official landings data.

This decision has been taken by the assessment team in accordance with the MSC FCR at PF4.1.4.

Not applicable for this assessment.

Page 295 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery 11 Appendix 3: Conditions of Certification Conditions and Client Action Plan All of the UoAs scored less than 80 for 3 performance indicators, generating a total of 21 conditions of certification. The response required for each UoA is identical for these 3 Performance Indicators. The Conditions and corresponding client action plan for each condition are listed below. To avoid unnecessary duplication of text, the conditions are shown for each of the 3 Performance Indicators where scores of less than 80 were achieved for each UoC. Each condition applies to all UoCs.

Conditions 1-7: PI 2.1.3 - Primary Species Information (UoAs 1-7) Performance PI 2.1.3 - Primary Species Information Indicator Scoring Issue(s) Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to assess the impact of the UoA on the main primary species with respect to status.

Score 70 The information available to assess the catch of primary non-target species by the UoAs is described in section 4.7.1.2 of this report. The status of the primary non-target species (sprat in the UoA 4 & 6 herring fisheries; herring in the UoA 1 sprat fishery) is summarised in sections 4.6.1, 4.6.2 & 4.6.2.2 respectively, and is reported annually by ICES (ICES 2017e, 2017b). In summary, although there is good quantitative information available about the landings of all fish by trawl and trap fishing activities within all of the UoAs from the LUKE database, there is only qualitative and some limited quantitative information available about the actual catch composition from the targeted fishery for herring and sprats. The qualitative information available from all stakeholders at the site visit was consistent, and indicated that there is a very low catch of non-target species in all of the UoAs (see section 13.2 of this report). Rationale LUKE has provided some evidence from trawl surveys to support these anecdotal reports. This quantitative information indicates that sprat are likely to be the only primary non-target species caught in the herring trawl fisheries in the Central Baltic Sea and Bothnian Sea (UoAs 4 & 6); and herring are likely to be the only primary non-target species caught in the sprat fishery (UoA 1). ICES provide annual quantitative assessments of the status of these stocks (ICES 2017b) Overall, there is good quantitative information available about the landings of all fish species from all fishers in the UoAs, consistent qualitative information about the catch composition in the UoAs and good quantitative information about the status of the primary species caught in the UoAs. This information meets all of the SG60 requirements and much of the SG80 requirements. SG80 is not considered to be fully met however, because of the lack of detail in the catch and landings data available which currently prevents an adequate quantitative evaluation of the catch composition in each UoA .

Quantitative information on the actual fish catches from each UoA should be Condition made available that is adequate to assess the impact of the UoA on the main primary species with respect to status.

Milestones Year 1: Review the status of existing information and information-gathering programmes and prepare a plan for providing quantitative information about the

Page 296 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

fish catches from each UoA and the impact of the UoA on the main primary species. [Resulting score: 70] Years 2-3: Implement the plan for gathering quantitative information about the impact of the UoA on the main primary species. [Resulting score: 70] Year 4: Provide a report on the quantity of main primary species caught in each UoA. [Resulting score: 80] Overall objectives:

• Finnish Fishermen’s Association (FFA) will work with LUKE and ELY to design and implement an appropriate catch monitoring programme for the fishery.

• FFA will work with LUKE /ELY to ensure that data collected from this monitoring programme are collated and the results provided annually to relevant parties.

Year 1

The client (FFA) ensures that the review the status of existing information and information-gathering programmes has been implemented. Client action plan In addition, the client has prepared a plan for providing quantitative information about the fish catches from each UoA and the impact of the UoA on the main primary species.

Year 2-3

The client coordinates and ensures the implementation of the plan for gathering quantitative information about the impact of the UoA on the main primary species.

Year 4

The client (FFA) provides a report on the quantity of main primary species caught in each UoA. Consultation on The client has consulted with ELY and LUKE about the implementation of the condition action plan, and a formal letter pledging support has been submitted (11.2)

Conditions 8-14: PI 2.2.3 - Secondary Species Information (UoAs 1-7) Performance PI 2.2.3 - Secondary Species Information Indicator Some quantitative information is available and adequate to assess the impact of Scoring Issue(s) the UoA on main secondary species with respect to status.

Score 60

The information available to assess the catch of non-target species by the UoAs is described in section 4.7.1.2 of this report. In summary, although there is good quantitative information available about the landings of all fish by trawl and trap fishing activities within all of the UoAs from Rationale the LUKE database, there is only qualitative and some limited quantitative information available about the actual catch composition from the targeted fishery for herring and sprats. The qualitative information available from all stakeholders at the site visit was consistent, and indicated that there is a very low catch of any non-target species in all of the UoAs (see section 13.2 of this report).

Page 297 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

LUKE has provided some evidence from trawl surveys to support these anecdotal reports. This quantitative information there are probably no “main” secondary non-target species caught in the pelagic trawl fisheries in the Central Baltic Sea and Bothnian Sea (UoAs 1, 4 & 6). Overall, there is good quantitative information available about the landings of all fish species from all fishers in the UoAs, consistent qualitative information about the catch composition in the UoAs, and some very limited information about catch composition. Thus for all of the UoAs, the SG60 requirements are met, but not the SG80 requirements.

Quantitative information on the actual fish catches from each UoA should be Condition made available that is adequate to assess the impact of the UoA on the main secondary species with respect to status and which is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main secondary species.

Year 1: Review the status of existing information and information-gathering programmes and prepare a plan for providing quantitative information about the fish catches from each UoA and the impact of the UoA on the main secondary species. [Resulting score: 70] Milestones Years 2-3: Implement the plan for gathering quantitative information about the impact of the UoA on the main secondary species. [Resulting score: 70] Year 4: Provide a report on the quantity of main secondary species caught in each UoA that provides adequate information to support a partial strategy for managing any main secondary species. [Resulting score: 80]

Overall objectives: • Finnish Fishermen’s Association (FFA) will work with LUKE and ELY to design and implement an appropriate catch monitoring programme for the fishery. • FFA will work with LUKE /ELY to ensure that data collected from this monitoring programme are collated and the results provided annually to relevant parties. Year 1 The client (FFA) ensures that the review the status of existing information and information-gathering programmes has been implemented. Client action plan In addition, the client has prepared a plan for providing quantitative information about the fish catches from each UoA and the impact of the UoA on the main primary species. Year 2-3 The client coordinates and ensures the implementation of the plan for gathering quantitative information about the impact of the UoA on the main primary species. Year 4 The client (FFA) provides a report on the quantity of the secondary species caught in each UoA.

Consultation on The client has consulted with MAF, ELY and LUKE about the implementation of condition the action plan, and a formal letter pledging support has been submitted (11.2)

Conditions 15-21: PI 2.3.3 - ETP Species Information (UoAs 1-7)

Performance PI 2.3.3 - ETP Species Information Indicator

Page 298 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

SI a: Some quantitative information is adequate to assess the UoA related mortality and impact and to determine whether the UoA may be a threat to Scoring Issue(s) protection and recovery of the ETP species.

SIb Information is adequate to measure trends and support a strategy to manage impacts on ETP species.

Score 60 SIa For each of the UoAs under consideration, the only information about mortality of ETP species that has been available for this assessment is qualitative; no quantitative information has been presented to the assessment team about the mortality of ETP species in any of the UoAs. Whilst the qualitative information provided from the UoAs, coupled with quantitative information from other sources and the good information about the status of ETP species has been sufficient to allow the assessment of ETP species Rationale interactions, this information only satisfies the SG60 requirements for this SI.

SIb The qualitative information from the fishery concerning ETP species interactions, coupled with monitoring information about the status of these species, along with information about interactions between similar fisheries and ETP species is sufficient to support measures to manage impacts on ETP species, meeting the SG60 requirements. However, in the absence of quantitative information from the fishery describing the extent of interactions and the effectiveness of mitigation or management measures, the SG80 requirements are not met.

Quantitative information should be gathered about the interactions between the Condition UoAs and ETP species to assess the UoA related mortality and impacts, and to monitor trends in the extent and magnitude of impacts on ETP species.

Year 1: Review the status of existing information and information-gathering programmes and prepare a plan for providing quantitative information about the impact of the UoA on ETP species. [Resulting score: 60] Milestones Years 2-3: Implement a monitoring plan for gathering quantitative information about the impact of the UoA on ETP species. [Resulting score: 60] Year 4: Provide a report on the impacts of each UoA on ETP species. [Resulting score: 80] Overall objectives:

• Finnish Fishermen’s Association (FFA) will work with LUKE and ELY to design and implement an appropriate catch monitoring programme for the fishery.

• FFA will work with LUKE /ELY to ensure that data collected from this monitoring programme are collated and the results provided annually to relevant parties.

Client action plan Year 1

The client (FFA) ensures that the review the status of existing information and information-gathering programmes has been implemented.

In addition, the client has prepared a plan for providing quantitative information about the fish catches from each UoA and the impact of the UoA on the main primary species.

Year 2-3

Page 299 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

The client coordinates and ensures the implementation of the plan for gathering quantitative information about the impact of the UoA on the main primary species.

Year 4

The client (FFA) provides a report on the impacts of each UoA on the ETP species. Consultation on The client has consulted with ELY and LUKE about the implementation of the condition action plan, and a formal letter pledging support has been submitted (11.2)

Page 300 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Evidence of consultation on conditions The client has provided evidence of consultation with, and support from, the relevant scientific institutions in Finland. Letters of support from LUKE and ELY are appended below.

Page 301 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Page 302 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery 12 Appendix 4: Peer Review Reports Peer Reviewer A Summary of Peer Reviewer Opinion

Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes CAB Response appropriate conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? Justification: The assessment team concluded that the fishery be certified. Comment noted, no action required. The overall determination that this fishery should be certified according to the MSC principles and criteria is appropriate and correctly based on the findings of this assessment.

Do you think the condition(s) raised are No CAB Response appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? [Reference: FCR 7.11.1 and sub-clauses] Justification: I agree with the 21 conditions ( 3 conditions which are identical The team has reviewed the information for the 7 UoA’s) and with the actual topics that have been available and the relevant PIs in identified. However concerning PI 2.1.1 and PI 2.2.1 it is stated response to this comment. that quantitative information on the catch composition is not available. Therefore it seems not to be certain that there are no To clarify, for PI2.1.1, we have concluded minor primary and secondary species. It seems therefore more that vendace are a minor primary species appropriate to conclude that SG100b for minor species is not in UoAs 2, 3, 5 & 7, and have scored met. The Condition could then also address the lack of accordingly. For PI 2.2.1 the available information on minor primary (if any) and secondary species. data indicate that there are no minor secondary species in the catch and are considered adequate for this purpose.

In scoring PI2.1.3 at SIb, we have amended our scoring to refer to the stock assessment for vendace which justifies scoring at SG100.

In scoring PI2.2.3 at SIb, our comments refer to the fact that although there is no evidence that there are any minor secondary species in any of the UoAs; SG100 is not considered to be met. This scoring was precautionary, and a response of the team to the exact issue raised here.

Conditions of certification are intended to address situations where scores fail to attain the SG80 requirements. It is not therefore necessary to address a failure to attain the SG100 requirements for PI2.2.3 at SIb with a condition.

No change to the scoring or conditions is considered necessary.

Page 303 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient No CAB Response to close the conditions raised? [Reference FCR 7.11.2-7.11.3 and sub-clauses] Justification: Thank you for the comment. The actions described in the client action plan are limited to We have reviewed the client action plan gathering information on main primary and secondary species. and consider that it is adequate. Since data on catch composition should show which species are main and which species are minor it seems more logical present all information so the team can assess whether there are minor primary species and what is the impact on minor secondary species. re

Performance Indicator Review Please complete the appropriate table(s) in relation to the CAB’s Peer Review Draft Report:

• For reports using one of the default assessment trees (general, salmon or enhanced bivalves), please enter the details on the assessment outcome using the appropriate table.

• For reports using the Risk-Based Framework please enter the details on the assessment outcome using the appropriate table.

• For reports assessing enhanced fisheries please enter the further details required in the appropriate table.

Page 304 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

For reports using one of the default assessment trees:

Performance Has all available Does the Will the condition(s) Justification CAB Response Indicator relevant information and/or raised improve the Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues information been rationale used to fishery’s and any relevant documentation used to score this score this Indicator performance to the where possible. Please attach Indicator? support the given SG80 level? additional pages if necessary.

(Yes/No) score? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

Sprat

1.1.1 Sprat Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

1.1.2 Sprat NA Comment noted, no response required.

Page 305 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Performance Has all available Does the Will the condition(s) Justification CAB Response Indicator relevant information and/or raised improve the Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues information been rationale used to fishery’s and any relevant documentation used to score this score this Indicator performance to the where possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. Indicator? support the given SG80 level?

(Yes/No) score? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

1.2.1 Sprat Yes Yes NA The fact that Russia is not In table 10.1.4 it is clearly agreeing with quota stated “Overall, based on 2009 allocations as proposed by EU Fisheries agreement between and unilaterally sets the quota EU and Russia, these two for its own fisheries is not Parties agree their quotas reflected in the current score. within sustainable limits and Since the Russian share in the based on advice from ICES”. total catches is limited and Such agreement has been does not have a large impact renewed and it is still in place. on stock status, the harvest strategy may still reach SG80 The score awarded is levels. consistent with the LFPO sprat trawl fishery, that is already certified, and which awarded the SG100 score to SIa. We have chosen to award a score of 80 at SIa, in line with the views of the reviewer, though for slightly different reasons.

The scoring is therefore considered to be appropriate.

Page 306 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

1.2.2 Sprat No No NA The fact that Russia is not In table 10.1.4 it is clearly agreeing with quota stated “Overall, based on 2009 allocations as proposed by EU Fisheries agreement between and unilaterally sets the quota EU and Russia, these two for its own fisheries s not Parties agree their quotas refelcted in the current score. within sustainable limits and It is questionable if SG80c is based on advice from ICES”. met since one of the tools in Such agreement has been use (quota agreements in the renewed and it is still in place. Baltic Fisheries Committee) is currently not functioning.SG80 We note the concerns about might be met hoewver the Russian allocation of an considering the limited share autonomous quota and have of Russia in the total fishery. added a caveat to the text about this; however the evidence from the most recent ICES stock asssessments is that the harvest control tools (TAC) are achieving the exploitation levels (F values) required by the HCRs.

The scoring is therefore considered to be appropriate; it is also consistent with (and slightly more precautionary than) the scoring in the LFPO sprat fishery that is already certified.

1.2.3 Sprat Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

1.2.4 Sprat Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

Herring

Page 307 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Performance Has all available Does the Will the condition(s) Justification CAB Response Indicator relevant information and/or raised improve the Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues information been rationale used to fishery’s and any relevant documentation used to score this score this Indicator performance to the where possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. Indicator? support the given SG80 level?

(Yes/No) score? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

1.1.1 Herring Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

1.1.2 Herring NA Comment noted, no response required.

Page 308 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Performance Has all available Does the Will the condition(s) Justification CAB Response Indicator relevant information and/or raised improve the Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues information been rationale used to fishery’s and any relevant documentation used to score this score this Indicator performance to the where possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. Indicator? support the given SG80 level?

(Yes/No) score? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

1.2.1 Herring Yes Yes NA The fact that Russia is not In table 10.2.3 it is clearly agreeing with quota stated “Overall, based on 2009 allocations as proposed by EU Fisheries agreement between and unilaterally sets the quota EU and Russia, these two for its own fisheries is not Parties agree their quotas reflected in the current score. within sustainable limits and Since the Russian share in the based on advice from ICES”. total catches is limited and does not have a large impact Such agreement has been on stock status, the harvest renewed and it is still in place. strategy may still reach SG80 levels. The evidence available is that the harvest strategy has responded to the state of the stock by reducing F from 0.449 in 2000 to 0.183 in 2015, F is now below Fmsy and stock biomass is above Bmsy; the objectives of PI1.1.1 SG80 are clearly met.

The scoring is therefore considered to be appropriate.

Page 309 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Performance Has all available Does the Will the condition(s) Justification CAB Response Indicator relevant information and/or raised improve the Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues information been rationale used to fishery’s and any relevant documentation used to score this score this Indicator performance to the where possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. Indicator? support the given SG80 level?

(Yes/No) score? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

1.2.2 Herring No No NA The fact that Russia is not In table 10.2.3 it is clearly agreeing with quota stated “Overall, based on 2009 allocations as proposed by EU Fisheries agreement between and unilaterally sets the quota EU and Russia, these two for its own fisheries s not Parties agree their quotas refelcted in the current score. within sustainable limits and It is questionable if SG80c is based on advice from ICES”. met since one of the tools in use (quota agreements in the Such agreement has been Baltic Fisheries Committee) is renewed and it is still in place. currently not functioning. SG80 might be met hoewver We note the concerns about considering the limited share the Russian allocation of an of Russia in the total fishery. autonomous quota and have added a caveat to the text about this; however the evidence from the most recent ICES stock asssessments is that the harvest control tools (TAC) are achieving the exploitation levels (F values) required by the HCRs.

The scoring is therefore considered to be appropriate.

Page 310 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Performance Has all available Does the Will the condition(s) Justification CAB Response Indicator relevant information and/or raised improve the Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues information been rationale used to fishery’s and any relevant documentation used to score this score this Indicator performance to the where possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. Indicator? support the given SG80 level?

(Yes/No) score? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

1.2.3 Herring Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

1.2.4 Herring Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

Botnian Bay Herring (BBH)

1.1.1 BBH NA RBF used Comment noted, no response required.

1.1.2 BBH NA Comment noted, no response required.

Page 311 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Performance Has all available Does the Will the condition(s) Justification CAB Response Indicator relevant information and/or raised improve the Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues information been rationale used to fishery’s and any relevant documentation used to score this score this Indicator performance to the where possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. Indicator? support the given SG80 level?

(Yes/No) score? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

1.2.1 BBH Yes Yes NA The fact that Russia is not Russian vessels are not agreeing with quota exploiting this stock. allocations as proposed by EU and unilaterally sets the quota The scoring is appropriate. for its own fisheries is not reflected in the current score. Since the Russian share in the total catches is limited and does not have a large impact on stock status, the harvest strategy may still reach SG80 levels.

Page 312 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Performance Has all available Does the Will the condition(s) Justification CAB Response Indicator relevant information and/or raised improve the Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues information been rationale used to fishery’s and any relevant documentation used to score this score this Indicator performance to the where possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. Indicator? support the given SG80 level?

(Yes/No) score? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

1.2.2 BBH No No NA The fact that Russia is not Russian vessels are not agreeing with quota exploiting this stock. allocations as proposed by EU and unilaterally sets the quota The scoring is appropriate. for its own fisheries s not refelcted in the current score. It is questionable if SG80c is met since one of the tools in use (quota agreements in the Baltic Fisheries Committee) is currently not functioning.SG80 might be met hoewver considering the limited share of Russia in the total fishery.

1.2.3 BBH Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

1.2.4 BBH Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

Page 313 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Performance Has all available Does the Will the condition(s) Justification CAB Response Indicator relevant information and/or raised improve the Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues information been rationale used to fishery’s and any relevant documentation used to score this score this Indicator performance to the where possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. Indicator? support the given SG80 level?

(Yes/No) score? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

2.1.1 Yes Yes NA Since the score on 2.1.3 is 60 In response to this comment and it is not certain that for we have amended section instance cod is not caught in 4.5.2 of the report,where we smaller quantities and the had attempted to address this impact on this stock can not issue but had not done so very be assessed SG100 is clearly. probably not reached. It is also stated in the report that In brief, the terms for “mid- vessels may switch to water trawl” and “demersal demersal trawling at certain trawl” are interchangeable in times of the year. So then it be Finnish, which had resulted in most likely that there is a some confusion. The figures in bycatch of cod. the report (Figure 3 - Figure 6 show that “demersal” trawls are not used in the fishery, and only pelagic / mid-water trawls are sused.

To be clear, the UoA covers only pelagic & mid-water trawls. While cod can be caught in mid-water trawls, there is no evidence from catch or landings data that cod are a “main” non-target species in the herring trawl fishery.

Page 314 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Performance Has all available Does the Will the condition(s) Justification CAB Response Indicator relevant information and/or raised improve the Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues information been rationale used to fishery’s and any relevant documentation used to score this score this Indicator performance to the where possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. Indicator? support the given SG80 level?

(Yes/No) score? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

2.1.2 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

2.1.3 Yes Yes No See comment on Conditions As noted above, we consider above. the scoring is appropriate.

2.2.1 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

2.2.2 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

2.2.3 Yes Yes No See comment on conditions As noted above, we consider above. the scoriong is appropriate.

2.3.1 Yes Comment noted, no response required.

Page 315 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

2.3.2 SG80a: Seal exclusion There are no national or devices (SED’s) are used in international limits in place for the pontoon traps. This is part seals, only for harbour of the strategy and should be porpoise. It is not appropriate described and it is important to consider seals under this SI. to know which part of the fleet uses these devices and SEDs are used in all pontoon whether all fishermen could traps. There are currently only use these. two pontoon traps used in the UoA (see section 4.5.3.2 of this report).

SG80b. Since the information This SI examines whether about seal bycatches in the there is a strategy in place to trap fishery is only qualitative ensure the UoA does not there may not be enough hinder the recovery of ETP objective information to species. Although the conclude that the strategy information about seal bycatch works. is only qualitative, the quantitative information presented in section 4.7.2.4.3 of the report and referred to in PI2.3.1 shows that both grey seal and Baltic ringed seal populaions are increasing; so it is it clear that fishing and other anthropogenic influences (apart from climate change) are not hindering recovery.

2.3.3 Yes Yes Yes The condition that is Comment noted, no response formulated is appropriate. required.

2.4.1 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

Page 316 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Performance Has all available Does the Will the condition(s) Justification CAB Response Indicator relevant information and/or raised improve the Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues information been rationale used to fishery’s and any relevant documentation used to score this score this Indicator performance to the where possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. Indicator? support the given SG80 level?

(Yes/No) score? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

2.4.2 No No NA There is no information We have amended the supporting the SG100 score rationale for SIa in response to on traps. It is also not these comments. described wheter any strategy is in place to select the The rationale for SIa notes that locations of traps in respect of the provisions of Article 6 of the th elocation of habitats. EU Habitats Directive apply to fisning activities, and can thus apply to the location of fish traps. There is no indication, however, that any need to restrict the location of fish traps in Finland in order to protect marine habitats has been identified.

2.4.3 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

2.5.1 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

2.5.2 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

2.5.3 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

Page 317 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Performance Has all available Does the Will the condition(s) Justification CAB Response Indicator relevant information and/or raised improve the Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues information been rationale used to fishery’s and any relevant documentation used to score this score this Indicator performance to the where possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. Indicator? support the given SG80 level?

(Yes/No) score? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

3.1.1 No Yes NA SG100a: Russian fishermen This is a good point. We have are also targetting herring & separated the scorring of the sprat in the Baltic. Therefore UoAs that are located entirely information about the Russian within the EU EEZ and those management system should which overlap with the Russian be provided. EEZ. If the scoring is based on the international system of As a consequence, we have cooperation between the EU reduced the score for Central and Russia in order to award Baltic herring and sprats a 100 score it should be (stocks straddling the Russian demonstrated that the (strong) EEZ) from 100 to 80 for this SI. requirements in SA4.3.4.2 are met. The cooperation should The scores of 100 remain deliver management appropriate for the Bothnian outcomes consistent with Sea and Bothnian Bay herring MSC Principles 1 and 2 which lie entirely within the EU through binding procedures. It EEZ. should be certain that also Russia follows management advice as provided by ICES and does not set unilateral quota. Since within the Baltic Sea Fisheries Committee there has been no agreement on Russias share in quota allocations these requirements

Page 318 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Performance Has all available Does the Will the condition(s) Justification CAB Response Indicator relevant information and/or raised improve the Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues information been rationale used to fishery’s and any relevant documentation used to score this score this Indicator performance to the where possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. Indicator? support the given SG80 level?

(Yes/No) score? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

are not met. (In table 9. Russias autonomous quotas are mentioned.) The MSC CR requires for SIa SG100b: Info on Russian that the national and dispute resolution is needed international laws are unless it can be concluded considered for all actors that this takes place in the involved in managing the UoA framework of the international at SIa. This is not, however, cooperation. . considered appropriate for SIb by the MSC. The team consider that it is dispute resoltuion at the international level that is important. In considering this, the SG100 requirements are not met. The score awarded here is compatible with the concerns raised by the reviewer.

Page 319 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Performance Has all available Does the Will the condition(s) Justification CAB Response Indicator relevant information and/or raised improve the Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues information been rationale used to fishery’s and any relevant documentation used to score this score this Indicator performance to the where possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. Indicator? support the given SG80 level?

(Yes/No) score? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

3.1.2 No No NA The Baltic Sea Fisheries The point raised here is Committee has an important relevant to PI3.1.1, where we role in delivering P1 have adjusted the scoring. outcomes. Although the responsibilities are clearly This PI tests whether the roles defined in the EU-Russia and responsibilties in the agreement the Committee is management system are not functioning as required. A defined, whether they take score of 95 on this PI is account of relevant information, therefore to high. Its is and also provide an opportunity questionable whether SG100a for stakeholder engagement. and SG100c are met in the current situation. The fact that While we agree with the Russias shares in the fisheries sentiment of the comment (and are small (around 5 %) might have responded to this support the conclusion that sentiment in re-scoring SG80 scoring issues are still PI3.1.1), we consider that the met, score awarded remains appropriate.

3.1.3 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

3.2.1 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

Page 320 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Performance Has all available Does the Will the condition(s) Justification CAB Response Indicator relevant information and/or raised improve the Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues information been rationale used to fishery’s and any relevant documentation used to score this score this Indicator performance to the where possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. Indicator? support the given SG80 level?

(Yes/No) score? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

3.2.2 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

3.2.3 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

3.2.4 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

Page 321 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

For reports using the Risk-Based Framework: Bothnian Bay Herring Trawl and Trap net Fisheries (UoAs 4 and 5)

Performance Does the report Are the RBF risk Justification: CAB Response: Indicator clearly explain scores well- Please support your answers by referring to how the referenced? specific scoring issues and any relevant process(es) Yes/No documentation where possible. Please attach applied to additional pages if necessary. determine risk using the RBF has led to the stated Note: Justification to support your answers is only outcome? required where answers given are ‘No’. Yes/No When scoring the CA score the team should refer We have modified the text accordingly to refer to 1.1.1 No Yes tot the wording of Table PF3 “CA Scoring of Table PF3. subcomponents”

The 80 score is reached when: “Possible The team notes that SSB trends show stability or detectable change in size/growth rate (r) but increasing patterns over the last 10 years. minimal impact on population size and none on Relative fishing mortality shows a fluctuating dynamics.” The team should score 60 where pattern in the last 10 years. Recruitment indices available information shows changes to the showed no major changes in the period 2010– population subcomponent attributed to the fishing 2015. Such outcomes clearly demonstrate that activity and these changes are of such magnitude the impact of fisheries on population size is that they cannot be considered as minimal. minimal and and none on the dynamics. The The rational that the team provided states that the scoring is therefore considered appropriate. fishery is not a risk to population size and the stock is above the level were recruitment could be impaired, This rational only seems to support a score of 60. In order to score 80 is should be concluded that the impact on population size is minimal and none on dynamics. If this is not the case a score of 60 should be awarded.

The susceptability score awarded for ‘areal The team has double-checked on this question overlap’is 2. The figures mentioned in the rational of spatial overlap with the trawl operators. They could support the conclusion that the overlap of report that trawling for herring in the Bothnian the fishery with the Botnian Bay is < 30 %. Bay is very difficult. Trawlers can only fish in a

Page 322 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

However it is not clear whether the fishery relatively limited area of deeper water and overlaps with less than 30 % of the herring herring spawn in shallow areas. The peak concentrations in this area. It is likely that the catches of herring in this area are attained before herring concentrate in certain areas in the Botnian the herring form spawning aggregations in Bay and that the fismermen target these areas. shallower water. The chance (risk) that the fishery overlaps with the herring concentrations is therefore automatically The team conclude that there is no evidence that high which would result in a risk score of 3. the herring concentrate only in few hot spots of the Bothnian Bay. Therefore is reasonable to consider an overlap of less than 30%.

The susceptability score awarded for selectivity of the gear is 2. This is based on the conclusion that The team disagrees with the reviewer. The individuals < size at maturity are regularly caught. evidence provided in the report clearly shows PF 4.4.8.4 b. ‘Regularly’ means that the capture that there is not a frequent presence of age 1 fish of individuals smaller than the size at maturity in the catches. occurs in 5% to 50% of the gear deployments. It should be supported with rational that smaller herring are caught in less than 50 % of gear deployments. If there is always a significant fraction of undersized fish in the catch the risk score would be 3.

Page 323 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Peer Reviewer B

Summary of Peer Reviewer Opinion

Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes CAB Response appropriate conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? Justification: With 2 species, 3 geographical areas and 2 gear types this has Thank you - comment noted, no been a complex fishery assessment, with 7 Units of response required. Assessment. I think the team are to be congratulated on the way they have dealt with this complexity and presented a clear, well- organised and well-written report, with appropriate conclusions based on the evidence available from a substantial literature. The assessment of these fisheries is aided by the fact that these stocks are assessed annually, and the assessment methodology reviewed regularly by ICES, so the methods used are state-of-the-art.

Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes CAB Response appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? [Reference: FCR 7.11.1 and sub-clauses] Justification: Three performance indicators scored less than 80 across all 7 Thank you - comment noted, no units of Assessment, which resulted in 21 Conditions. The response required. requirements of these Conditions are not particularly onerous and I believe that all the conditions raised are clearly and appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe.

If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient Maybe CAB Response to close the conditions raised? [Reference FCR 7.11.2-7.11.3 and sub-clauses] Justification: The client action plans included here lacks detail - they merely Thank you - comment noted, no repeat the wording set out in the Milestone by the assessment response required. team. However, this is not unusual and If the work is carried out diligently and is well directed it will be sufficient to close the conditions on schedule.

Performance Indicator Review Please complete the appropriate table(s) in relation to the CAB’s Peer Review Draft Report:

• For reports using one of the default assessment trees (general, salmon or enhanced bivalves), please enter the details on the assessment outcome using the appropriate table.

• For reports using the Risk-Based Framework please enter the details on the assessment outcome using the appropriate table.

Page 324 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

• For reports assessing enhanced fisheries please enter the further details required in the appropriate table.

Page 325 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

For reports using one of the default assessment trees:

Performance Has all available Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and information rationale used to raised improve any relevant documentation where been used to score this Indicator the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional score this support the given performance to pages if necessary.

Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

UoA 1 Baltic Sprat Trawl Fishery

1.1.1.A Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

1.1.2 NA NA NA Comment noted, no response required.

1.2.1 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

1.2.2 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

1.2.3 Yes Yes NA There is some uncertainty with Comment noted, no response the sprat mortality estimates, required. since the mechanism for calculating, based on estimates of the SSB of cod population, has only been used since 2012. However, the fishery scientists are aware of this and have taken steps to

Page 326 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Performance Has all available Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and information rationale used to raised improve any relevant documentation where been used to score this Indicator the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. score this support the given performance to

Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

improve the data collected so that future uncertainty should be reduced. I agree with the score

1.2.4 Yes Yes NA I agree with the score Comment noted, no response required.

UoA’s 6 & 7 Central Baltic Herring Trawl and Trap net Fisheries (Subdivisions 25–29 and 32, excluding Gulf of Riga)

1.1.1 A Yes Yes NA Assessed as a LTL species but stock has been above the level where serious ecosystem impacts could occur since 2010. I agree the score

1.1.2 NA NA NA Stock not depleted Comment noted, no response required.

1.2.1 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

1.2.2 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

Page 327 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Performance Has all available Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and information rationale used to raised improve any relevant documentation where been used to score this Indicator the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. score this support the given performance to

Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

1.2.3. Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

1.2.4 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

UoA’s 4 & 5 Bothnian Sea Herring Trawl and Trapnet Fisheries

1.1.1 Yes No NA Comment noted, no response required.

1.1.2 NA NA NA Since the stock is not depleted You are right. We have modified PI 1.1.2 should not be scored, the table in response to this so all the ‘MET?’ boxes should comment. contain ‘NA’ not ‘N’.

1.2.1 Yes No NA 1.2.1e does not state why this We have modified the table in is not relevant.i.e ‘the species response to both these comments. fished is not a shark’. 1.2.1 f the Justification does not state why SG100 is not met

1.2.2 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

Page 328 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Performance Has all available Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and information rationale used to raised improve any relevant documentation where been used to score this Indicator the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. score this support the given performance to

Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

1.2.3 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

1.2.4 Yes No NA Since the acoustic tuning data The team disagrees with such has only been available since conclusion, the assessment is 2012 and the trap net tuning stable because the methodology index was revised in 2012 and employed (SAM) takes into again in 2013, there is not yet account such uncertainities a stable assessment of this stock. I think it is arguable whether PI 1.2.4a and possibly PI1.2.4d meet the SG100 level

UoA’s 2 & 3 Bothnian Bay Herring Trawl and Trap net Fisheries

1.1.1 Assessed using the RBF

1.1.2 NA NA NA Comment noted, no response required.

1.2.1 Yes No NA 1.2.1e does not state why this We have modified the table in is not relevant.i.e ‘the species response to both thesecomments. fished is not a shark’. 1.2.1f the Justification does not state why SG100 is not met

Page 329 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Performance Has all available Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and information rationale used to raised improve any relevant documentation where been used to score this Indicator the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. score this support the given performance to

Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

1.2.2 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

1.2.3 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

1.2.4 RBF default score of 80 Comment noted, no response required.

All UoA’s

2.1.1 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

2.1.2 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

2.1.3 Yes Yes Yes Comment noted, no response required.

2.2.1 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

2.2.2 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

Page 330 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Performance Has all available Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and information rationale used to raised improve any relevant documentation where been used to score this Indicator the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. score this support the given performance to

Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

2.2.3 Yes Yes Yes Comment noted, no response required.

2.3.1 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

2.3.2 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

2.3.3 Yes Yes Yes Comment noted, no response required.

2.4.1 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

2.4.2 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

2.4.3 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

2.5.1 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

2.5.2 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

Page 331 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Performance Has all available Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and information rationale used to raised improve any relevant documentation where been used to score this Indicator the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. score this support the given performance to

Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

2.5.3 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

3.1.1 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

3.1.2 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

3.1.3 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

3.2.1 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

3.2.2 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

3.2.3 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

3.2.4 Yes Yes NA Comment noted, no response required.

Comment noted, no response required.

Page 332 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

For reports using the Risk-Based Framework:

Performance Does the report Are the RBF risk Justification: CAB Response: Indicator clearly explain scores well- Please support your answers by referring to how the referenced? specific scoring issues and any relevant process(es) Yes/No documentation where possible. Please attach applied to additional pages if necessary. determine risk using the RBF has led to the stated Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’. outcome? Yes/No UoA’s 4 & 5 Bothnian Bay Herring Trawl and Trap net Fisheries 1.1.1 Yes Yes Comment noted, no response required.

Page 333 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery 13 Appendix 5: Stakeholder submissions Written submissions

Prior to Public Comment Draft Report No written submissions were received.

Following Public Comment Draft Report

13.1.2.1 MSC Technical Oversight Comments Page Requirement Sub ID Grade Oversight Description PI CAB Comment Reference Version

Some of the references to prior sections in We have corrected these errors which had arisen the report are not correct, e.g. sections during editing of the report. 27599 Guidance *N/A vn/a 5.5.6, 5.5.7, and 5.5.8 are referenced in P1 but there are no sections by these numbers in the report.

PI 1.2.1 SI b (UoA1, UoAs 6 and 7, UoAs 4 The team had scored this SI at 80 already, clearly and 5): Being that the multiannual plan indicating that SG100 is not met. 168, 182, 27600 Major FCR-7.10.6 v2.0 was only implemented in 2017, and the 1.2.1, 194, 206 prior harvest strategy was not fully evaluated, it is not clear how SG100 is met.

PI 1.2.2 SI c (UoA1): There is mention of PI 1.2.2. SI c refers to the "Evidence clearly shows allocation of an "autonomous quota" by that the tools in use are effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs." The 27601 172 Major FCR-7.10.6.1 v2.0 Russia. In light of this, it is not clear how 1.2.2, evidence is that F is below FMSY irrespective of this is accounted for in the harvest the Russian removals. The scoring is therefore strategy, the robustness of the HCR, and appropriate.

Page 334 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Page Requirement Sub ID Grade Oversight Description PI CAB Comment Reference Version

understanding of removals from the fishery.

PI 1.2.2 SI a (UoA 1, UoAs 6 and 7, UoAs 4 To remove any uncertainty in the scoring and 5): It is mentioned that exploitation is rationale we have inserted a cross-reference to reduced as some reference points are the section of the report that described the Baltic 171, 184, 27602 Minor FCR-7.10.6.1 v2.0 reached but no more detail is provided nor 1.2.2, Sea MAP. 196 is there reference to where in the report further information on the specifics of the HCR can be found.

PI 1.2.4 SI c (UoA 1): SG80 is noted as being met as the uncertainties are taken into Rationale has been amended to make specific account through the ICES ACOM. It is not reference to the content of ICES ACOM and the reference to ICES ACOM removed. clear what this is and how it takes these 27603 175 Major FCR-7.10.6.1 v2.0 1.2.4, uncertainties into account. Likewise, there is no reference to where in the report more detailed information on this can be found.

In some parts of the scoring table the 'met' In page 178 is a mistake it should be Y. row is not clearly completed. 27604 178, 214 Guidance FCR-7.10.6 v2.0 E.g. PI 1.1.1A SI b (UoAs 6 and 7): The 1.1.1, We have amended the stray “Y/N” text in the rationale states SG100 is met but there is Principle 2 scoring tables. an 'N' in the column regarding whether the

Page 335 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Page Requirement Sub ID Grade Oversight Description PI CAB Comment Reference Version

score has been met. E.g. PI 2.1.1 remains as (Y/N) for each SG.

PI 1.2.1 SI f (UoA1, UoAs 6 and 7, UoAs 4 According to the ICES assessments, discards are and 5): It is mentioned that there are no considered negligible. A reference to the direct discards and very limited slippage. relevant ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, 169, 183, 27605 Minor FCR-7.10.6.1 v2.0 The source cited is a participant at the site 1.2.1, catch, and effort in the Baltic Sea Ecoregion for 195, 207 visit. Whether this was vetted or confirmed each of the four stocks has been added through data or applicable regulations is not clear.

PI 1.2.1 SI f (UoA1, UoAs 6 and 7, UoAs 4 We have clarified the text in response to this and 5): The justification given for meeting comment. In brief there is essentially no 169, 183, 27606 Minor FCR-7.10.6.1 v2.0 SG80 is not clear, in particular to the extent 1.2.1, unwanted catch: TACs are not limiting and there 195, 207 of what is outlined in SA2.4.8.1 and is no MCRS / MLS. We consider that a score of associated clause SA3.5.3.1. 80 is appropriate, but not 100.

PI 1.2.3 SI a (UoAs 6 and 7): It is mentioned The team disagrees because clear information is that the LUKE research and Finland provided in the justification section. National Programme are evidence that a comprehensive range of information exists. 27607 186 Minor FCR-7.10.6.1 v2.0 While it is referenced that this was 1.2.3, discussed at the site visit, it is not clear in the provided rationale what information is collected as part of these programmes to support the given SG100 score.

Page 336 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Page Requirement Sub ID Grade Oversight Description PI CAB Comment Reference Version

PI 1.2.4 SI c (UoAs 6 and 7): It is not clear in Rationale has been amended to make specific the provided rationale how exactly the reference to the content of ICES ACOM and the 27608 189 Minor FCR-7.10.6.1 v2.0 1.2.4, model takes uncertainty into account to reference to ICES ACOM removed. meet SG 80.

Both the Bothnian Sea herring trawl and This has been corrected. trapnet fishery (section 10.3) and the Bothnian Bay herring trawl and trapnet ( 27609 190,202 Guidance *N/A vn/a section 10.4) UoAs are referred to as being UoAs 4 and 5. Please clarify what thecorrect numbering is.

PI 1.2.4 SI d (UoAs 4 and 5): It is not clear in The team disagrees with the comment and a the provided rationale how comparing the score of 100 is appropriate according to the 27610 201 Minor FCR-7.10.6.1 v2.0 current assessment to that from the year 1.2.4, improvement of the new assessment in prior constitutes testing and being robust comparison with the previous methods applied. to meet the SG100 score.

The score noted for average size at This has been corrected in the relevant tables. maturity is 2. Per table PF4, if the average The RBF score improves from 84 to 85. 28600 300 Major PF-4.3.1 v2.0 size is <40 cm the productivity attribute score is low risk (score = 1). Justification isn't clear for why score of 2 was selected.

PI 3.1.1 SI a (UoA 1,6,7) - SG 80 scored, We have revised the description of the legal 28623 287 Major FCR-7.10.6.1 v2.0 however the rationale does not sufficiently 3.1.1, system in the EU and the international demonstrate that there is an effective agreement in place between the EU and Russia

Page 337 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Page Requirement Sub ID Grade Oversight Description PI CAB Comment Reference Version

national legal system and an organised and to take account of these comments, making effective cooperation with other parties reference to the spatial management controls in where necessary to deliver management place for the Russian fleet. outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 We have been more precautionary in our & 2. EG. Although a framework is in place to support cooperation, it is unclear assessment than other certified fisheries in the whether the autonomous Russia TAC for Baltic Sea which have scored this PI at the 100 level, and take note of the fact reported in P1 Sprat is consistent with effective cooperation consistent with MSC principles that F is low and stock biomass is presently high. 1 & 2. We consider that with the addition of this information the score awarded is appropriate.

PI 3.1.1 SI b - SG 80 scored, however the We have made some amendments to the text to rationale does not support the score as it is make this clearer. Again, we have scored on a unclear how the management systems are more precautionary basis than other certified transparent and considered to be effective fisheries in the Baltic Sea, which have scored 100 28624 279 Major FCR-7.10.6.1 v2.0 3.1.1, (required to achieve SG 80). EG. It is not for this SI. clear how effectiveness and transparency were evaluated particularly in reference to the EU-Russia agreement.

PI 3.1.1 SI c - SG 100 scored. Although We have revised the text to make it clear how formal commitment is evident from the the commitments in legislation are consistent 28625 280 Minor FCR-7.10.6.1 v2.0 rationale, it is unclear how these 3.1.1, with MSC Principles 1 & 2. commitments are specifically consistent with MSC Principles 1 & 2.

Page 338 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Page Requirement Sub ID Grade Oversight Description PI CAB Comment Reference Version

PI 3.1.2 SI b - SG 80 scored, however the We have revised the text to describe the rationale does not provide sufficient regularity with which the various different 28626 282 Minor FCR-7.10.6.1 v2.0 evidence of the level of regularity that 3.1.2, consultation processes seek and accept management systems apply to seek and information. accept information.

PI 3.2.2 SI b - SG 100 scored, however We don’t agree. We have provided evidence in there is a lack of supporting evidence to the scoring rationale which describes how the 28627 289 Minor FCR-7.10.6.1 v2.0 describe how the decision-making 3.2.2, management system has responded to a range of processes respond in a transparent, timely issues in a transparent, timely and adaptive and adaptive manner. manner.

PI 3.2.2 SI c - SG 80 scored. Although it is We have revised the text to make this clearer. clear from the rationale that determination of TAC incorporates the precautionary 28628 290 Minor FCR-7.10.6.1 v2.0 approach, it is not clear in the rationale 3.2.2, how decision-making processes use the precautionary approach beyond TAC allocation.

PI 3.2.2 SI d - SG 80 scored, however the We have revised the text to make this clearer. rationale does not provide sufficient supporting evidence that information on 28629 291 Minor FCR-7.10.6.1 v2.0 the fishery's performance and 3.2.2, management action is available on request. EG. Although information concerning stock status and management

Page 339 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Page Requirement Sub ID Grade Oversight Description PI CAB Comment Reference Version

action information is available through ICES and EU websites, it is unclear in the rationale whether other information concerning the fishery's performance and mangement action is available on request. See FCR SA 4.8.5 & SA 4.8.6 and associated guidance.

We disagree for reasons set out below:-

• Areal overlap is cumulative, so it has to have the same score for each métier. • Encounterability has to be scored at 3 when PF 4.4.4 - Although Trawl, Trapnet and Gill the species being considered is a target net gears have been identified and species (Table PF5). weighted, they have not been scored • Selectivity is the same for all métiers separately for susceptibilty as required because ICES advice indicates that age 1 28630 300 Major PF 4.4.4 v2.0 under FCR PF 4.4 as also referenced in PF individuals are regularly caught. 4.4.3.1 which states that when scoring PI • Post capture mortality has to be scored at 3 1.1.1, all fisheries impacting the given for each métier. target stock shall be identified and listed separately. For these reasons, the scores are the same for each métier.

We have taken account of all fishery removals from this stock: ICES report catches of 4.5Mt in 2015; we have accounted for 4,526t.

Page 340 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Page Requirement Sub ID Grade Oversight Description PI CAB Comment Reference Version

We have duplicated the list of fisheries given in the scoring spreadsheet and catch data for the avoidance of doubt.

PF 4.4.6.1 - The rationale provided does We have added a figure to the report showing not support the score of 2 as specific the range of the species. evidence to support the conclusion that The reference to Table GPF8 is a little baffling, the areal overlap is less than 30% is lacking. Figures cited to support the score do not since we have scored encounterability as “high”. include species distribution information. 28631 300 Major PF 4.4.6.1 v2.0 As specified in Guidance, Table GPF8 states that behavioural patterns of species may increase their susceptibility. The justification for the score does not reflect decision making processes accounting for the behavioural traits of this species.

PI2.4.1 SI a (UoAs 3, 5, 7): It is not clear There are maps showing the location of fish traps that there is sufficient evidence that trap and the commonly encountered habitats in the gear is highly unlikely to reduce structure report. and function of commonly encountered The fishing métier is a static gear with a small 28632 256-257 Major FCR-7.10.6.1 v2.0 habitats to a point where there would be 2.4.1, footprint of seabed contact. Generic studies of serious or irreversible harm. No evidence is provided to quantify the extent of the this type of gear are cited in the rationale to impacts from the fishing gear on commonly support the score awarded. encountered habitats. In addition, no evidence is provided on the current state

Page 341 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Page Requirement Sub ID Grade Oversight Description PI CAB Comment Reference Version

and likely recoverability (see GSA3.13.1) of The comments made here seem to question the commonly encountered habitats. whether we should have used the RBF to assess habitat impacts of the trap fishery. We have used the criteria set out in Table 3 of the CR to determine this. There is information available on the habitats encountered, and information on the impacts of trap gear on this sort of habitat is also available.

We do, however, accept that the conclusions we have drawn are based on generic studies and that on reflection a score of 80 is more appropriate for this SI, and that the overall score should be adjusted accordingly for the trap UoAs.

PI2.4.1 SI b: It is not clear that there is There is good information available on the sufficient evidence that trap gear is highly distribution of VMEs, which we have shown in unlikely to reduce structure and function of the report, along with references to the research VME habitats to a point where there would and management measures that have been put be serious or irreversible harm. While VME in place to protect these VMEs. We have 28633 257-258 Major FCR-7.10.6.1 v2.0 habitats are identified within the UoA, 2.4.1, included a map showing the location of fish there is no identification of which VME traps. We have explained in the report that fish types may overlap with the areas where traps can only be operated in fixed locations. We trap gear operate (it is difficult from the have cited scientific literature which has found scale and resolution of Figures 7, 43 and 44 that fish traps have a very limited impact on to distinguish this). benthic habitats.

Page 342 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Page Requirement Sub ID Grade Oversight Description PI CAB Comment Reference Version

No evidence is provided to quantify the It is true that the impact of the gear on VME extent of the impacts from the fishing gear habitats has not been quantified. In response to on VME habitats. In addition, no evidence this observation we have reduced the score for is provided on the current state and likely this SI from 100 to 80 for all UoAs. recoverability of VMEs (GSA3.13 and associated guidance) . No evidence is provided to quantify the extent of the impacts from the fishing gear. In addition, no evidence is provided on the current state and likely recoverability (see GSA3.13.1) of the VMEs if the gear impacts the VME.

PF 4.4.8.4 b. Given the precautionary A susceptibility score of 3 has been awarded to nature of the RBF and the response to the selectivity attribute in response to this 'Average age at maturity' (results Table 40) comment. citing that 'the stock is mature at age 1-2', the evidence provided for selectivity The effect of this is to reduce the PSA score to 80. 28634 300 Major PF 4.4.8.4 b. v2.0 concerning only age 1 catch from ICES data is insufficient to support this score. Eg. The justification lacks specific reference to proportions caught of age classes as consistent with results of 'average age at maturity' defined in Table 40.

Page 343 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Page Requirement Sub ID Grade Oversight Description PI CAB Comment Reference Version

2.4.2 SI b and d (UoA 3, 5, 7): References to References are cited already. 28635 261 Minor FCR-7.10.6.1 v2.0 support evidence cited to impact of traps 2.4.1, on the seabed should be indicated.

We have clarified the text on page 20 of the report to make it clear that fishing for WBSS herring that is excluded from the UoA. There are no records for Finnish trawlers working as far south and west as Subdivisions 22-24 (see Figure Table 33 row 2 (page 138) states that the 2 of the report. vessels only have entitlement to fish in the UoA. Table 1 (p19) states that the sprat In response to the queries:- fishery operates in ICES Subdivisions 22-32 18, 19, 20, while section 4.1.2 (page 20) explicitly a) The units of assessment are as given in Table1 28640 Minor FCR-7.12.1.3 v2.0 138 excludes sections 22-24 from the UoC. & Table 2 of the report. Please confirm a) the Units of Certification b) The client has indicated that the vessels are and b) whether vessels are permitted to only permitted to fish within the UoA. The fish outside the UoC and if they are, how furthest south that vessels are reported to fish is any traceability risks are mitigated. in Subdivision 27. Traceability risks are mitigated by the requirement for trawlers to report the source of all catches and through monitoring of fishing activities with VMS, as reported in Table 33.

Page 344 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Page Requirement Sub ID Grade Oversight Description PI CAB Comment Reference Version

It states that the point of change of ownership is FCR-7.12.1.5b Section 6.3.2 does not indicate when the point of first sale. This is considered to be 28641 140 Minor v2.0 change of ownership typically takes place. appropriate.

FCR-7.12.1.5c The report does not state when chain of We have amended the text to include a 28642 140-141 Minor v2.0 custody shall begin. statement about this.

Acknowledging that the information in We have amended the text to provide a further tables 33 and 34 include more information, explanation of the traceability systems in place. section 6.2 should include more detail on 28643 138 Guidance FCR-7.12.1 v2.0 the traceability systems in place in the fishery, notably how it complies with CFP control regulations, and Council Regulation 1224/2009.

Page 345 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Verbal submissions

Meeting with client (Finnish Fishermen’s Association)

Attendees: Finnish Fishermen’s Association: Kim Jordas – Managing Director

Acoura Marine Jim Andrews Giuseppe Scarcella Suvi Rapola

Marine Stewardship Council (Observer) Janne Posti

Date: 7th & 8th March 2017

Time / Location: Helsinki, Finland

Subjects discussed: Principle 1 issues:- • Bothnian Bay herring • Bothnian Sea herring • Central Baltic herring • Baltic Sprats Principle 2 issues:- • Non-target species • ETP species • Habitats • Ecosystems

Description of the Fishery 1. Kim Jordas gave the assessment an explanation of the fishery and fishing activities, showing photographs of fishing vessels and traps to illustrate the nature of fishing activity. In brief:- a. Finnish Fishermen’s Association – the FFA was established in 1980. It now has around 250 members, and represents the interests of Finnish Fishermen. b. Markets – most of the herring catch from Finnish trawlers and traps is used to produce fur feed and fishmeal and fish oil. Larger fish are sorted from the catch and filleted for sale on the domestic market. In the past fish used to be frozen and exported to the Russian market. Herring roe also used to be exported to Japan.

2. Trawl fishery:- a. Trawling is all pelagic (there was some discussion of this, as ICES reports include a description of “demersal trawls” being used to catch herring in the UoA area – it subsequently transpired that this description had resulted from a misunderstanding by ICES). The gear does not touch the sea bed. The gear is either towed very close to the surface, or in mid-water in deeper areas. b. Some vessels work in teams as pair trawlers, others fish alone with otter trawls. c. Several of the larger vessels in the fishery use refrigerated sea water (RSW) to chill the catch prior to landing. Smaller vessels either store the catch in a fish hold or in the smallest and oldest vessels in a fish pound on deck.

Page 346 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

d. No sorting of the catch takes place at sea – all of the catch is retained and it is sorted by size and species after landing. (There was one exception in the fleet – one of the vessels is equipped to sort the catch by size at sea). All of the catch is marketable and there are no quota or size restrictions that would create an incentive or requirement to discard the catch. e. Sprat are usually caught with herring. In the autumn and winter there are aggregations of sprat in the Gulf of Finland area. Vessels with a small sprat allocation tend to avoid fishing in this area during the autumn and winter because their sprat allocation can be limiting. f. Trawling mainly takes place in the waters further offshore because coastal waters are both too shallow and also privately owned (so that a fishing permit from the riparian owner is required). There is a very limited amount of trawling within the privately owned “coastal waters”. g. The Bothnian Bay is quite shallow and therefore tend to be fished by smaller vessels. h. Winter ice can be a limiting factor for trawling within coastal waters and the Bothnian Bay. i. Net design – the trawls used in the fishery have a mesh size of 16mm. Kim agreed to provide the team with photographs showing the design of the trawls. j. There are 23 trawl vessels in the proposed FFA unit of certification.

3. Trap fishery a. Herring traps are only set after coastal ice has melted, and until the end of the herring spawning period (this typically means that the fishery takes place between April and July each year, with some annual variation driven by the weather conditions and abundance of herring in the coastal waters. b. Some trap fishermen may also fish for salmon and other fish species at other times of year – when prosecuting these fisheries they use a larger meshed net, different trap configuration and trap location. The herring trap fishery is therefore distinct and different from the salmon and other coastal trap fisheries. c. The trap fishery targets spawning herring. Historically there was a market for herring roe, but the main market is now for human consumption, fur meal and fishmeal. d. Access to points of landing is important to trap fishermen. Most traps are located within 10-30 minutes steaming time of a landing port. e. The vessels used by trap fishermen are small, and typically open boats where the catch is stored on deck. There is no sorting of the catch by species or size at sea. The catch is typically transferred from the boat to shore by pump, and the catch sorted by size and species at the point of landing. f. There are 15 trap fishermen in the proposed FFA unit of certification. Each fishermen may operate between 5-20 traps. The number of traps each fisherman operates is limited by their access to private waters – either through ownership or resulting from the lease of fishing rights.

4. Private fishing rights – Finnish coastal waters are subject to private ownership. The extent of private ownership extends approximately 200m seawards from the shore. (will be confirmed later) In the Archipelago Sea this results in an extensive area of private fisheries, resulting from the overlap of private areas around neighbouring islands. The consequences of this arrangement are:- a. Fishermen can only operate traps or trawls in coastal waters where they either own or lease fishing rights. b. Trawling is very limited in coastal waters, since a single trawl tow may traverse many different private fisheries. c. Larger trawlers don’t fish in the coastal waters because of the constraints imposed by private fishing rights and also the shallow waters.

Page 347 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

d. It was noted that some fishery owners in the Archipelago were not keen on fishing activities and that this imposed an additional constraint on fishing.

Principle 1: Herring 1. The general pattern of fishing by the Finnish fleet was reported:- a. Bothnian Bay – this area is prone to icing during the winter, which can prevent fishing. The main fishing season here is from May-August. b. Bothnian Sea – this is the most important fishing area for the Finnish fleet. It is accessible all year round, but fishermen tend not to fish this area during the summer (mid-June to mid-September). Catches taken in the western Bothnian Sea are often landed to Sweden rather than Finland. Partial ice cover can limit the fishing season. c. Gulf of Finland – this area is fished in late autumn and winter. Sprats are abundant here, and their abundance can “choke” the herring fishery for vessels that have insufficient sprat quota to operate here. Partial ice cover can limit the fishing season even more than in Bothnian Sea. d. Central Baltic – the larger Finnish vessels sometimes fish further to the south in the Baltic (as far as subdivision 27, off the Swedish coast). If fishing in more distant areas the vessels will land to Swedish ports close to the fishing areas.

Principle 1: Sprats 1. FFA report that sprats are the most abundant non-target species caught in the herring fishery. 2. Sprat are landed by vessels with a quota allocation for sprats. Sprats are most abundant in the mouth of the Gulf of Finland during the autumn (Divisions 29 & 32 and the southern part of 30). The sprat catch in this area can “choke” herring fishing, with vessels avoiding fishing for herring this area if their sprat quota is insufficient to account for the likely catch and landings.

Principle 2 1. Trawl fishery: the following aspects of Principle 2 were discussed:- a. fished cod in the Central Baltic For all vessels the maximum permissible cod bycatch is 3% of the total catch. b. Endangered Threatened and Protected species – no interactions are thought to occur. c. Habitats – all fishing is pelagic, so the only habitat impacted is the water column. No interactions are thought to occur between the trawls and the seabed. Vessels are reported to use transponders and sonars to avoid seabed contact.

2. Trap fishery: the following aspects of Principle 2 were discussed:- a. Non-target species – as with the trawl fishery there is no sorting of the catch prior to landing and all of the fish likely to be caught are marketable. Landing records are therefore representative of catch composition. The most abundant non-target species are generally roach and bream. i. A small catch of whitefish (Coregonus sp) is taken in herring nets. The status of this species was discussed. The anadromous whitefish is the more sensitive. A management plan was prepared for this species 2 years ago, with some associated management controls. The status of this species as either a non-target species or ETP species would need to be confirmed during the assessment process. b. Endangered Threatened and Protected species – very occasionally birds are caught in traps; it was thought that guillemots were the species most often caught (there is one nesting colony in the eastern Gulf of Finland). There are no records of seals being caught in herring traps although seal catch is

Page 348 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

possible. It was reported that they can be a major problem around salmon traps (taking salmon from the traps and causing damage in the process). Fishermen are required to report any seal bycatch in their nets. It was noted that the grey seal population is increasing and that hunting for seals is permitted by the Finnish Government, with an annual quota of 1,050. c. Habitats – there were not thought to be any significant habitat impacts caused by the trap fishery.

3. Acoura Marine noted that sprats are a “Key Low Trophic Level” fish species in the Baltic, and would need to be assessed against the MSC standard accordingly. This approach had been adopted for the Latvian sprat fishery, which has its Public Comment Draft Report out for consultation at present.

Principle 3 1. Transferable Fishing Concessions (TFCs) have been introduced for the trawl and trap fisheries at the start of 2017. The TFCs provide each fisherman with a catch allocation based on their historical fishing activities during a qualifying period (2011-2015). The TFCs apply to both herring and sprats.

2. The EU Landing Obligation has had little effect on the fishery, since the trawl and trap fishermen were already landing all of their catches (there is no MLS / MCRS in the fishery; quota allocations are not limiting; and there is a market for all of the fish that are caught). There has never been an incentive or requirement to discard fish in either the trawl or trap fisheries in Finland.

3. Fishermen are now required to submit official logbook records of their estimated catch from each fishing trip within 48h of the landing. This catch estimate is reconciled with the corresponding landing declaration from the buyers. A 10% margin of error in the catch estimate is permitted, and this has proved to be the most challenging and problematic aspect of fishery management for the herring and sprat fisheries.

4. Vessels are required to nominate their landing ports one hour before landing fish, to facilitate inspection of catches. This requirement applies if the vessels have more than 2t of pelagic fish aboard.

5. The new management plan for Baltic cod, herring and sprat was introduced in 2016.

6. Trawl and trap net mesh sizes are regulated under EU legislation.

7. The only non-compliance issues noted were associated with the difficulty ensuring that catch records in logbooks were within 10% of actual landings values.

8. The FFA play an active role in management activities. They are members of the EU Baltic Sea Advisory Council (BSAC). They are consulted by the Finnish Government over the introduction of new management measures (such as the development of the new Fisheries Act over several years prior to its implementation in 2016; and also prior to the introduction of Transferable Fishing Concessions (TFCs) in 2017). For the TFC consultation, the FFA participated in consultation events, seminars and hearings organized by the Government during 2015-16. The FFA report that they feel closely involved in management processes.

MSC Risk Based Framework 1. Jim Andrews explained that the MSC Risk Based Framework may be used to assess some aspects of the fishery. It was explained that the RBF enabled the effect of the

Page 349 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

fishery on species to be assessed objectively even if there is limited information available. 2. To assist with stakeholder input to the RBF, the assessment team had produced an on-line questionnaire. Jim Andrews presented a paper version of this to the meeting and explained the approach that was being adopted. This was discussed. FFA agreed to submit a response to the questionnaire.

Actions: 1. Finnish Fishermen’s Association a. Trawl design – confirmation of mesh size; photographs of the gear. b. Trap design – confirm mesh size used in traps c. Map of the extent of privately owned coastal areas (perhaps best obtained from the Ministry). d. List of quota / TFC allocations for the trawl and trap UoCs. e. Share pictures of vessels and traps with assessment team f. Encourage Ministry of Agriculture & Forestry to share VMS data with assessment team. g. Confirm the legislative controls applying to anadromous whitefish. h. Respond to the RBF questionnaire. 2. Acoura Marine a. Send draft note of discussion to FFA for comment & revision.

Meeting with Natural Resources Institute (LUKE)

Attendees: Natural Resources Institute (LUKE): Jukka Pönni Jari Raitaniemi Ari Leskelä Acoura Marine Jim Andrews Giuseppe Scarcella Suvi Rapola

Date: 7th March 2017

Time / Location: 1300-1530, Helsinki, Finland

Subjects discussed: Principle 1 issues:- • Bothnian Bay herring • Bothnian Sea herring • Central Baltic herring • Baltic Sprats Principle 2 issues:- • Non-target species • ETP species • Habitats • Ecosystems

Principle 1

Page 350 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

1. The scientists of the Natural Resources Institute (LUKE) showed relevant presentations regarding the last stock status evaluation of the four stocks considered in the present site visit. 2. The scientists provided a complete description of the ecosystem features of the basins considered in the present site visit, summarised below:- a. The Bothnian Bay (ICES Subdivision 31) is more oligotrophic than the other areas with lower salinity, as well. In such basins, the catches of herring are coming mainly from the south-east sector. The assessment of herring in SD 31 has been characterized by the use exploratory XSA analysis, from which relative values from recent years have been followed, and CPUE index from trawl and traps. The scientists evidenced that taking into account the important decrease in effort observed in the last decade, the CPUE index are not accurate estimates of abundance for the stock. There are no reference points for the Bothnian Bay because there is no analytical assessment of the stock here. The fishing conditions in the Bothnian Bay are difficult, which has hindered the fishing vessels from the Bothnian Sea to operate in the Bothnian Bay. b. The assessment of herring in the Bothnian Sea (ICES Subdivision 30) is carried out using the SAM model tuned also with an acoustic survey. The approach provides an accurate estimate of the stock status. MSY is defined for this stock, but not Blim. c. The assessments of herring and sprat in the central Baltic sea (ICES Subdivisions 25-29 & 32) are carried out using XSA model tuned with acoustic survey data. The approach provides an accurate estimate of the stock status of the two species.

3. It was noted that the ICES Data Evaluation Working Group (DEWG) had recommended following a benchmarking discussion in February 2017 that the herring stock in ICES Subdivisions 30 & 31 should be united. This decision was based on observation of similarities in trends in stock status in both areas over many years. The herring stocks are now (since April 2017)assessed as a combined stock in the ICES Baltic Fisheries Assessment Working Group (WGBFAS) in April 2017. While the herring in SD 31seems to have the same biological characteristics as the herring in SD 30, there is no genetic evidence that the populations are not separated. However, the geographical aspects for the formerly separated stocks prevent overfishing of the part of the stock (SD 31) because of the local physical trawling conditions, and also because there is no further local economic interest for the herring catch, which is mostly a bycatch in vendace fisheries.

4. The scientists confirmed that also Russian scientists are involved in the assessment of the stocks and in Russia the data collection system seems adequate in comparison with the standards of the European data collection. Russian scientists participate in the ICES Baltic Fisheries Assessment Working Group (WGBFAS).

5. The scientists showed the relevant procedures carried out to sample the catches of the four stocks considered: a. Otolith reading. b. Sample coverage. c. Acoustic survey (excluding herring in the Bothnian Bay). d. Maturity staging.

6. “Key Low trophic Level” status of sprat & herring a. LUKE agreed that in the Bothnian Bay and Bothnian Sea there were no ecosystem interactions involving herring or sprats that would make these “Key LTL” species in these areas.

Page 351 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

b. LUKE agreed that the role of herring and sprat in the Central Baltic and especially southern Baltic ecosystem as a prey item for cod was very important. ICES has issued multispecies advice on this interaction. It would be appropriate to consider both herring and sprat as Key LTL species in the Central Baltic areas. . Principle 2 1. Catch composition – data are available for the trawl fishery. a. There is no incentive for discarding from the fishery, and all of the fish caught are marketable, so landings / processing data are likely to be an accurate reflection of catch composition. b. There is no observer programme for the trawl fishery at present.

2. European whitefish a. Two species of European whitefish (Coregonus lavaretus f lavaretus and C. lavaretus f. widegreni) are found in the Baltic. The anadromous whitefish (C. lavaretus f. lavaretus) is considered to be endangered; the sea spawning whitefish (C. lavaretus f. widegreni) is considered to be vulnerable. i. Catches of coregonids in the trawl fishery have fallen as there are now fewer small coastal trawlers operating in shallow waters where these species are more abundant. ii. As a protection measure, fishing in freshwater areas is prohibited in the spring. iii. This is considered to have been an historical rather than a current issue. iv. Ari Leskelä has written a paper about the catch of whitefish in herring trawls, which he will send to the team. 3. Seabed interactions – it was noted that the seabed through much of the northern Baltic is rock and uneven. The trawls used for catching herring are not designed for contact with seabed of this character. 4. ETP species – it was reported that fishermen have the opportunity to report any interactions with ETP species in their catch recorded. a. Seals – some seals are known to be caught occasionally in salmon and zander nets / traps. This is not considered to be an issue for herring nets. There is a licensed cull of seals in the Baltic. The common seal population is growing. b. Birds – LUKE have tried to gauge the level of interaction between herring traps and birds. The observed and reported levels of interaction are very low, which has confounded efforts to estimate the actual level of interactions.

Principle 3 1. LUKE were not aware of any compliance or other problems with the management of the fishery.

MSC Risk Based Framework 1. Jim Andrews explained that the MSC Risk Based Framework may be used to assess some aspects of the fishery. It was explained that the RBF enabled the effect of the fishery on species to be assessed objectively even if there is limited information available. 2. To assist with stakeholder input to the RBF, the assessment team had produced an on-line questionnaire. Jim Andrews presented a paper version of this to the meeting and explained the approach that was being adopted. This was discussed. LUKE agreed to submit a response to the questionnaire.

Actions : 3. Natural Resources Institute

Page 352 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

a. Catch / landings data for the fishery in the Bothnian Bay, Bothnian Sea & Central Baltic for recent years. b. Confirmation that the trawl gear used in the herring and sprat fisheries does not make contact with the seabed. c. Provide a copy of Ari Leskelä’s paper on catch composition in the herring trawl fishery. d. Respond to the RBF questionnaire.

Meeting with WWF-Finland

Attendees: WWF - Finland: Sampsa Vilhunen

Acoura Marine Jim Andrews Giuseppe Scarcella Suvi Rapola

Date: 7th March 2017

Time / Location: 1600-1800, Helsinki, Finland

Subjects discussed: Principle 1 issues:- Bothnian Bay herring Bothnian Sea herring Central Baltic herring Baltic Sprats Principle 2 issues:- Non-target species ETP species Habitats Ecosystems

WWF Position 1. WWF Finland feels that the Baltic herring fisheries are sustainably fished and that management is precautionary. The fishery is managed in accordance with ICES advice on sustainable fishing levels; the fishing gear used is understood to have no contact with the seabed; and discarding is understood to be low. WWF had been calling for a formal management plan for the stock, and this was adopted by the EU in 2016. 2. WWF Finland produces a carefully audited consumer fish guide which is reviewed on an annual basis. WWF recommends herring as a good choice to eat and have awarded a “green” light to Baltic herring in their consumer fish guide. 3. WWF Finland have some concerns about the management of the Baltic sprat fishery, because the Baltic is managed as a whole even though there are known to be separate stocks within the Baltic. For this reason, WWF has awarded a “yellow” light in their consumer fish guide. 4. WWF would support a more appropriate scale of management for Baltic sprat. . Sprat is managed as one stock in the Baltic and overfishing has been occurring at stock level. The TAC for 2017 was set in line with the ICES advice but sprat is a key low trophic level species in the Baltic Sea, so the mixed pelagic fishery can indirectly affect

Page 353 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

the cod stock. ICES recommend a spatial management plan for sprat to improve cod condition in its main distribution area. However, the Finnish fleet operates mainly in the northern parts of the Baltic (ICES subdvs 29&30) and sprat have been recently rather abundant in the north. Therefore, WWF is not that much concerned about the impact of the Finnish fishery on sprat, but this is something that must be carefully studied and examined. 5. WWF Finland would support the use of Baltic herring and sprat in Finnish aquaculture, to help reduce the use of imported fishmeal and thereby help to reduce the use of imported fishmeal and the risk of eutrophication of the Baltic ecosystem. 6. WWF Finland is very supportive of the fishing industry’s proactive approach to pursuing MSC certification. It is felt that successful certification would benefit Finnish fishermen and could encourage greater domestic use of these species, both for human consumption and for use in fishmeal.

Principle 1 7. As noted above, WWF Finland has some concerns about the scale of management of the Baltic sprat fishery relative to the scale of sprat stocks and sub-stocks within the Baltic (because the sprat stock is considered as a single unit in the Baltic, thus the depletion in a particular area would not lead to an overfished status overall). 8. WWF are keen to see that herring management respects the scale of the stock and sub-stocks. There are some concerns about respecting the separate identity of the Bothnian Bay herring stock, rather than combining it with the Bothnian Sea stock. It was felt that this could create a risk of localized overfishing of the Bothnian Bay stock within the combined TAC. [Acoura Marine reported that the MSC assessment will be based upon the current ICES approach of viewing the Bothnian Sea and Bothnian Bay stocks separately.] 9. The assessment team explained that the assessment would use the MSC Risk Based Framework (RBF) to assess the Bothnian Bay herring stock. This approach was necessary because limit and target reference points have not been identified for this stock. An on-line questionnaire has been created to enable stakeholders to input their views as part of the RBF assessment approach. WWF were encouraged to respond to this questionnaire.

Principle 2 1. Non-target species in the catch were discussed. The key concerns raised were:- a. Whitefish (Coregonus sp) – WWF note that there is a catch of whitefish in the trawl fishery. This had been raised as a matter of concern by WWF in the Swedish vendace trawl fishery MSC assessment previously. However, the Swedish vendace trawling takes place in the northern Bothnian Bay with demersal trawls. Thus, it differs from herring/sprat fishery with pelagic/mid-water trawls. WWF is not aware of any whitefish by-catch in pelagic/mid-water trawling for sprat and herring.

2. Endangered Threatened & Protected (ETP) species were discussed. The key concerns raised were:- a. Birds – According to our current knowledge, herring fishery does not pose any significant problems to birds. Bird bycatch seems to be a marginal issue and we’ve heard only about some individual cases were birds were killed in herring/sprat fishery.

Page 354 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

b. Seals – WWF note that the population of grey seals in the Baltic sea is growing, but the status of ringed seals is a cause of concern. Seal hunting takes place in the Unit of Assessment area, with appropriate regulations in place to limit the hunting season and set a quota. The seal quota is never fully utilized. Herring fishery with trap-nets should not pose a problem to seal populations. Fishing with herring trap-nets is considered to give no mammal by-catch, since the trap- nets are partly open above. 3. Habitats impacts were discussed. The key points raised were:- a. Trawl fishery – this is understood to be pelagic (with the gear either towed at the surface or deeper in the water column). The gear is understood to have no contact with the seabed, so there are no particular concerns about habitats impacts. b. Trap fishery – although it was noted that traps do not move and so are not likely to have a major impact on the seabed, the possibility that traps could be located in shallow waters either close to or upon potentially sensitive marine habitats (such as seagrass or macroalgal beds) was discussed. It was reported that a survey of the location of inshore habitats is now available (on the VELMU website) and it was suggested that the location of traps relative to coastal habitats should be examined. 4. Ecosystem interactions were discussed. In summary:- a. WWF note the work that has been done to understand the relationship between sprats and cod. This relationship is a matter of some concern. It was felt that the role of sprats and herring in the ecosystem is important and should be taken into account. b. It was felt that the overall health of the Baltic ecosystem is improving and that as a result the extent of sensitive habitats (such as eelgrass and macroalgal beds) is increasing. Climate change is considered to be the main threat to the ecosystem.

Principle 3 4. WWF Finland are not aware of any management, enforcement or non-compliance issues in this fishery. 5. It was noted that ICES make an allowance in their advice for an unreported catch of salmon in the archipelago area in their stock assessment, and that there is a potential misreporting risk here. MSC Risk Based Framework 3. Jim Andrews explained that the MSC Risk Based Framework may be used to assess some aspects of the fishery. It was explained that the RBF enabled the effect of the fishery on species to be assessed objectively even if there is limited information available. 4. To assist with stakeholder input to the RBF, the assessment team had produced an on-line questionnaire. Jim Andrews presented a paper version of this to the meeting and explained the approach that was being adopted. This was discussed. WWF agreed to submit a response to the questionnaire.

Actions: WWF Finland e. Provide input regarding potential impacts of the fishery on bird and seal populations in the UoA area.

Page 355 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

f. Respond to the RBF questionnaire. Acoura Marine g. Provide a draft note of the meeting to WWF for comment & amendment. h. Ensure that WWF Finland staff are kept informed about the progress of the assessment.

Meeting with Ministry of Agriculture & Forestry

Attendees: Ministry of Agriculture & Forestry: Risto Lampinen Head of Unit for Fisheries Industry Ali Lindahl Senior Fisheries Officer

Institute of Economic Development, Traffic & Environment (ELY-center) Kari Ranta-aho Fisheries Chief

Acoura Marine Jim Andrews Giuseppe Scarcella Suvi Rapola

Date: 8th March 2017

Time / Location: 0900-1200, Helsinki, Finland

Subjects discussed: Principle 3 issues:- Bothnian Bay herring Bothnian Sea herring Central Baltic herring Baltic Sprat

• Principle 1 1. New harvest controls for managing fishing effort have been introduced and were discussed. a. “Transferable Fishing Concessions” (TFCs) were introduced for both the trawl and trap fisheries at the start of 2017. b. Each operator has been given a quota allocation with their TFC based on their 3 best year’s landings between 2011-15 (or 3 times the 2016 landings for new entrants to the fishery). c. TFCs must be used (or leased) by the operator that they have been allocated to. If the allocation for a TFC is not used for 2 years, it must be returned to MAF. d. TFCs were introduced to allow fishing companies to plan their fishing activities for themselves, as a more flexible and dynamic approach to management than the preceding opening and closing of fishing areas by the Government in response to quota uptake. The previous style of management had led to an “Olympic” fishing approach, whereby operators would compete with each other for the available quota allocation before it was fully utilized. The intention was that the new system would provide more stability for both fishermen and buyers.

Page 356 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

e. TFCs have been awarded for a period of 10 years. The new management system is due to be reviewed after a period of 5 years. f. It was noted that new entrants to the coastal (inshore) fishery can apply for a non-transferable fishing concession which lasts for a maximum of 5 years. g. TFCs apply to both trap and trawl operators. Trap operators are allowed to buy TFC quota from trawl operators if they exceed their TFC allocation, but trawl operators are not allowed to buy TFC quota from trap operators. h. It was noted that the “flexibility rule” in the harvest controls allows for a 9% quota transfer from sprats to herring. i. TFCs give a right for operator-specific catch quotas (OCQ) which are allocated yearly by ELY-center. In order to catch fish in practice an operator has to have an OCQ.

2. The Multiannual Plan for the Baltic Sea was introduced by the EU during 2016. This plan sets out the harvest strategy and harvest control rules for managing catches of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic. 3. Technical measures applying to fishing activity in Finland were discussed. a. Trawls must have a minimum cod-end mesh size of 16mm. b. Traps: i. Trap mesh size is specified in EU legislation (minimum diagonal mesh size of 16mm; more typically fishermen use a mesh size of 24-26mm in traps). ii. Trap design is traditional and is not specified in legislation. iii. The spatial and temporal use of traps is limited by legislation (Fisheries Act 379/2015, chapter 7, para 66-72). This Act prevents, inter alia, the use of traps within 3km of a river mouth from 15th August – October as a measure to reduce the catch of migratory fish. 4. The number of trap operators has declined from around 1,000 in the 1980s to around 200 at present. This is in part due to lifestyle changes, and also the cessation of subsidies that supported traditional fishing practices prior to EU accession in 1995. 5. It was noted that local authorities can also establish closed areas.

Principle 2 1. Seal depredation a. Seal depredation can be a significant issue for salmon traps and gill nets. Seals are not known to regularly depredate from herring traps. b. MAF authorize an annual seal cull. The seal quota is determined based on the strength of the seal stock in an area. For instance, in the Archipelago Sea the seal quota is set at 1,500 grey seals per year. Only around 500 seals are killed in the hunt. The grey seal population in the Baltic Sea is growing. c. It was noted that fishermen are permitted to shoot seals that are close to their nets. d. Since joining the EU, there is no longer a market for seal products so there is no commercial incentive to hunt for seals. 2. Bird interactions a. The available evidence is that there is no entanglement of birds in fish traps or trawls. b. Cormorant abundance is a concern in some areas. Cormorants tended to feed mainly on perch rather than herring or sprat. c. Private fishery owners can apply for permission to manage cormorants in their area. Regional “Cormorant Working Groups” have been established to evaluate management options. These can include pricking eggs in nests (to prevent hatching); culling of adult birds; and use of bird scaring devices. d. Decisions on whether to control cormorant numbers in an area are taken by the nature conservation unit.

Page 357 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Principle 3 1. Private fishing rights exist in coastal waters. a. For operators to fish in these areas they either need to buy or lease the fishing rights for these waters. This severely limits trawling activity in coastal areas (because a trawl vessel would have to arrange access to many private fishing areas). In the “archipelago” area at the north side of the Gulf of Finland there are around 1,300 private fishing areas covering around 50,000ha. 700 of these areas are owned by village councils and are managed as “commons”. b. It was noted that fishing is no longer possible in some private fishing areas because some new landowners may not want fishing activity to take place near their land or in their waters. c. A map of the location of private coastal fisheries could be provided for the assessment team. 2. Compliance with quotas (OCQs) allocated through the TFCs is monitored by MAF and ELY-center. a. Fishing vessels over 15m long have e-logbooks; smaller vessels must fill in paper logbooks. b. Trap operators must declare their landings. c. Catch declarations from trawl and trap operators are reconciled with landings and purchase records to ensure compliance with quota controls. d. Vessels larger than 15m LOA are equipped with VMS & AIS. This data is used to monitor vessel movements and help to target enforcement action at points of landing. 3. Monitoring & enforcement a. ELY-Center enforcement activities are intelligence and risk-based to ensure that they are cost-effective. b. There are presently 10 Fishery Officers dedicated to Baltic fisheries. 2 additional officers are being recruited. c. The main monitoring and compliance activity is harbour patrols to inspect catches and landings and to check fishing vessels while they are in harbour. d. As well as monitoring landings, ELY-center staff carry out inspections of vessels at sea. MAF and ELY-center collaborate with the coastguard and border patrol to share resources for sea patrols. ELY-center fishery officers follow a protocol for carrying out any vessel inspections at sea to ensure that these are carried out consistently and thoroughly. e. A new fishery monitoring station has been established at the coastguard office at Turku. f. VMS monitoring data adds a colour code to vessel icons to distinguish between vessels with any current or past non-compliance issues, so that enforcement activity can be targeted appropriately. g. The main compliance issues in the fishery were reported to be administrative (late submission of catch or landing declarations) and also accidental breaches of the 10% tolerance allowed in the CFP between estimated catch and the actual weight of landings. There was no sign of systematic non-compliance by individual operators or groups of operators; transgressions were irregular. h. It was noted that Finnish vessels sometimes fish close to the Swedish coast (such as the “Finnish Ground” in the south-western Bothnian Sea) and may then land their catches to Swedish ports for overland transport to Denmark. 4. Sanctions a. Any operator that lands fish more than their TFC quota allocation has a period of 72h to buy or lease sufficient quota to cover the excess. If this requirement is not met, a fine of €2,000 and upwards can be levied. b. There is a yearly payment for yearly OCQs. If it is not paid by the set time limit the operator will not get the next year´s OCQ.

Page 358 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

c. MAF, ELY-center and Rural Agency apply the EU CFP “points system” for determining the level of compliance by individual operators and determining an appropriate sanction for them. d. Any non-compliance issues that require legal action are addressed by the independent Rural Agency, who assign an inspector to any cases that are detected. 5. Decision making processes a. MAF liaise with the fishing industry and with other government organisations to ensure that stakeholders are involved appropriately in decision making. Examples of collaboration in decision making included:- i. Biannually EMFF-monitoring committee (authorities and stakeholders) ii. 4-5 meetings/year on topical issues between MAF, ELY-centers, organisations of fishing, aquaculture, processing industry and fish trade organisations, and NGOs. iii. Development working group for fisheries (Entrepreneurs, fishing organisations, MAF, ELY-center, Research). iv. Ad hoc –meetings concerning e.g. laws/decrees/instructions under preparation in fisheries v. The Finnish Fishermen’s Association (FFA) is very active, particularly with respect to the trawl fleet. vi. The Central Association of Fishermen (CAF) represents in particular coastal (trap) fishermen. vii. Since 2015, ELY-center have been required by the Fisheries Act (para 33) to hold regional fisheries meeting with stakeholders; these may result in the creation and implementation of local controls on fishing activity. viii. MAF/ELY-center are also invited to attend FFA/CAF meetings. b. An organogram showing the relationship between different organisations and their roles would be provided to the assessment team. 6. Evaluation of management system a. A new Fisheries Act was introduced in 2015. This Act was made after several years of consultation with stakeholders and evaluation of the previous management system. Although this Act is principally concerned with the conservation of salmon and sea trout, it provided the basis for introducing TFCs. It also created a system for managing inshore areas as Fishery Economic Areas, where fishing is planned in collaboration with the private fishery owners. Fishermen are required to pay a fee to fish in a FEA, which is used to pay for the management and improvement of fisheries in the area. 7. Sweden and Finland are presently collaborating on a Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) project for the central and northern Baltic.

Actions: 1. Ministry of Agriculture & Forestry a. Provide a list of fishery regulations and laws in force for the fishery. b. Provide an organogram showing the relationship between different management organisations. c. Provide a process chart showing how different organisations collaborate in taking fishery management decisions. d. Provide a map showing the location and extent of privately owned water areas. e. Provide VMS maps showing main fishing areas (ideally on a seasonal / quarter- by-quarter basis).

Page 359 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Risk Based Framework Questionnaire

Copy of questionnaire

Page 360 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Questionnaire responses

13.3.2.1 Vesa Karttunen, Kalatalouden Keskusliitto (Federation of Fisheries)

Page 361 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Page 362 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Page 363 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Page 364 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Page 365 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Page 366 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Page 367 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Page 368 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Page 369 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

13.3.2.2 Kim Jordas, Finnish Fishermen’s Association

Page 370 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Page 371 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Page 372 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Page 373 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Page 374 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Page 375 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Page 376 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Page 377 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery 14 Appendix 6: Surveillance Frequency

The MSC Certification Requirements specify that after each certification, surveillance and re- certification the Certified Accreditation Body (CAB) shall, with input from the client, determine the level at which subsequent surveillance of the fishery shall be undertaken.

The assessment team considers that it would be appropriate to assign a “Level 6” default surveillance score to this fishery under the CR v2.0 requirements. The surveillance programme that complies with this surveillance score is set out below.

Table 42: Surveillance programme.

Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Level On-site On-site On-site On-site surveillance Level 6 surveillance surveillance surveillance audit. audit. audit. audit Reassessment

Page 378 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery 15 Appendix 7: List of vessels & Operators in the UOCs

Lists of the eligible fishers in the trawl and trap fishers are presented below. Vessels in the UoC The trawl vessels eligible to operate in the certified trawl fisheries are listed below. Each vessel may operate in any of the trawl UoCs, providing that they have a quota allocation for the species and area concerned.

Table 43: List of vessels eligible to operate in the certified sprat and herring trawl fisheries.

Number Vessel Name VLN Owner 1 LAGUNA FIN-1122-T Laguna Fishing Oy 2 OLYMPOS FIN-175-T Troolari Olympos Oy 3 WESTFJORD FIN-118-V Oy Omega Shipping Ab 4 GOLDEN ROSE FIN-182-O LV-Fishing Oy 5 AMAZON FIN-1106-T Keskikala Oy 6 SONNSKÄR FIN-13-V Oy Sonnfish Ab 7 SILVERFORS FIN-1146-T Keskikala Oy 8 HANNE FIN-168-V Oy Hellströms Fisk Ab 9 SILLI FIN-146-O Vehkaperän Kala Oy 10 NEA FIN-1110-T Pensar Trål Ab 11 RÖLLI FIN-17-O Perämeren Trooli Oy 12 FALKEN FIN-1149-T Troolari Falken Oy 13 OSMERUS FIN-31074-T Hailiks Oy 14 ROCKALL FIN-1134-T Hailiks Oy 15 WÄISKI II FIN-150-O Väätäjä Eero 16 SIPI FIN-197-T T:mi P. Takala 17 TRION FIN-1131-T Mickelsson & Co Oy Ab 18 MARJO FIN-119-O AV-Kala Oy 19 MONICA AAL-127 JAS Fiske Ab 20 CLINTON AAL-126 JAS Fiske Ab 21 KLONDYKE AAL-124 Östersjöfisk Jas Ab 22 CALLE FIN-113-L Calle Ky 23 ARSKA FIN-165-O Hannu Tyybäkinoja 24 Avoin yhtiö Handelsbolaget PIRKE FIN-1109-U Juny-142 25 SHEMARA FIN-1115-U Shedfish Oy 26 ROXEN FIN-1111-U Shedfish Oy 27 Ab Kotka Fiskeri - Kotkan WINDÖ FIN-1125-T Kalastus Oy 28 KAROLIINE FIN-1142-T Kiviniemen Kala Oy 29 Ab Kotka Fiskeri - Kotkan HUOVARI FIN-140-K Kalastus Oy

Page 379 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Public Certification Report FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery

Operators in the UoC

The operators eligible to fish in the certified trap fisheries are listed below.

Table 44: List of operators eligible to fish in the MSC certified herring trap fisheries.

Operator’s name UoC Aaltonen Janne 5 & 7 Johtela Eerik 5 & 7 Kleemola Esa 5 & 7 Lindström Teijo 5 & 7 Kalastusyht. Sahlstén 5 & 7 Salonen Reima 5 & 7 Toivonen Jukka 5 & 7 Toivonen Saija 5 & 7 Väätäjä Eero 3 Laine Seppo 5 Rantamaa Toni 5 Johansson Erik 5 & 7 Hellström Krister 5 & 7 Eero Väätäjä 3

Page 380 of 380 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015