Initial Assessment of the Iceland North East Atlantic Blue Whiting Fishery

PRELIMINARY DRAFT REPORT FOR THE Initial assessment of the Iceland North East Atlantic Blue Whiting fishery

Icelandic Sustainable Fisheries

Report No.: 2017-005, Rev. 00 Document No.: To be issued Date: 21 April 2017 February 2017 Certificate code: to be determined

Report type: Peer Rreview Draft Report for the DNV GL – Business Assurance Report title: initial assessment of the Iceland North East Atlantic Blue Whiting fishery DNV GL Business Assurance Customer: Icelandic Sustainable Fisheries Norway AS Grandagarður 16, 101 Reykjavík Veritasveien 1 1322 HØVIK, Norway Contact person: Kristinn Hjálmarsson Tel: +47 67 57 99 00 Date of issue: 21 April 2017 http://www.dnvgl.com Project No.: ZO554340 Organisation unit: Food & Beverage Report No.: 2017-005, Rev.00 Certificate No.: To be issued

Objective: Assessment of the Iceland North East Atlantic Blue Whiting fishery against MSC Fisheries Standards v2.0.

Prepared by: Verified by:

Stefan Midteide Not Applicable DNV GL Principle Consultant, MSC Fisheries [title]

Lucia Revenga Principle expert, MSC Fisheries

John Nichols & Geir Hønneland Principle expert, MSC Fisheries

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

Rev. No. Date Reason for Issue Prepared by Verified by 0 2017-04-21 Peer Review Draft Report 2017–05-30 Public Comment Draft Report [yyyy-mm-dd] Final Report [yyyy-mm-dd] Public Certification Report

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page i

Table of contents

ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS ...... 1

STOCK ASSESSMENT REFERENCE POINTS ...... 2

MSC ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ...... 2

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 3 1.1 Main strengths and weaknesses of the client’s operation 3 1.2 Determination / draft determination 4

2 AUTHORSHIP AND PEER REVIEWERS ...... 6 2.1 Assessment team 6 2.2 Peer reviewers 7

3 DESCRIPTION OF THE FISHERY ...... 8 3.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and scope of certification sought 8 3.2 Overview of the fishery 12 3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background 17 3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background 38 3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background 62

4 EVALUATION PROCEDURE ...... 66 4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment 66 4.2 Previous assessments 70 4.3 Assessment Methodologies 71 4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques 72

5 TRACEABILITY ...... 78 5.1 Eligibility Date 78 5.2 Traceability within the Fishery 78 5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody 80 5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody 82

6 EVALUATION RESULTS ...... 82 6.1 Principle Level Scores 82 6.2 Summary of PI Level Scores 82 6.3 Summary of Conditions 84 6.4 Recommendations 84 6.5 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement 85 6.6 Changes in the fishery prior to and since Pre-Assessment 85

REFERENCES ...... 86

APPENDIX 1 SCORING AND RATIONALES ...... 90 Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale 90 Principle 1: All UoCs. 90 Principle 2 106 Principle 3: All UoCs. 144 Appendix 1.2 Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs 164

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page ii

Appendix 1.3 Conditions 165

APPENDIX 2 PEER REVIEW REPORTS ...... 174

APPENDIX 3 STAKEHOLDER SUBMISSIONS ...... 175

APPENDIX 4 SURVEILLANCE FREQUENCY ...... 176

APPENDIX 5 OBJECTIONS PROCESS ...... 177

7 APPENDIX – LIST OF VESSELS ...... 178

8 APPENDIX –PEER REVIEW REPORT NO 1 ...... 185

9 APPENDIX – PEER REVIEW REPORT NO 2 ...... 186

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page iii

ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS ACOM Advisory Committee on fisheries Management (ICES) CAB Conformity Assessment Body CFP Common Fisheries Policy CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora DNV GL Det Norske Veritas Germanischer Lloyd EC European Commission EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EMODnet European Marine Observation and Data Network ERS Electronic Recording and Reporting System EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization GT Gross Tonnage HAFRO Marine and Freshwater Research Institute (in Icelandic) HCR Harvest Control Rule IBPBLW Inter-Benchmarck Protocolo n Blue Whiting (ICES) IBWSS International Blue Whiting Spawning Stock Survey ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea ICJ International Court of Justice ISBF Introduced Species Based Fisheries ISF Icelandic Sustainablel Fisheries ITQ Individual Transferable Quota ITLOS International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea IUCN International Union for Conservationof Nature IWC International Whale Commission LTMS Long-Term Management Strategy MCS Monitoring, Control and Surveillance MFRI Marine and Freshwater Research Institute (of Iceland) tgNAMMCO North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission NEAFC The North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission NEA North-East Atlantic NE North East NGO Non-Governmental Organisation OSPAR Oslo-Paris Convention (Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic) PCA Permanent Court of Arbritation RAC Regional Advisory Council RSW Refrigerated SeaWater SAM State-Space Assessment Model SIMWG Stock Identification Methods Working Group (ICES) TAC Total Allowable Catch TBC To be confirmed UK United Kingdom UN United Nations UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea UNFSA United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement VMS Vessel Monitoring System VPA Virtual Population Analysis WGIPS Working Group on International Pelagic Surveys (ICES) WGWIDE Working Group on Widely Distributed Stocks (ICES) WGNPBW Working Group on Northern Pelagic and Blue Whiting Fisheries (ICES) WKBWMSE Workshop on the blue whiting long-term management strategy evaluation (ICES) WWF World Wildlife Fund

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 1

STOCK ASSESSMENT REFERENCE POINTS

Blim Minimum biomass below which recruitment is expected to be impaired or the stock dynamics are unknown. Bmsy Biomass corresponding to the maximum sustainable yield (biological reference point); the peak value on a domed yield-per-recruit curve. Bpa Precautionary biomass below which SSB should not be allowed to fall to safeguard it against falling to Blim. Btrigger Value of spawning stock biomass (SSB) that triggers a specific management action. CI Confidence Interval Cpue Catch per unit effort: The quantity of fish caught (in number or in weight) with one standard unit of fishing effort; e.g. number of fish taken per 1000 hooks per day or weight of fish taken per hour of trawling. Cpue is often considered an index of fish biomass (or abundance). Sometimes referred to as catch rate. F Instantaneous rate of fishing mortality Flim Limit reference point for fishing mortality (mean over defined age range) Fpa Precautionary buffer to preclude true fishing mortality being at Flim when the perceived fishing mortality is at Fpa. Fmax F where total yield or yield per recruit is highest (biological reference point) Fmsy F giving maximum sustainable yield (biological reference point) HCR Harvest Control Rules MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield MSY Btrigger Precautionary biomass level at which the management plan initiates specific harvest control rules to minimise the risk of further decline in biomass and concomitant risk to recruitment. SSB Spawning Stock Biomass TAC Total Allowable Catch yr Year

MSC ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

CAB Conformity Assessment Body CR Certification Requirements ETP Endangered, Threatened and Protected species FCR Fisheries certification Requirements LTL Low Trophic Level (species) MSC Marine Stewardship Council PI Performance Indicator P1 Principle 1 P2 Principle 2 P3 Principle 3 SG Scoring Guidepost SI Scoring Issue UoA Unit of Assessment UoC Unit of Certification VME Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 2

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides information on the initial assessment of the Iceland North East Atlantic Blue Whiting fishery against Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Fisheries Standard: Fisheries Certification Requirements v2.0. The report is prepared by DNV GL for the Icelandic Sustainable Fisheries Organization.

The assessment was carried out using MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements and Guidance v2.0. For the assessment, the default assessment tree was used. The fishery attained a score of 80 or more against each of the MSC Principles and did not score less than 60 against any of the individual MSC Criteria. Scope of certification is up to the point of landing and chain of custody commences from point of sale.

The list of vessels covered by this assessment is shown in Annex 7.

Tables 1 and 2 show assessment team members and assessment timeline. Table 3 shows Principle level scores for each Unit of Certification.

Table 1 Assessment team Role Name Team leader: Lucia Revenga Principle 1 expert: John Nichols Principle 2 expert: Lucia Revenga Principle 3 expert: Geir Hønneland DNV GL project manager Stefan Midteide

Table 2 Assessment timeline Event Date Announcement of initial assessment: 15.12.2016 Site visit and stakeholder consultations: 24-27.01.2017 Publication of Public Certification Report 29.09.2017 Eligibility date: 3 months before Public Comment Draft Report (expected 31.05.2017)

Table 3 Principle level scores Principle Score Principle 1 (both UoCs) 83.6 Principle 2 (UoC1) 90.3 Principle 2 (UoC2) 86.0 Principle 3 (both UoCs) 89.8

1.1 Main strengths and weaknesses of the client’s operation

1.1.1 Main strengths Principle Performance Comment Indicator Principle 1 PI 1.2.3 and Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy, PI 1.2.4 and there is an adequate assessment of the stock status. Principle 2 Information PIs Iceland has a comprehensive landing recording system and the MFRI provides substantial information for many elements of the ecosystem. Principle 3 PI 3.2.3 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s management measures are enforced and complied with.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 3

1.1.2 Main weaknesses Principle Performance Comment Indicator Principle 1 PI 1.2.1 The harvest strategy in place is at present not considered to be robust or precautionary. PI 1.2.2 The harvest control rules in place are, at present, not considered to be effective. Principle 2 PI 2.4.1 Some Vulnerable marine ecosystems are not protected yet. Principle 3 PI 3.1.1 The management system in place is, at present, not able to deliver sustainable fisheries in accordance with Principle 1, and it doesn’t incorporate and appropriate dispute resolution framework.

1.2 Determination / draft determination The Icelandic Sustainable Fisheries blue whiting fishery achieved a score of 80 or more for each of the three MSC Principles, and did not score under 60 for any of the set MSC criteria.

Based on the evaluation of the fishery presented in this report the assessment team recommends the certification of the Icelandic Sustainable Fisheries blue whiting fishery.

As the fishery achieved a score of below 80 against 4 scoring indicators, the assessment team has set 4 conditions (see Table 4) for the continued certification that the client is required to address. The conditions are applicable to improve performance to at least the 80 level within the period set by the assessment team.

The assessment team also makes one recommendation for the fishery (see Table 5).

Table 4 Conditions for certification (full text in Appendix 1.3) Condition Time-scale for PI Condition number compliance The SG80 requirements for SIb must be met. SG80 SIb: There must be evidence that the 2016 revised long-term management strategy is being implemented and is effective in This condition reducing the fishing mortality from the current high level of F 0.465 in should be closed 1 1.2.1 line with the MSY requirement for a fishing mortality of F 0.32 and by the 4th compliant with the harvest strategy based on the MSY approach. It is surveillance accepted that, in terms of the SSB, the MSY based strategy is audit. currently working with SSB well above MSY B trigger. That situation must continue as F is reduced towards F MSY. The SG80 requirements for SIa and SIb must be met. SG 80 SIa: There should be evidence of organised and effective cooperation between affected parties able to deliver outcomes consistent with meeting the requirements of Principle 1. This requires This condition that the revised Long-term Management Strategy must be seen to be should be closed operational as the agreed basis on which ICES provides its advice in 2 1.2.2 by the 4th 2017 on the management of the fishery in 2018 surveillance SG 80 SIc: There must also be evidence that all parties participating audit. in the fishery accept the resultant ICES advised total TAC and agree the national allocation of shares in that TAC according to the Coastal States agreement on the national percentages. The total of the national allocation of shares must not exceed the ICES advised catch. This condition only refers to The SG80 requirements for SIb (VME) must be met. the bottom 3 (only for SG80 SIb: There shall be evidence of conservation and management trawl UoC and 2.4.1 UoC 2) measures to protect VME, and that UoC does not causes serious or should be closed irreversible harm to OSPAR threatened or declining habitats. by the 4th surveillance audit.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 4

The SG80 requirements for SIa and SIb must be met. SG80 SIa: There should be evidence of organized and effective This condition cooperation between affected parties able to deliver outcomes should be closed consistent with meeting the requirements of Principle 1. 4 3.1.1 by the 4th SG80 SIb: There should also be evidence of an effective and surveillance transparent mechanism for dispute resolution between the parties audit. (UNFSA Article 10 paragraphs a), h) and j) are particularly relevant to the meeting of this condition).

Table 5 Recommendations (full text in Appendix 1.3) Recommendation PI Recommendation number Different Principle 2 PI (primary, secondary and ETP species) would benefit from UoA records of non-fatal interactions with halibuts, 1 Principle 2 PI sharks, skates, rays and marine mammals sightings. Records on benthic species would benefit the score of bottom trawlers in PI related to habitats.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 5

2 AUTHORSHIP AND PEER REVIEWERS

2.1 Assessment team

Table 6 Assessment team Role Qualifications Team leader: Lucia Revenga See below Principle 1 expert: Dr. John Nichols is a fisheries biologist with 43 years research experience in John Nichols plankton ecosystems in the North Atlantic specializing in the taxonomy of North Atlantic & NW European plankton including phytoplankton, micro and meso-plankton, ichythoplankton and young fish. He has been a member of ICES working groups on herring, mackerel, horse mackerel, sardine and anchovy assessments; and mackerel and horse mackerel egg surveys. He was also a member of ICES study groups on herring larval surveys and plankton sampling. He was scientist in charge of numerous research vessel surveys for fish stock assessment purposes and directly involved in the assessment of pelagic and western demersal fish stocks from 1994 to 2000. He has been involved in the publication of over fifty scientific papers and reports more than half of which have been in peer reviewed journals, and the publication of two fish egg and larvae identification keys. Since retirement from his government post he has participated in over 30 different fisheries MSC assessments as the Principle 1 expert plus the re-assessments of many of those fisheries Those assessments include the Thames estuary herring, PFA North Sea Herring, NEA mackerel and Atlanto-Scandian herring, Hastings Fleet Dover sole, the north –east coast of England bass fishery, the SW mackerel hand line fishery, Portuguese sardine, a Newfoundland herring fishery, Canadian Pacific sablefish, various Norwegian and Swedish pelagic fisheries, Faroese and Norwegian saithe fisheries, Faroese and Russian Arctic cod and haddock fisheries and a North Sea plaice and sole fishery. He has also been a peer reviewer for numerous MSC certification reports by various Certification bodies and has also carried out two MSC pre-assessments and numerous annual audits. In 2010 he delivered a lecture on The Importance of a Fisheries Interaction with the Ecosystem in the MSC Certification Process’ at an International Safe Seas Conference in Portugal. His qualifications meet the competence criteria defined in the MSC Certification requirements v.2.0, annex PC. Nichols has no conflicts of interest in relation to the UoA under his responsibility.

Principle 2 expert: Lucia Revenga is a marine scientist, specialized in Fisheries Biology who Lucia Revenga holds degrees in Marine Sciences and in Environmental Sciences. For 5 years she worked with TRAGSA for the Spanish General Marine Secretariat, conducting researches on the biology and stock status of different species, such as bluefin tunas, skipjack tunas, albacores, mackerels, sardines, eels, prawns, Norway lobsters, halibuts. She has also taken part in oceanographic surveys focused in the search of vulnerable marine ecosystems. From 2011 to 2015 she worked for IFAPA (Institute for Research and Training in Fisheries) as a Fisheries biology teacher for fishermen. She also conducts research in fishery local activities with the aim of increasing community awareness of the conservation of coastal ecosystems and encouraging sustainable fishing practices. Since then she works as an independent consultant. As a P2 expert she has been involved in the DS Nephrops assessment, the Olympic krill assessment, the AKER BioMarine Krill Fishery reassessment, and the Medfish project. She has been involved as a team leader in the IDW blueshell mussel reassessment.

Lucia`s qualifications meet the competence criteria defined in the MSC Certification requirements v.2.0, annex PC, for the Team-leader. Lucia has no conflicts of interest in relation to the UoA under her responsibility.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 6

Principle 3 expert: Geir Hønneland is Research Director of the Fridtjof Nansen Institute in Oslo, Geir Hønneland Norway, and adjunct professor at the University of Tromsø, Norway. He holds a Ph.D in political science from the University of Oslo and has primarily studied international fisheries management (with a main emphasis on compliance issues), international environmental politics and international Arctic politics more widely. Among his recent books are Arctic Politics, the Law of the Sea and Russian Identity (Palgrave, 2014), Making Fishery Agreements Work (Edward Elgar, 2012), International Environmental Agreements (Routledge, 2011), Arctic Politics and International Cooperation (Routledge, 2007) and Law and Politics in Ocean Governance: The UN Fish Stocks Agreement and Regional Fisheries Management Regimes (Martinus Nijhoff, 2006). He worked in the Norwegian Coast Guard from 1988 to 1994, where he was certified as fisheries inspector. Geir also has a wide range of evaluation and consultancy experience, e.g. for the FAO and OECD, relating to responsible fisheries management. He has been involved in MSC assessments since 2009 (covering cod, haddock and herring fisheries in the Northeast Atlantic and krill in the Southern Ocean). He has also wide experience as peer reviewer, including for shrimp fisheries in the North-East Atlantic and for other Swedish fisheries.

His qualifications meet the competence criteria defined in the MSC Certification requirements v.2.0, annex PC. Hønneland has no conflicts of interest in relation to the UoA under his responsibility

DNV GL project manager Stefan Midteide is principle consultant and project manager within MSC Stefan Midteide Fishery at DNV GL. His core competencies are project management, sustainability assessments, risk assessment responsible supply chain management, responsible investment and implementation of sustainability policies. He has 9 years’ experience as sustainability consultant and project manager. He has participated and managed project across a wide range and industries, seafoods and aquaculture, power, telecom, food retail, finance, technology, defense, pharmaceutical retail, public sector. Stefan holds degrees from the Nottingham University Business School (MBA), London School of Economics (M.Sc. Development Studies) and the University of Oslo (Cand Polit, Economic Geography).

His qualifications meet the competence criteria defined in the MSC Certification requirements v.2.0, annex PC. Midteide has no conflicts of interest in relation to the UoA under his responsibility

2.2 Peer reviewers The MSC’s Peer Review College has compiled a shortlist of potential peer reviewers to undertake the peer review for the Iceland North East Atlantic blue whiting fishery, which is currently undergoing the full MSC certification assessment process with the Conformity Assessment Body Det Norske Veritas Certification AS. Two peer reviewers will be selected from the following shortlist:

Table 7 Peer reviewers Peer reviewer Name Peer reviewer 1 Don Bowen

Peer reviewer 2 Milo Adkison

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 7

3 DESCRIPTION OF THE FISHERY

3.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and scope of certification sought The fishery is confirmed to be within the scope of the MSC Fisheries standard per the following determinations:

- The target species is a fish and the fishery does not use poisons or explosives.

- The fishery is not conducted under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement.

- The client or client group does not include an entity that has been successfully prosecuted for a forced labour violation in the last 2 years.

- The fishery has mechanisms for resolving disputes and disputes do not overwhelm the fishery.

3.1.1 UoA and Proposed Unit of Certification (UoC) MSC certification is specific to the fishery holding the certificate, the Unit of Certification. The assessment team may choose to assess a wider unit, the Unit of Assessment, to which the certificate may be extended under specific circumstances. 3.1.1.1 Unit of Assessment The Unit of Assessment defines the full scope of what is being assessed, and includes the Unit of Certification and any other eligible fishers.

The Unit of Assessment includes the target stock (s), the fishing method or gear type/s, vessel type/s and/or practices, and the fishing fleets or groups of vessels, or individual fishing operators pursuing that stock, including any other eligible fishers that are outside the Unit of Certification.

The Unit of Assessment for this fishery assessment is specified in Table 8. It was chosen as it covers all industrial bottom trawlers, pelagic trawlers and purse seine vessels from all fishing operators of Iceland.

Table 8 Unit of Assessment (UoA) Unit of Assessment 1

Target stock(s) North East Atlantic Blue Whiting

Fishing method or gear type(s), vessel type(s) Pelagic trawl & Purse seine and/or practices The fishing fleets or groups of vessels or The group of vessels includes all operators of fishing individual fishing operators pursuing that stock vessels in Iceland. including those client group members initially There are no other eligible fishers. intended to be covered by the certificate

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 8

Location of fishery Icelandic territorial waters and Faroese territorial waters: This includes ICES areas 5a1, 5a2 (Icelandic waters) and ICES areas 5b1a, 5b1b, 5b2 (Faroese territorial waters). Icelandic and Faroese territorial waters also have overlaps with the following subareas: 5a1, 5a2, 2a2, 12a4, 14a, 14b (Iceland) and 5b1a, 5b1b, 5b2, 2a2 and 4a (Faroese).

NEAFC International waters of Banana hole and Reykjanes Ridge:  "NEAFC RA 2 (XNS/Banana hole)" includes the following ICES areas, from South to North: 2a1 and 2b1.  "NEAFC RA1 (XRR Reykjanes Ridge)": Includes the following ICES areas, from North to South: 6b1a, 6b1, 12b, 12a1, 14b1, 7c1, 12c, 7k1, 10b, 8e1, 10a1 and 9b1.

Management System The fishery is managed under ICES advice, Coastal state (Iceland) management regime. Ministry of Fisheries & Agriculture, Iceland; Directorate of Fisheries; Icelandic Coastguard Service.

Unit of Assessment 2 Target stock(s) North East Atlantic Blue Whiting

Fishing method or gear type(s), vessel type(s) Bottom trawl and/or practices The fishing fleets or groups of vessels or The group of vessels includes all operators of fishing individual fishing operators pursuing that stock vessels in Iceland. including those client group members initially There are no other eligible fishers. intended to be covered by the certificate Location of fishery The fishery is restricted to take place within Icelandic territorial waters and Faroese territorial waters. This includes ICES areas 5a1, 5a2 (Icelandic waters) and ICES areas 5b1a, 5b1b, 5b2 (Faroese territorial waters). Icelandic and Faroese territorial waters also have overlaps with the following subareas: 5a1, 5a2, 2a2, 12a4, 14a, 14b (Iceland) and 5b1a, 5b1b, 5b2, 2a2 and 4a (Faroese). Management System The fishery is managed under ICES advice, Coastal state (Iceland) management regime. Ministry of Fisheries & Agriculture, Iceland; Directorate of Fisheries; Icelandic Coastguard Service.

3.1.1.2 Proposed Unit of Certification The Unit of certification is the unit entitled to receive an MSC certificate.

The proposed Unit of Certification include the target stock (s), the fishing method or gear type/s, vessel type/s and/or practices, the fishing fleets or groups of vessels or individual fishing operators pursuing that stock including those client group members initially intended to be covered by the certificate.

The MSC FCR v2.0 specifies that the Unit of Certification is defined as “The target stock or stocks (= biologically distinct unit/s) combined with the fishing method/gear and practice (including vessel type/s) pursuing that stock and any fleets, groups of vessels, or individual vessels of other fishing operators.”

The proposed Units of Certification are provided in Table 9 and 10.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 9

Table 9 Proposed “Unit of Certification 1”, at the start of the certificate (prior to any certificate sharing) Target stock(s) North East Atlantic Blue Whiting

Fishing method or gear type(s), vessel type(s) Pelagic trawl & Purse seine. All vessels carry on board and/or practices both gears at the same time. They will be treated as different scoring elements.

The fishing fleets or groups of vessels or The group of vessels includes all operators of fishing individual fishing operators pursuing that stock vessels in Iceland. including those client group members initially There are no other eligible fishers. intended to be covered by the certificate Location of fishery Icelandic territorial waters and Faroese territorial waters: This includes ICES areas 5a1, 5a2 (Icelandic waters) and ICES areas 5b1a, 5b1b, 5b2 (Faroese territorial waters). Icelandic and Faroese territorial waters also have overlaps with the following subareas: 5a1, 5a2, 2a2, 12a4, 14a, 14b (Iceland) and 5b1a, 5b1b, 5b2, 2a2 and 4a (Faroese). NEAFC International waters of Banana hole and Reykjanes Ridge: • "NEAFC RA 2 (XNS/Banana hole)" includes the following ICES areas, from South to North: 2a1 and 2b1. • "NEAFC RA1 (XRR Reykjanes Ridge)": Includes the following ICES areas, from North to South: 6b1a, 6b1, 12b, 12a1, 14b1, 7c1, 12c, 7k1, 10b, 8e1, 10a1 and 9b1.

Table 10 Proposed “Unit of Certification 2” at the start of the certificate (prior to any certificate sharing) Target stock(s) North East Atlantic Blue Whiting

At present the pelagic fleet targeting blue whiting is located in Faroese waters (Faroe EEZ), while the bottom trawl fleet targeting other species (for which blue whiting is only a bycatch species) at present only fishes in Icelandic EEZ. There is potential for both fishing gears to move in the future among these areas (Icelandic and Faroese waters), therefore it is considered that both areas should be included in the relevant UoCs.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 10

3.1.1.3 Other eligible fishers at the start of the certificate (prior to any certificate sharing) Other eligible fishers mean operators that have been evaluated as part of the Unit of Assessment, but who are not eligible to use the MSC Fishery certificate without a certificate sharing agreement with the client group.

There are no other eligible fishers.

3.1.2 Final UoC(s)

For final certification report only. 3.1.2.1 Final other eligible fishers at the time of certification For final certification report only.

3.1.3 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data

This report covers the MSC assessment for two different Units of Certification. UoC 1 covers Icelandic vessels using pelagic trawlers and purse seines (both gears in the same vessel, which will be scored as different scoring elements) and UoC 2 covers Icelandic bottom trawlers. Of those, only vessels from UoC 1 target blue whiting, normally in Faroese grounds. Vessels from UoC 2 target demersal species such as cod, haddock, saithe, golden redfish or others, and only catch very small quantities of blue whiting. These quantities are negligible when compared to those by UoC 1. For this reason, the assessment team provides a unique TAC and catch data for blue whiting, comprising the TAC and catch for both types of vessels.

Table 31: TAC and catch data for blue whiting. TAC 01.09.2016 - 31.08.2017 134,799 tons UoA share of TAC 01.09.2016 - 31.08.2017 134,799 tons UoCs share of TAC 01.09.2016 - 31.08.2017 134,799 tons Total green weight catch by UoCs 01.09.2015 - 31.08.2016 183,121 tons Total green weight catch by UoCs 01.09.2014 - 31.08.2015 210,566 tons Source: http://www.fiskistofa.is

NEAFC notes that, as Coastal States to the management of the blue whiting stock, the European Union, the Faroe Islands, Iceland and Norway have agreed that the level of total catches of blue whiting in 2017 by these countries in the North-East Atlantic should be no more than 1,342,330 tonnes, corresponding to FMSY as advised by ICES. Recommendation 2:2017 on Conservation and Management Measures for Blue Whiting in the NEAFC Regulatory Area for 2017.

3.1.4 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries

The MSC Certification Requirements and Guidance v2.0 defines enhanced fisheries as: “Any activity aimed at supplementing or sustaining the recruitment, or improving the survival and growth of one or more aquatic organisms, or at raising the total production or the production of selected elements of the fishery beyond a level that is sustainable by natural processes. It may involve stocking, habitat modification, elimination of unwanted species, fertilisation or combinations of any of these practices”.

The fishery in the UoA is a wild capture fishery and does not meet the definition above. It is therefore not considered to be enhanced.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 11

3.1.5 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF)

The MSC Certification Requirements v2 defines ISBF fisheries as: Any fishery which prosecutes a target fin or shellfish species that was intentionally or accidentally transported and released by human activity into an aquatic environment beyond its natural distribution range. This does not include species that are “introduced” into a location due to an expansion in their natural geographic range. The fishery under assessment does not meet the definition above. Therefore, it is not considered as ISBF.

3.2 Overview of the fishery Client name and contact information:

Table 4 Client contact data Client name: Icelandic Sustainable Fisheries Contact person: Kristinn Hjálmarson (Project manager) Erla Kristinsdottis (Project manager) Address: Grandagarði 16. Reykjavík 101 Grandagarði 16. Reykjavík 101

Telephone: +354 840 6886 +354 8926628 Email: [email protected] [email protected] 3.2.1 Client information Icelandic Sustainable Fisheries (EHF/ISF) was founded in 2012 by companies in the fishing industry, producers and sales organisations. ISF is not a closed group. It is a cost sharing company open to other companies, which pay an initial amount and annual fees to join. There are at present 48 companies in ISF (see list of members below). Only members to ISF can utilize the MSC Fishery Certificates owned by ISF. The purpose of ISF is to obtain certifications of fishing gear and fish stocks exploited around Iceland.

List of members of ISF in April 2017

AB Fish ehf HB Grandi hf Iraco ehf Selhöfði ehf Islenska -sales agency Akraborg ehf Ice-Co Foods ehf Spes ehf ehf Bacco Seaproducts ehf Ice Frozen Seafood ehf Leo Fresh Fish ehf Skinney-Þinganes hf Bergur-Huginn ehf Iceland Pelagic ehf Marz sjávarafurðir ehf Sverrir Björnsson Brim hf Iceland Seafood ehf Merlo Seafood ehf Sæmark ehf Iceland Westfjords Danica Seafood hf Nastar ehf Toppfiskur ehf Seafood ehf Erik the Red Seafood ehf Icelandic Group hf Northern Seafood ehf Vignir G. Jónsson hf Ferskfiskur ehf Icelandic Ný-Fiskur hf Rammi hf Viking Fresh ehf Fisk Seafood Icemar ehf Rekstrarfélagið Eskja hf Vinnslutöðin hf Fiskiðjan Bylgja hf Icemark ehf Royal Iceland hf Vísir hf Fiskkaup hf Idunn Seafoods ehf Samherji hf Whitelink Seafoods ehf Frostfiskur ehf Source and updated list: http://www.icelandsustainable.is/isf-partners.html

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 12

3.2.2 General overview of the fishery Large-scale fishing of blue whiting began in 1998. In 2003 Icelandic vessels fished 500,000 tonnes, but landings have declined since then. At present, Icelandic vessels target blue whiting with pelagic gears in Faroese and Icelandic waters. Blue whiting is also targeted by Norway, the Faroe Islands and the EU, either in national and NEAFC international waters. In 2005 these parties reached an agreement on the allocation of fishing quotas and total allowable catch, however this agreement is not in place at present. The catch is reduced to fishmeal or frozen for human consumption.

The following figures shows historical catches of blue whiting since the beginning of the fishery in 1998 and the main fishing grounds for the Icelandic fleet.

Figure 1: Catch of blue whiting (in tonnes) by Icelandic and non-Icelandic vessels in Icelandic and non-Icelandic waters.

Source: http://www.fisheries.is/main-species/codfishes/blue-whiting/

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 13

Figure 2: Blue whiting fishing grounds: At present the Icelandic fishery takes place in Faroese and Icelandic waters, however blue whiting is located in all North East Atlantic waters, including NEACF International waters.

a) Blue whiting fishing grounds by the b) NEAFC International waters of the Icelandic fleet in 2011. Dark areas indicate Banana hole (in yellow, north of UK) highest catches (t/nm2) and Reykjanes Ridge (in yellow, south of Iceland).

Source: http://www.fisheries.is/main- Source: species/codfishes/blue-whiting/ http://neafc.org/managing_fisheries/measures/ ra_map

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 14

Figure 3: Green weight catch by fishing grounds for 2013, 2014 and 2015.

Blue whiting - Green weight catch by fishing grounds 180 000 000 160 000 000 140 000 000 120 000 000 100 000 000 80 000 000 60 000 000 40 000 000 20 000 000 - 2015 2014 2013

Iceland EEZ BW Tonns Faroe Islands EEZ BW Tonns

Source: Icelandic Sustainable Fisheries

Figure 4: Catch percentage of Icelandic blue whiting catch per month.

Blue whiting - Catch percentage per month 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

2016 2015 2014

Source: Icelandic Sustainable Fisheries

As mentioned above, most of the blue whiting catch is targeted by pelagic trawls and purse seines.

Pelagic trawls operate without touching the seafloor. The depth at which the net is deployed is monitored from the bridge of the vessel. The net consists of a funnel shaped bag that is dragged in the ocean at a certain depth. Minimum mesh size in the cod end for the pelagic trawl blue whiting fishery is 40mm. The meshes get larger as they are closer to the opening, where the net doors reach a distance among themselves of approximately 60 meters. The net carries sensors to measure how much fish is entering on it. When the catch is completed, the catch can be hauled or pumped on board depending on the vessels design.

Purse seine also operate without touching the seafloor, and at surface level. It consists of a circular netting fence that is placed surrounding a school of pelagic fish. The lower edge of the net

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 15

has a wire. By pulling this wire the net is closed around the fish school. The catch is then pumped on board.

Figure 5: Drawings of the fishing gears.

Pelagic trawl diagram Purse seine drawing

Source: http://www.fisheries.is/

The ISF pelagic vessels assessed in UoC 1 carry both gears on board at all times. For these reason, and considering that none of these gears touch the seabed, that fishermen use one gear or another indistinctly, that the catch is always pumped on board with a suction pump and kept in the same fishing tanks without previous sorting before landing at port, both gears have been assessed as a single Unit of Certification, but as different scoring elements of that UoC.

Unit of Certification 2 covers the assessment of ISF bottom trawlers that do not target blue whiting (they target, cod, haddock, golden redfish, saithe or other demersal fishes) but catches blue whiting as bycatch, normally in low quantities. All blue whiting is landed and goes into the market. It is the wish of the client to also assess this UoC as to cover all possible blue whiting ever caught by ISF vessels, even as a rare event.

Bottom trawlers design is similar to the pelagic trawlers design, but these vessels deploy the net at the level of the seafloor, damaging benthic habitats to different degrees depending on seafloor substrate and specifications of the gear. It is noticiable however that Icelandic bottom trawlers have been fishing the same paths for decades now. Many of the paths are narrow, and the vessels are increasingly equipped with floating trawl doors which never touch the floor. Moreover, Icelandic trawlers are improving the gear configuration in order to avoid touching the seafloor with any part of the trawl. Fishing depth ranges from 80 to 1500 meters.

Catch composition of bottom trawlers is normally more varied than catch of pelagic gears, but in Icelandic waters the majority of the catch is comprised by cod, haddock, golden redfish, saithe and Greenland halibut, among others. Bottom trawlers haul the catch on board, where is sorted by the crew before being stored.

Minimum mesh size at the cod end is 135mm. Several fisheries or fishing grounds require the use of selectivity devices such as sorting grids, which should avoid unwanted catch of a certain size.

Bottom trawling is not allowed within 12 nm from the coast, except off the south coast during part of the year (http://www.fisheries.is/). Furthermore, some areas outside 12 nm are permanently closed to trawlers. Temporary closures are also established when a high proportion of juvenile fish is detected in the catch.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 16

Figure 6: Diagram showing the relative size of the net in bottom trawl fisheries and location of fishing effort by bottom trawlers in 2011. Dark areas indicate highest effort.

Source: http://www.fisheries.is/ Source: http://www.hafro.is/

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

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

Principle 1 covers all fishing activity on the entire target species stock - not just the fishery undergoing certification. However, the fishery 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.

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

3.3.1 Biology, life history, stock distribution and stock structure Blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou) is a small gadoid species which is essentially pelagic and is widely distributed in the eastern part of the North Atlantic. Its geographical range extends from south of Portugal in the south to the Barents Sea as far north as Svalbard. The highest concentrations are found along and just off the continental shelf edge west of the British Isles and around the Rockall Bank plateau where it occurs in large schools at depths ranging between 300 and 600 meters but may rise to 100m at night. It is also present in almost all other management areas between the Barents Sea and the Strait of Gibraltar and west to the Irminger Sea (ICES, 2016a, stock annexe).

Adults mature at between 2 and 7 years old (see Table 12 below) and then undertake long annual migrations from the feeding grounds to the spawning grounds (Bailey, 1982).

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 17

Table 12: Proportion of mature individuals of blue whiting, and age.

Age (years) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-10+

Proportion mature 0 0.11 0.40 0.82 0.86 0.91 0.94 1.00

Source: ICES, 2016a.

Spawning occurs between March and April, along the shelf edge and banks west of the British Isles. Juveniles are abundant in many areas, including in the Bay of Biscay and off the Iberian Peninsula with the main nursery area believed to be the Norwegian Sea (ICES, 2016a). Morphological, physiological, and genetic research has suggested that there may be several components of the stock which mix in the spawning area west of the British Isles. Due to the large population size, its considerable migratory capabilities and wide spatial distribution, the stock composition and dynamics require continued monitoring. The migration routes of blue whiting in the North Atlantic are shown in Figure 7 (ICES 2016a: stock annexe) (Worsøe Clausen et al, 2005). Blue whiting are essentially plankton feeders and in northern waters they feed principally on euphausids, copepods, amphipods and mysids and rarely on small fish (Wheeler, 1969).

In their stock Annexe (ICES, 2016a) the ICES assessment working group notes that there is a need for more information regarding population structure in these stocks. They further noted that due to the large population size, its considerable migratory capabilities and wide spatial distribution the stock composition and dynamics require continued monitoring. The section on stock definition and stock identify provides an excellent summary of all the research on this topic. The numerous scientific studies have suggested that blue whiting in the North Atlantic consists of multiple stock units. The ICES Stock Identification Methods Working Group (SIMWG) reviewed all the evidence in 2014 (ICES, 2014a) and concluded that the perception of blue whiting in the NE Atlantic as a single‐stock unit is not supported by the best available science. SIMWG further recommended that blue whiting be considered as two units. However, there is currently no information available that can be used as the basis for generating advice on the status of the individual stocks. There is therefore a need to begin to collate information on these stocks in the lead up to a potential benchmark of this stock in the future. Potential data sources identified by the group include: otolith shape analysis; expansion southwards of the area covered by the International Blue whiting stock survey; obtaining more information on spawning distribution from the triennial mackerel egg surveys. Although blue whiting eggs cannot be specifically identified in the samples the larvae are quite distinct and could be used for this purpose (J. Nichols, Pers. Comm) (Russell, 1976).

The current position of the assessment working group in relation to stock identity is one of an emerging picture of a single stock whose large scale spatial distribution varies as a function of hydrographic conditions and total abundance, commonly described as an abundance-occupancy relationship (ICES, 2016a, Stock annexe). As a result the ICES assessment working group currently treat Blue whiting in ICES Subareas 1–9, 12 and 14 as a single stock for assessment purposes.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 18

Figure 7: Migration routes for the blue whiting in the Northern Atlantic.

Source: Tangen and Sveinbjörnsson. Worsoe Clausen et al., 2005

3.3.2 NEA blue whiting status in relation to LTL species Blue whiting is not considered as a Key Lower Trophic Level species in this assessment because it is not listed as a species by default in CR V2.0 SA 2.2.10 (Box SA1), The list consists of:

 Ammodytidae (sandeels and sandlances)  Clupeidae (herrings, menhaden, pilchards, sardines, sardinellas, sprats)  Engraulidae (anchovies)  Euphausiidae (krill)  Myctophidae (lanternfish)  Osmeridae (smelts, capelin)  Genus Scomber (mackerels)  Order Atheriniformes (silversides, sand smelts)  Species Trisopterus esmarkii (Norway pout)

3.3.3 Stock assessment in 2016 of stock status in 2015

The fishery in 2015

The total annual catch continued to increase from the low of 104,000t in 2011, 614,000t in 2013 to 1,391,000t in 2015. The ICES advised catch, based on the previously agreed management plan, DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 19

was 839,886t. However, there was no agreement between the participating Coastal States on the allocation of the advised catch. The sum of the unilaterally declared quotas of the Coastal States was 1,260,000t. Figure 8 shows the total annual catch over the period 1981 to 2015 (ICES, 2016b). The provisional figure of 1,147,000 for the 2016 fishery is also included.

Figure 8. The total annual catch of Blue whiting from ICES Subareas I-IX, XII and XIV over the period 1981 to 2015. The provisional figure for the 2016 fishery is include (green).

3000000

2500000

2000000

1500000

1000000

500000

0 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 Annual catch in tonnes Year

Source: ICES, 2016b

Most of the catches (87%) were taken in the first two quarters of the year and the largest part of this west of the British Isles and south and east of the Faeroes. Smaller quantities were taken along the coast of Spain and Portugal and in the central Norwegian Sea. The bulk of the catch is caught with large pelagic trawlers, some with capacity to process or freeze on board. The remainder is caught by RSW vessels (ICES, 2016a).

Figure 9 shows the annual catch, in 2015, taken by each of the fourteen countries participating in the fishery. This shows that the main catches were taken by Norway, Russia, Iceland and the Faroes with Iceland taking the second largest catch of 214,870t.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 20

Figure 9: The annual catch of Blue whiting taken by each of the participating countries in the 2015 fishery.

600000

500000

400000

300000 tonnes

200000

100000 Total catch in 2015 fishery Total catch in 2015 fishery in 0

Source: ICES, 2016b.

The distribution of the catches in 2015 is shown in Figure 10 (ICES, 2016a). Spatial distribution of the catches (landings) in 2015 was similar to the spatial distribution in previous years with the majority of the catches coming from the spawning areas along the shelf edge to the west and north-west of the British Isles and south-east of the Faroes. The main fisheries on blue whiting were targeting spawning and post-spawning fish in the EU region, International waters west of Porcupine Bank/Rockall Bank areas, west of Scotland and the Faroese region (ICES, 2016a). The area distribution of the catches in 2015 (Figure 11) clearly shows the dominance of the spawning area with the remaining catches taken in the southern area and in the Norwegian Sea.

The proportion of landings originating from the Northern areas has been decreasing steadily over the recent period. From 2014 to 2015, the change was 5% whilst catches from the southern area have increased by a similar amount.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 21

Figure 10: Total blue whiting landings (t) in 2015 by ICES rectangle. Landings below 10 t are not shown on the map. The catches on the map constitute 99.5 % of the total catches.

Source: ICES, 2016a

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 22

Figure 11: The area distribution of the catches of Blue whiting in the 2015 fishery from three areas defined below.

Norwegian Sea: ICES Sub-areas 1,2. Divisions 5a, 14a-b. 150 828 Norwegian Sea 305 171 Spawning area: ICES Sub-area 12. Divisions 5b, 6a-b, 7a-c. Spawning area 44 661 North Sea North Sea: ICES Sub-area 4. Division 3a. 895 684 Southern area

Southern area: ICES Sub-areas 8,9. Divisions 7d-k.

Source: ICES, 2016b.

Figure 12 shows the seasonal distribution of the catches, by quarter, in the 2015 fishery. Most of the catches (91%) were taken in the first two quarters of the year. The multi-national fleet currently targeting blue whiting consists of several types of vessels but the bulk of the catch is caught by large pelagic trawlers.

Total discards of blue whiting are estimated to be small. Most of the blue whiting caught in directed fisheries are used for reduction to fish meal and fish oil. However, some dis-carding does occur in the fisheries for human consumption and as by-catch in fisheries directed towards other species (ICES, 2016a). Discard data is supplied to the ICES Assessment Working Group by the UK (England and Wales), Spain and Portugal and by the Netherlands up to 2014.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 23

Figure 12: Total catches (ICES estimates) of Blue whiting in 2015 by quarter and ICES rectangle. Landings between 10 and 100 tonnes (black dots), between 100 and 1000 tonnes (open squares), 1000 and 10 000 tonnes (grey squares) and exceeding 10 000 tonnes black squares. The catches on the maps constitute 99.5 % of the total catches.

Source: ICES, 2016a

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 24

3.3.4 Monitoring of Stock Status Morphological, physiological, and genetic research has suggested that there may be several components of the stock which mix in the spawning area west of the British Isles. Due to the large population size, its considerable migratory capabilities and wide spatial distribution, the stock composition and dynamics require continued monitoring. However, for stock assessment purposes it is not possible to differentiate between stock components and the stock is assessed and managed as a single unit (ICES, 2016a stock annexe).

The Blue whiting assessment was benchmarked February 2012 (ICES 2012) and the State-space assessment model SAM (Nielsen and Berg, 2014) was chosen as the default assessment model for the stock. This model is now being widely used in the assessment of stocks in the ICES area and is considered entirely suitable for this Blue whiting stock assessment. The model offers a flexible way of describing the entire system with relatively few model parameters. The model provides estimates of SSB, F and recruitment in the same way that the previous assessment model did. These can be easily related to the MSY, limit and Precautionary approach biological reference points. The major difference in the output from the SAM model is that the estimates of SSB, F and recruitment are provided with a high and low range representing the 95% confidence intervals on those estimates. This provides an invaluable tool for managers to ensure the sustainable exploitation of this fish stock.

As a part of the ongoing routine procedures within ICES to review and improve the stock assessment process an Inter-Benchmark Protocol on Blue Whiting IBPBLW (ICES 2016c) was set up in the spring 2016. Their main remit was to investigate methods for a better handling of the large uncertainties (“year effects”) of the stock estimates from the International Blue Whiting Spawning Stock Survey (IBWSS) and for a better use of available time series of catch per unit of effort (CPUE) of juveniles for the estimation of recruitment. The assessment makes use of only this one survey index (IBWSS) plus the total catch-at-age data matrix. As a result of the deliberations during this Inter-Benchmark Protocol of Blue whiting (ICES, 2016c) a version of the SAM model that accounted for correlated observations (Berg and Nielsen, 2016) was tested and found to be a better model to handle “year effects" in survey indices, as observed in the 2015 IBWSS, than the default SAM model. This changed configuration of the SAM model that was used for the assessment in 2016. The new SAM configuration and the use of both catch and survey information for the terminal year seem to decrease the variability of F but there is also a decrease in process error for age 2+. The addition of the IBWSS indices for age 1 and 2 increases the observation variance for these ages for catch observations, as there are now two sets of observations for theses ages to fit (ICES, 2016a). However, the blue whiting assessment results are still highly sensitive to the value of the most recent survey index.

Although the basic SAM model is now being increasingly used as the preferred assessment modelling framework within ICES, the model is still in its infancy and there are some shortcomings. Although the model has been published in a peer reviewed paper, there is currently no manual on its use. In spite of these shortcomings the model is generally recognised as entirely appropriate for this Blue whiting stock and it is able to take into account the major features relevant to the biology of this species and the nature of this bulk catch bulk landing mainly spawning fishery.

As already noted the assessment has only one fishery independent tuning index, the International Blue Whiting Spawning Stock Survey (IBWSS). This acoustic and trawl survey is carried out, every year, over the spawning grounds to the west of the British Isles in March to April. The survey began in 2004 and the participants are Norway, Russia, the Faroe Islands, and the EU. This level of participation permits a broad coverage of the spawning area and a relatively dense pattern of trawl hauls used in support of the acoustic estimates. The survey is coordinated by the ICES

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 25

Working Group on International Pelagic Surveys, WGIPS (ICES, 2014b). There are other surveys related to Blue whiting but none of them are currently considered to be either appropriate or sufficiently reliable to be used in the stock assessment process. These surveys such as the International Ecosystem Survey in the Nordic Seas and the Norwegian Bottom Trawl Survey in the Barents Sea provide useful background information on Blue whiting.

Figure 13 shows the spawning stock biomass over the period 1981 to 2015 with the provisional estimate for 2016 and projected estimate for 2017. The 95% confidence interval estimates and the biological reference points, MSY B trigger, Bpa and Blim are also shown. The SSB at spawning time in 2015 was 4,292,740t (95%CI +6,140,542t -3,000,975t). This was an increase of 371,744t over the previous year (ICES, 2016b). The provisional estimate for SSB at spawning time in 2016 based on the fishery in the first two quarters of the year is 5,031,888t (95% CI + 8,244,304t – 3,071,199t) (ICES, 2016b). Figure 13 clearly shows the steady increase in SSB since the low period between 2009 and 2011 with the SSB now having more than doubled since 2010 (2,677,882t). The current SSB is clearly well above both the biomass limit and MSY biomass trigger and precautionary approach reference points for the stock taking into account the 95% lower confidence level estimate. The improvement is attributable to both a lower fishing mortality between 2004 and 2011 and improved recruitment since 2010.

Figure 13: The estimate of the spawning stock biomass of Blue whiting in ICES Subareas I-IX, XII and XIV over the period 1981 to 2015 with a provisional estimate for 2016 and a projected value for 2017. The 95% confidence levels are also shown. The MSY biomass trigger and precautionary approach reference point and the biomass limit reference point are also shown.

9000000 SSB (t) 8000000 SSB (high) 7000000 SSB (low) 6000000 MSY-Btrig/Bpa 5000000 Blim 4000000 tonnes 3000000

2000000

1000000 Spawningstock biomass in 0 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013 2017 Year

Source: ICES, 2016b.

The estimates of annual fishing mortality, based on ages 3 to 7 years in the catches, are shown in Figure 14 together with the 95% confidence intervals on those estimates. The maximum sustainable yield (FMSY), precautionary (Fpa) and limit (Flim) reference points are also shown. This clearly shows the steady decline in fishing mortality from 2004 to 2011 followed by a steep increase in F from the historical low in 2011 to above both the precautionary approach and Fmsy levels in 2014 and 2015. Based on the provisional data from the fishery in the first two quarters of 2016, fishing mortality is predicted to have decreased in 2016. The fishing mortality in the 2015

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 26

fishery was F 0.465 (95% CI + 0.712: - 0.304). The predicted value for 2016 is F 0.386 (95% CI + 0.702; - 0.212) which is still marginally above Fmsy (ICES, 2016b).

Figure 14: The estimate of annual fishing mortality (F) on Blue whiting, ages 3-7 years, in ICES Subareas I-IX, XII and XIV over the period 1981 to 2015 with a provisional estimate for 2016. The 95% confidence levels are also shown. The Fishing Mortality biological reference points are also shown.

1 0,9 0,8 F (ages 3-7) High F Low F Fmsy 0,7 Fpa Flim 0,6 0,5 0,4 years 0,3 0,2 0,1

Fishing mortality (F) ages 3-7 Fishing mortality 0 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 Year

Source: ICES, 2016b.

The estimates of annual recruitment at age 1yr are generated within the assessment model. The estimates of recruitment at age 1yr are shown in Figure 15 for the period 1981 to 2016. The 95% confidence intervals on these estimates are available (ICES, 2016b) but are not included on this Figure. Recruitment increased from the low recruitments between 2006 and 2009 to a historically high recruitment in 2015. The estimate for 2016 (2015 year-class) is lower but the uncertainty in the estimation of the most recent year is notably high.

Recruitment indices from several bottom trawl surveys and one Nordic Seas ecosystem survey (IESNS) are used qualitatively to adjust the most recent recruitment estimate from the SAM model and to guide recruitments used in the stock forecasts.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 27

Figure 15: The estimate of annual recruitment of Blue whiting, age 1 year, in ICES Subareas I-IX, XII and XIV over the period 1981 to 2016.

80000 70000 Recruitment, Age 1… 60000 50000 40000

30000 old 1year 20000 10000 Recruitment in millions at millions Recruitment in 0 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 Year

Source: ICES, 2016b

There are several sources of uncertainty influencing this stock assessment, for example age reading, stock identity and survey indices. As there is only one survey (IBWSS) that covers the spawning stock, the quality of the survey influences the assessment result considerably. It is recognised that there are probably two stock components a northern and a southern unit. However, there is currently no way in which the data from the two areas can be separated and therefore for stock assessment purposes Blue whiting over the whole area of its distribution in the Northeast Atlantic has to be treated as a single stock. This has implications for the single survey tuning index used in the assessment where there are differences in the quality of the data from the northern and southern stock units. As a result, there is a tendency for the assessment to better reflect what is happening in the northern component of the stock. Biased survey indices do tend to give a biased stock estimate which is reflected in the retrospective pattern for both SSB and F.

Based on the confidence interval produced by the SAM assessment model there is a moderate uncertainty of the absolute estimate of F and SSB, and a higher uncertainty on the recruiting year classes. However, the new assessment model does satisfactorily address most of these areas of uncertainty and reflects them in the 95% confidence intervals on their estimation. This fully statistical model is also able to down weight the influence of observed parameters according to estimated variances on those observations. These major uncertainties in the assessment are therefore well defined and expressed as the variances on the final estimates of SSB, F and Recruitment with 95% confidence intervals on those final estimates.

3.3.5 Management Advice A meeting was held in 2008 (ICES, 2008) at which a number of potential management strategies for Blue whiting were examined through simulations. Following this meeting a new long-term management plan (Harvest control rule) was agreed, in November 2008, by Norway, the EU, Faroe Islands and Iceland, constituting the Coastal States. The plan (reproduced below) was complex but was firmly based on the ICES Precautionary approach and maximum sustainable yield reference points for biomass and fishing mortality. The management plan was designed to be responsive to the current status of the stock and to maintain fishing mortality and SSB at levels which constrain harvesting within safe biological limits and support the maximum sustainable yield in the long term.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 28

ICES evaluated the plan and concluded that it was consistent with the precautionary approach and the plan was subsequently endorsed by NEAFC. The long-term management plan 1. The Parties agree to implement a long-term management plan for the fisheries on the Blue Whiting stock, which is consistent with the precautionary approach, aiming at ensuring harvest within safe biological limits and designed to provide for fisheries consistent with maximum sustainable yield, in accordance with advice from ICES. 2. For the purpose of this long-term management plan, in the following text, “TAC” means the sum of the coastal State TAC and the NEAFC allowable catches. 3. As a priority, the long-term plan shall ensure with high probability that the size of the stock is maintained above 1.5 million tonnes (Blim). 4. The Parties shall aim to exploit the stock with a fishing mortality of 0.18 on relevant age groups as defined by ICES. 5. While fishing mortality exceeds that specified in paragraph 4 and 6, the Parties agree to establish the TAC consistent with reductions in fishing mortality of 35% each year until the fishing mortality established in paragraph 4 and 6 has been reached. This paragraph shall apply only during 2009 and 2010. For the purposes of this calculation, the fishing percentage mortality reduction should be calculated with respect to the year before the year in which the TAC is to be established. For this year, it shall be assumed that the relevant TAC constrains catches. 6. When the fishing mortality in paragraph 4 has been reached, the Parties agree to establish the TAC in each year in accordance with the following rules:

o In the case that the spawning biomass is forecast to reach or exceed 2.25 million tonnes (SSB trigger level) on 1 January of the year for which the TAC is to be set, the TAC shall be fixed at the level consistent with the specified fishing mortality.

o In the case that the spawning biomass is forecast to be less than 2.25 million tonnes on 1 January of the year for which the TAC is to be set (B), the TAC shall be fixed that is consistent with a fishing mortality given by: F = 0.05 + [(B – 1.5) * (0.18 – 0.05) / (2.25 – 1.5)]

o In the case that spawning biomass is forecast to be less than 1.5 million tonnes on 1 January of the year for which the TAC is to be set, the TAC will be fixed that is consistent with a fishing mortality given by F = 0.05. 7. When the fishing mortality rate on the stock is consistent with that established in paragraph 4 and the spawning stock size on 1 January of the year for which the TAC is to be set is forecast to exceed 2.25 million tonnes, the Parties agree to discuss the appropriateness of adopting constraints on TAC changes within the plan. 8. The Parties, on the basis of ICES advice, shall review this long-term management plan at intervals not exceeding five years and when the condition specified in paragraph 4 is reached.

The management plan was used as the basis for the provision of advice by ICES and setting an annual TAC, through the Coastal States agreement from 2010 through to 2014. The plan remained unchanged and was achieving its objectives as evidenced by the levels of SSB and low fishing mortalities. In line with paragraph 8 of the plan ICES evaluated a NEAFC request concerning an alternative management plan in May 2013 (ICES, 2013a) and further in October 2013 (ICES, 2013b). In their September 2014 advice on the management of the fishery in 2015 (ICES, 2014c) ICES reported that no agreement on the application of a new management plan had been obtained.

Following the ICES assessment working group meeting in 2014 (ICES, 2014d) the ICES advisory committee produced their advice for the management of the fishery in 2015 on the basis of the above management plan. The resultant advised catch for the 2015 fishery was 839,886t. However,

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 29

the participants in the Coastal States agreement could not agree on allocation of the advised catch based on the Management plan. Instead they individually declared their intentions in relation to their proposed catches. The total sum of the unilaterally declared quotas was 1,260,000t with an eventual catch in 2015 of 1,391,000t.

As a consequence of the unilateral actions of the member states there is currently no management plan for NEA Blue whiting. In response to this crisis NEAFC requested ICES to produce and evaluate a revised Long Term Management Strategy for Blue whiting. As an integral part of the 2016 assessment working group ICES set up a Workshop (WKBWMS) to produce a revised Management Strategy (ICES, 2016a). The Workshop met immediately before the WGWIDE meeting in September 2016 (ICES, 2016a) and reported directly to the Assessment Working Group. Prior to that meeting, in the Spring of 2016, ICES set up the Inter-Benchmark Protocol on Blue Whiting IBPBLW, (ICES, 2016c) with one of their terms of reference to re-evaluate biological reference points of the stock. However, they concluded that this task was more appropriately addressed as part of a management strategy evaluation because harvest rules and reference points inherently go together. Their report is included as a Working Document in the assessment working groups report (ICES, 2016b).

The ICES Workshop on the Blue Whiting Long Term Management Strategy Evaluation WKBWMSE (ICES, 2016d) concluded that Blim should remain the same based on Bloss as there was no apparent stock and recruitment relationship but they revised Flim, Fpa and Fmsy. The revised reference points are listed in the text Table 13 below.

Table 13: Revised reference points for blue whiting.

Framework Point Value Basis Source

MSY B trigger 2.25 million t WKBWMSE (2016)

MSY Fmsy F 0.32 Stochastic simulations with WKBWMSE segmented S/R relationship (2016)

Blim 1.5 million t Approx. B loss WKBWMSE (2016)

Precautionary Bpa 2.25 million t Blim * exp(1.645 × σ), with WKBWMSE σ = 0.25. (2016)

Approach Flim 0.88 Equilibrium scenarios with WKBWMSE stochastic recruitment: F (2016) value corresponding to 50% probability of (SSB< Blim).

Fpa 0.58 Based on Flim and WKBWMSE assessment uncertainties, (2016 Flim * exp(-1.645 × σ ), with σ = 0.25.

Source: ICES Workshop on the Blue Whiting Long Term Management Strategy Evaluation WKBWMSE (ICES, 2016d).

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 30

Following the Workshop (WKBWMSE) ICES reported back, in September 2016, to NEAFC on their Request to evaluate a long-term management strategy for the fisheries on the blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou) stock (ICES, 2016e). Details of the proposed strategy in the form of the request are listed below

The NEAFC request, on behalf of the Coastal States, to evaluate the following proposed Management Strategy: 1. The Parties agree to implement a long-term management strategy for the fisheries on the Blue Whiting stock, which is consistent with the precautionary approach and the MSY approach, aiming at ensuring harvest rates within safe biological limits. 2. For the purpose of this long-term management strategy, in the following text, “TAC” means the sum of the Coastal State quotas and the NEAFC allowable catches. 3. As a priority, the long-term strategy shall ensure with high probability that the size of the stock is maintained above Blim. 4. In the case that the spawning biomass is forecast to be above or equal to Btrigger (=Bpa) on 1 January of the year for which the TAC is to be set, the TAC shall be fixed to a fishing mortality of Fmsy. 5. Where the rules in paragraph 4 would lead to a TAC, which deviates by more than 20% from the TAC of the preceding year, the Parties shall fix a TAC that is no more than 20% greater or 20% less than the TAC of the preceding year. 6. In the case that the spawning biomass (SSB) is forecast to be less than the precautionary biomass (Btrigger) on 1 January of the year for which the TAC is to be set, the TAC shall be fixed that is consistent with a fishing mortality given by: Target F = 0.05 + [(SSB – Blim) * (Fmsy – 0.05) / (Btrigger – Blim)] 7. In the case that the spawning biomass is forecast to be less than Blim on 1 January of the year for which the TAC is to be set, the TAC will be fixed corresponding to a fishing mortality F=0.05. 8. Each Party may transfer to the following year unutilised quantities of up to 10% of the quota allocated to it. The quantity transferred shall be in addition to the quota allocated to the Party concerned in the following year. 9. Each Party may authorise fishing by its vessels of up to 10% beyond the quota allocated. All quantities fished beyond the allocated quota for one year shall be deducted from the Party’s quota allocated for the following year. 10. The inter-annual quota flexibility scheme in paragraphs 8 and 9 should be suspended in the year following the TAC year, if the stock is forecast to be under Btrigger at the end of the TAC year. 11. The Parties, on the basis of ICES advice, shall review this long-term management strategy at intervals not exceeding five years.

The elements of the request were comprehensively evaluated by ICES WKBWMSE (ICES, 2016e) who, in summary concluded that:

 the harvest control rule (HCR) proposed for the Long-Term Management Strategy (LTMS) for blue whiting, as described in the request, is precautionary given the ICES estimates of Blim (1.5 million t), Bpa (2.25 million t), and FMSY (0.32).

 the HCR was found to be precautionary both with and without the 20% TAC change limits above Bpa. However, the 20% TAC change limits can lead to the TAC being lowered significantly if the stock is estimated to be below Bpa, while also limiting how quickly the TAC can increase once the stock is estimated to have recovered above Bpa.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 31

 the evaluation found that including a 10% interannual quota flexibility (’banking and borrowing’) in the LTMS had an insignificant effect on the performance of the HCR.

The proposed Management Strategy was discussed at the meeting of the Coastal States in London on 27 October 2016 (Anon, 2017). At that meeting the delegations agreed to change the long- term management strategy, as evaluated by ICES, in order to further specify TAC change limits (20% reduction – 25% increase) and to suspend the TAC change limits where the advised TAC differs by more than 40% from the previous year’s TAC, or where the SSB in the year prior to the TAC year is below Btrigger. The Delegations formally requested ICES to provide advice (from 2017) on the basis of this modified long term management strategy. The advice for the fishery in 2016 and 2017 was provided by ICES on the basis of the MSY approach.

The revised management strategy is listed below with the changed sections highlighted in bold text.

3.3.6 Arrangements for the long-term management of the blue whiting stock

1. The Parties agree to implement a long-term management strategy for the fisheries on the Blue Whiting stock, which is consistent with the precautionary approach and the MSY approach, aiming at ensuring harvest rates within safe biological limits. 2. For the purpose of this long-term management strategy, in the following text, “TAC” means the sum of the Coastal State quotas and the NEAFC allowable catches. 3. As a priority, the long-term strategy shall ensure with high probability that the size of the stock is maintained above Blim. 4. In the case that the spawning biomass is forecast to be above or equal to Btrigger (=Bpa) on 1 January of the year for which the TAC is to be set, the TAC shall be fixed to a fishing mortality of Fmsy. 5. Where the rules in paragraph 4 would lead to a TAC, which deviates by more than 20% below or 25% above the TAC of the preceding year, the Parties shall fix a TAC that is respectively no more than 20% less or 25% more than the TAC of the preceding year. 6. The TAC constraint described in paragraph 5 shall not apply if:

a) The spawning biomass at the 1st January in the year preceeding the year for which the TAC is to be set is less than B trigger or; b) The rules in paragraph 4 would lead to a TAC that deviates by more than 40% from the TAC of the preceeding year. 7. In the case that the spawning biomass (SSB) is forecast to be less than the precautionary biomass (Btrigger) on 1 January of the year for which the TAC is to be set, the TAC shall be fixed that is consistent with a fishing mortality given by: Target F = 0.05 + [(SSB – Blim) * (Fmsy – 0.05) / (Btrigger – Blim)] 8. In the case that the spawning biomass is forecast to be less than Blim on 1 January of the year for which the TAC is to be set, the TAC will be fixed corresponding to a fishing mortality F=0.05. 9. Each Party may transfer to the following year unutilised quantities of up to 10% of the quota allocated to it. The quantity transferred shall be in addition to the quota allocated to the Party concerned in the following year.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 32

10. Each Party may authorise fishing by its vessels of up to 10% beyond the quota allocated. All quantities fished beyond the allocated quota for one year shall be deducted from the Party’s quota allocated for the following year. 11. The inter-annual quota flexibility scheme in paragraphs 8 and 9 should be suspended in the year following the TAC year, if the stock is forecast to be under Btrigger at the end of the TAC year. 12. The Parties, on the basis of ICES advice, shall review this long-term management strategy at intervals not exceeding five years. The first such review shall take place no later than by December 2021, 3.3.7 Biological Reference points As noted in the section above the biological reference points were re-evaluated at the WKBWMSE workshop (ICES, 2016d) and it was concluded that Blim and Bpa should remain unchanged (1.5 million t and 2.25 million t, respectively). FMSY (0.32) was re-evaluated using standard ICES software and following the ICES guidelines for biological reference points. There is considerable uncertainty in the setting of appropriate FMSY values for this stock, and ultimately precautionary considerations limit the maximum F (less than 5% probability of SSB < Blim in the long term).

The resultant new set of reference points, estimated by WKBWMSE during the WGWIDE meeting, were later reviewed and finally accepted by ICES with one change. The precautionary approach fishing mortality (Fpa) was changed from 0.58 to 0.53 (ICES, 2016 advice). The change has resulted from a change in the formula for the calculation of Fpa from Flim where the value of σ has changed from 0.25 to 0.2991

The revised reference points (ICES, 2016b,) in the text Table 14 below continue to meet internationally agreed standards and have been evaluated and endorsed by ICES as consistent with a precautionary approach to managing the stock.

Table 14: Revised reference points for blue whiting

Framework Point Value Basis Source

MSY MSY B trigger 2.25 million Bpa ICES t (2013a, 2013b, 2016b)

Fmsy F 0.32 Stochastic simulations with ICES (2016b) segmented S/R relationship

Precautionary Blim 1.5 million t Approx. B loss ICES (2013a, 2013b, 2016b) Approach Bpa 2.25 million Blim * exp(1.645 × σ ), with σ ICES (2013a, t = 0.25. 2013b, 2016b)

Flim 0.88 Equilibrium scenarios with ICES (2016b) stochastic recruitment: F value

corresponding to 50% probability of (SSB< Blim).

1 It is not clear whether this was a mistake in the original Table as there is no explanation for the change in the ICES advice sheet although the Workshop did note that the values for Flim and Fpa may be inappropriate.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 33

Fpa 0.53 Based on Flim and assessment ICES (2016b) uncertainties, Flim*exp(-1.645

× σ ), with σ = 0.299.

Source: ICES 2016b.

3.3.8 Advice for the 2015 fishery (ICES, 2014c) The ICES advice for the fishery in 2015 was based on a catch constraint of 1.2 million t, a predicted SSB of 5.738 million t in 2015 and geometric mean recruitment. A series of scenarios were presented based on this prognosis (ICES, 2014c). The relevant examples are reproduced below:

 Following the management plan F 0.18 would generate a catch of 839,886 t leading to an SSB in 2016 of 5.9 million t.

 Following the Fmsy framework F 0.3 would generate a catch of 1.326 million t leading to an SSB of 5.5 million t in 2016.

 Following the precautionary approach F 0.32 would generate a catch of 1.402 million t leading to an SSB in 2016 of 5.4 million t.

The advice for the 2015 fishery was for a catch no greater than 840 kt. The TAC was eventually set at 1.26 million t.

As noted elsewhere in this report the reason for the difference was the lack of agreement between the Coastal States on the allocation of the advised catch. The figure of 1.288 million t was the sum of the unilaterally declared quotas of each of the Coastal States but excluding Russia and Greenland, after transfers and flexibility (Anon, 2017) (see text Table below).

Country Unilaterally declared Coastal states % % of Total quotas quotas

European Union 264,617t 20.5 17.6

Faroe Islands 349,776t 27.2 23.3

Norway 460,966t 35.8 30.7

Iceland 212,380t 16.5 14.1

Coastal states total 1,287,739t

Russia 206,540t 13.8

Greenland 6,822t 0.5

Total TAC 1,501,101

NB the eventual total catch in the 2015 fishery was 1,376,075t

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 34

3.3.9 Advice for the 2016 fishery (ICES, 2015) The total catch in the 2014 fishery was 1,155,279 t and fishing mortality increased from a historic low in 2011 to F 0.428 which is well above the management plan level and very close to the biomass limit level (F 0.48). The SSB increased from 2010 (2.5 million tonnes) to 2014 (4.0 million tonnes) followed by a decrease to 3.3 million tonnes in 2015, which is above Bpa (2.25 million tonnes) but well below the predicted level in the advice for the fishery in 2014.

The ICES advice for the fishery in 2016 was based on the 2015 evaluation of the fishery in 2014 and the subsequent assessment of the status of the stock in 2014. Once again a series of options were produced of which the three most relevant are listed below.

 F 0.18 (Ex management plan F) would generate a catch of 489,605 t leading to an SSB in 2017 of 4.101 million t.

 Following the Fmsy framework Fmsy 0.3 would generate a catch of 776,391t leading to an SSB of 3.828 million t in 2017.

 Following the precautionary approach F 0.32 would generate a catch of 821,443 t leading to an SSB in 2017 of 3.785 million t.

The resultant ICES advice for the fishery in 2016 was that catches in 2016 should be no more than 776 kt (MSY approach). (The advice for 2015 was 840 kt, and the TAC set at 1.26 Mt).

In the bilateral agreement between the Faroe Islands and the European Union for 2016, the parties agreed, that it would be appropriate to base their quotas on the Fmsy level of 776,391t.

Because of the continuing lack of agreement between the Coastal States on the allocation of the advised catch the eventual TAC was 1,164,389t which was the sum of the unilaterally declared quotas of each of the Coastal States plus Russia and Greenland, after transfers and flexibility (Anon, 2017) (see Table 15 below). The preliminary catch for the 2016 fishery (1,147,000 t) is in line with the declared quotas.

Table 15: Eventual TAC for the blue whiting fishery

Country Unilaterally Coastal states % % of Total declared quotas quotas

European Union 274,779t 28.3 23.6

Faroe Islands 264,807t 27.3 22.7

Norway 272,477t 28.0 23.4

Iceland 159,560t 16.4 13.7

Coastal states total 971,623t

Russia 180,105t 15.5

Greenland 12,661t 1.1

Total TAC 1,164,389t

NB the eventual provisional total catch in the 2016 fishery is 1,147,000t

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 35

In their advice (ICES, 2015) ICES noted that the assessment gave a substantial downward revision of the historical SSB and recruitment and a small upward revision of F. The revisions are mainly caused by low abundance indices from the 2015 acoustic survey for the adult part of this stock. These abundance indices were lower than expected, given the perception of the stock from the previous year’s assessment, especially for the older age groups.

The uncertainty of the assessment and forecast is considered higher than in previous years. The model estimated very high F and catch values for 2015 in order to fit the low 2015 survey (March– April) abundance indices. This is considered unrealistic. Overall the approach chosen may have resulted in a higher than 50% probability of overestimating the stock.

3.3.10 Advice for the 2017 fishery (ICES, 2016b)

The total catch in the 2015 fishery was 1,376,075 t and fishing mortality increased from a historic low of F 0.052 in 2011 to F 0.465 which is well above the MSY level of F 0.32 but below the precautionary approach level of F 0.53. The preliminary catch for 2016, based on the catches in the first two quarters of the year when the major fishery takes place, was 1,147,000t. Fishing mortality in 2016 is predicted to have fallen to F 0.386.

The SSB has steadily increased since 2010 (2.68 million tons) to 4.29 million tons) in 2015 and is predicted to increase to over 5 million tons in 2016.The ICES advice for the fishery in 2017 was based on the 2016 evaluation of the fishery in 2015 and the subsequent assessment of the status of the stock in 2015. Following standard ICES advisory committee practice a series of options were produced for the guidance of managers. In the absence of an effective management plan, ICES has tabled its advice based on the MSY approach, but has also provided a series of other options based on variable fishing mortality, status quo catch and SSB levels including the 2017 predicted catch which would take the stock down to the biomass limit level of 1.5 million tons.

It should be noted that the proposed Management Strategy has not yet been agreed by the Coastal States as the basis for the Management of the stock.

The initial basis for the series of catch options for 2017 was:

 F 2016 = 0.386

 SSB 2017: 6,804,000t

 Predicted recruitments for 2016, 2017 and 2018

 Total catch 2016 1,147,000t

A selected series of the catch options covering a relevant range is presented in Table 16 below. The full range, which includes the % change in the SSB and the catch, can be found in the 2016 ICES advice sheet (ICES, 2016b).

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 36

Table 16: Selected catch options.

Rationale Catch 2017 Basis F 2017 SSB 2018

MSY approach 1,342,330t Fmsy 0.32 0.32 6,700,746t

Zero F 0 0 7,984,004t

1,074,904t F0.25 0.25 6,956,183t

Other options 1,152,681t Catch 2017 = catch 2016 0.27 6,881,829t

1,582,620t F 2016 0.386 6,471,736t

2,070,268t Fpa 0.53 6,008,626t

3,077,862t Flim 0.88 5,059,556t

6,159,997t SSB 2018 = Bpa 2.88 2,257,026t

7,039,918t SSB 2018 = Blim 4.16 1,507,999t

Source: ICES, 2016b

The resultant ICES advice for the fishery in 2017, when the MSY approach is applied is that catches should be no more than 1,342,330t.

3.3.11 History of the Northeast Atlantic Blue whiting fishery

The NEA blue whiting fishery was started by the Soviet Union in the 1960s and followed later by Norway in the early 1970s.

However, prior to 1974 very little fishing by any country had been directed at blue whiting in the spawning area and information on the aggregations of fish and on the quantities involved was rather limited (Pawson 1979). In the early 1970s the Faroe Islands and EU countries began to target blue whiting. Iceland joined the fishery later in the 1990s (Ekerhovd, 2008). Historically, the blue whiting fishery was an important source of fishmeal, but in the later years a larger proportion of the catch from this fishery goes for a human consumption. The total catch in 1981 was close to one million tonnes but over the next 16 years it fluctuated well below that level reaching a low of 370,000t in 1991 with an average of 574,000t. Annual catches then increased rapidly reaching a peak of 2.4 million t in 2004 to rapidly decline to 104,000t in 2011 (Figure 8). Since then catches increased again, trebling in 2012 and reaching 1.4 million tons by2015. The predicted catch for 2016, based on the first two quarters fishery is 1.15 million tons.

Since 1988, eighteen national fleets have been involved in the blue whiting fisheries. The highest landings have been reported by Norway, Faroes, Iceland and Russia (ICES, 2016b). In the 2015 fishery these four countries took approximately 85% of the total catch. National catches in the 2015 fishery are shown in Figure 9. Over the last decade, thirteen to fourteen national fleets land parts of the blue whiting quota each year. The highest concentrations of catches are generally found along the edge of the continental shelf in the area west of the British Isles, on the Rockall and Hatton Banks and around the Faroe Islands in quarter 1. In the following quarters catches are generally taken further north in the Norwegian Sea and also in the North Sea with lesser quantities of blue whiting caught in the southern area off Spain and Portugal (ICES, 2016a: stock annexe).

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 37

Most of the catches are taken in the directed pelagic trawl fishery in the spawning and post spawning areas (Divisions Vb, VIa, b, and VIIb, c). Catches are also taken in the directed and mixed fishery in Subarea IV and Division IIIa, and in the pelagic trawl fishery in the Subareas I and II and in Divisions Va and XIVb. These fisheries in the northern areas have taken between 360,000–2,300,000 t per year in the last decade, while catches in the southern areas (Subarea VIII, IX, Divisions VIId, e and g–k) have been in the range of 20,000–85,000 t. The proportion of landings originating from the Norwegian Sea fluctuates greatly, having increased from 5% of the total in the mid- 1990s to around 30% in 2003–2004, after which the proportion decreased again to below 10%. These fluctuations are thought to be linked to fluctuations in recruitment.

In Division IXa blue whiting is mainly taken as bycatch in mixed trawl fisheries (ICES, 2008). The proportions of landings originating in each area are mapped and presented in the annual working group reports (ICES, 2016a) and are shown in Figure 11 for the fishery in 2015.

3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background

Primary and secondary species

According to MSC CR v2.0, SA 3.1.3, primary species are those where management tools and measures are in place, intended to achieve stock management objectives reflected in either limit or target reference points. These measures can vary from an allocated TAC to specific management plans. For more information on management measures and allocated quota for each of the primary species please check the http://www.fisheries.is/ (with management measures), http://www.fiskistofa.is/ (with allocated quotas), and http://www.hafro.is/ (with information on MRFI recommended quotas against allocated quotas).

Secondary species are those species of the catch that are neither considered as primary species (covered under PI 2.1) nor as endangered, threatened or protected species (covered under PI 2.3). MSC CR v2.0, SA 3.4.1, establishes when the species shall be considered as main (when the catch of a species comprises 5% or more by weight of the total catch of all species, or when the catch of a species comprises 2% or more of the global catch as long as the species is considered ‘less resilient’). Species with lower catch proportion are considered as minor primary or secondary species.

Information on stock status and fishing advice for most species in the catch composition can be found in the MFRI and ICES webpages.

Tables 17 and 18 below show catch composition for UoC 1 (pelagic fleet) and UoC 2 (bottom trawl fleet) in the course of a calendar year, and regardless of the fishing season, with proportion of each species in the global catch per gear, whether each species is classified as primary or secondary, main or minor, and which research institution gives scientific advice on the status of the stock in ICES area V. Where “Unknown” is stated, it means that there is a scientific advice which can’t give an estimate of biomass abundance. It is noteworthy, however, that the blue whiting fishery is very seasonal, with most catches taking place in spring time, with the bulk of the catches taking place in April and May (but here are also some landings in March (or February and January in warm winters and June).

Hauls of blue withing show clean shoals of blue withing in the catch composition. Landing data by the Directorate of Fisheries show that, during the blue whiting fishing season in Faroese fishing grounds (where the targeted fishery is located), 99% of the catches account for blue withing, while

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 38

less than 1% correspond to catches of herring. Most herring catch take place in Icelandic or International waters during the autumn months, in which the same pelagic vessels target herring. Mackerel is also specifically targeted during the summer months, mostly in international waters.

Table 17: Catch composition of pelagic trawlers and purse seines targeting blue whiting. Cumulative catch data for 2015 and 2016 in kilos. Blue whiting comprises 57% of the global catch.

UoC 1: Pelagic trawls and purse seines Advice English area V Scientific name name Catch % MSC clasification Micromesistius poutassou Blue whiting 401.785.000 57,69% Principle 1 MFRI MFRI Cuplea harengus Herring 152.165.000 21,85% Primary Main MFRI Scomber scombrus Mackerel 127.997.511 18,38% Secondary Main MFRI Sebastes marinus Golden redfish 4.103.964 0,59% Primary Minor Deepwater MFRI Sebastes mentella redfish 2.196.570 0,32% Primary Minor Greater silver MFRI Argentina silus smelt 1.978.392 0,28% Primary Minor MFRI Gadus morhua Cod 1.900.265 0,27% Primary Minor MFRI Pollachius virens Saithe 1.834.810 0,26% Primary Minor Greenland MFRI Reinhardtius hippoglossoides halibut 763.743 0,11% Primary Minor No Trisopterus esmarkii Norway pout 672.061 0,10% Secondary Minor MFRI Melanogrammus aeglefinus Haddock 523.300 0,08% Primary Minor No Todarodes sagitattus Squid 140.725 0,02% Secondary Minor Black No Aphanopus carbo scabbardfish 71.836 0,01% Secondary Minor MFRI Cyclopterus lumpus Lumpfish 68.084 0,01% Secondary Minor MFRI Molva dypterygi Blue ling 66.737 0,01% Primary Minor Spotted MFRI Anarhichas minor wolfish 49.247 0,01% Secondary Minor Norway MFRI Sebastes viviparus redfish 45.116 0,00% Primary Minor MFRI Molva molva Ling 38845 0,01% Primary Minor Altantic MFRI Anarhichas lupus wolfish 15.375 0,00% Primary Minor Northern No Anarhichas denticulatus wolfish 11.979 0,00% Secondary Minor No Amblyraja radiata Starry ray 11.414 0,00% Secondary Minor MFRI Brosme brosme Tusk 8.728 0,00% Primary Minor Thunnus thynnus Bluefin tuna 6.007 0,00% Primary Minor MFRI MFRI Merlangius merlangus Whiting 4.447 0,00% Primary Minor MFRI Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis Megrim 4.207 0,00% Secondary Minor Unknown Roughead ICES Macrourus berglax grenadier 3.428 0,00% Secondary Minor Unknown MFRI Pleuronectes platessa Plaice 939 0,00% Primary Minor MFRI Microstomus kitt Lemon sole 915 0,00% Primary Minor Roundnose ICES Coryphaenoides rupestris grenadier 901 0,00% Secondary Minor Glyptocephalus cynoglossus Witch 583 0,00% Primary Minor MFRI Long rough MFRI Hippoglossoides platessoides dab 161 0,00% Secondary Minor

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 39

UoC 1: Pelagic trawls and purse seines Advice English area V Scientific name name Catch % MSC clasification ICES Lamna nasus Porbeagle 79 0,00% Secondary Minor MFRI Lophius piscatorius Anglerfish 47 0,00% Primary Minor ICES Salmo salar Salmon 4 0,00% Secondary Minor

TOTAL 696,473,973 kilos Source: DNV-GL

Table 18: Catch composition (in kilos) of bottom trawlers in 2015. Note that blue whiting comprises less than 1% of the global catch, with 13 tonnes landed by the Icelandic bottom trawl fleet in 2015.

Bottom trawl English Catch 2015 Advice Scientific name name (kg) % catch MSC clasification area V MFRI Gadus morhua Cod 116.221.309 44,96% Primary Main MFRI Sebastes norvegicus Golden redfish 54.200.161 20,97% Primary Main MFRI Pollachius virens Saithe 41.074.685 15,89% Primary Main MFRI Melanogrammus aeglefinus Haddock 19.675.241 7,61% Primary Main Greenland MFRI 10.558.059 Reinhardtius hippoglossoides halibut 4,08% Primary Main Greater silver MFRI 5.625.540 Argentina silus smelt 2,18% Primary Main Atlantic MFRI 2.014.106 Anarhichas lupus wolfish 0,78% Primary Minor MFRI Pleuronectes platessa Plaice 2.001.211 0,77% Primary Minor MFRI Molva molva Ling 1.916.795 0,74% Primary Minor Deepwater MFRI 1.240.503 Sebastes mentella redfish 0,48% Primary Minor MFRI Molva dypterygi Blue ling 758.557 0,29% Primary Minor Spotted MFRI 742.158 Anarhichas minor wolffish 0,29% Secondary Minor MFRI Whiting 545.882 Merlangius merlangus 0,21% Secondary Minor MFRI Microstomus kitt Lemon sole 473.126 0,18% Primary Minor Northern MFRI 230.065 Pandalus borealis shrimp 0,09% Primary Minor No Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis Megrim 149.025 0,06% Secondary Minor MFRI Lophius piscatorius Anglerfish 140.764 0,05% Primary Minor MFRI Scomber scombrus Mackerel 120.422 0,05% Secondary Minor MFRI Glyptocephalus cynoglossus Witch 106.907 0,04% Primary Minor No Amblyraja radiata Starry ray 72.435 0,03% Secondary Minor Long rough MFRI 70.539 Hippoglossoides platessoides dab 0,03% Secondary Minor MFRI Brosme brosme Tusk 69.735 0,03% Primary Minor MFRI Cuplea harengus Herring 49.000 0,02% Primary Minor No Grey skate 30.394 Dipturus batis 0,01% Secondary Minor No Macrouridae spp. Grenadiers 22.611 0,01% Secondary Minor MFRI Limanda limanda Dab 18.254 0,01% Primary Minor Greenland No 14.315 Somniosus microcephalus shark 0,01% Secondary Minor

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 40

Bottom trawl English Catch 2015 Advice Scientific name name (kg) % catch MSC clasification area V Blue whiting 13.000 MFRI Micromesistius poutassou 0,01% Principle 1 ICES Squalus acanthias Spurdog 2.335 0,00% Secondary Minor X X Other 260.844 0,10% X X TOTAL 258,490,368 kilos Source: DNV-GL

According to MSC definition, in UoC 1, main primary species is herring and main secondary species is mackerel. In UoC 2, main primary species are cod, golden redfish, saithe, haddock, Greenland halibut and greater silver smelt. There are no main secondary species in UoC 2. The majority of secondary species are classified as minor secondary species as a result of their low proportion in the global catch.

Scientific advice for main species is as follows:

 Norwegian spring spawning herring: ICES advice for herring

The stock is declining and estimated to be close to MSY Btrigger in 2016. Fishing mortality in 2015 was below FMSY.

Figure 16: State of the stock and fishery relative to reference points:

Figure 17: Historical records of SSB of herring

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 41

Figure 18: historical records of fishing mortality for herring

 Mackerel: MFRI advice for mackerel. The spawning stock biomass is above MSY-Btrigger. Fishing mortality remains above Fpa. The results from an international trawl survey indicate that abundance in 2015 in Icelandic waters was the highest on record. The reasons for this change are not well known, but have been linked to increased stock size, changes in the ocean climate, and prey abundance. There is no agreement between the coastal states on catch allocation, which has resulted in catches far exceeding the advice given by ICES. Most of Icelandic catches are taken by pelagic trawlers (98%).

Figure 19: Historical records of mackerel biomass

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 42

Figure 20: Historical records of mackerel fishing mortality.

 Cod: MFRI advice for cod Estimated SSB has increased in recent years (but not in 2015). Harvest rate has declined and is at its lowest value in the assessment period. The increase in SSB is primarily the result of lower harvest rate. 43% of Icelandic landings come from bottom trawlers.

Figure 21: historical records of cod biomass.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 43

Figure 22: Historical records of harvest rate for cod.

 Golden redfish: MFRI advice for golden redfish

Spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has steadily increased for the past 20 years and is well above MSY Btrigger. Fishing mortality since 2010 has been estimated to be around FMSY. 90 % of Icelandic catches are taken by bottom trawlers.

Figure 23: Historical records of SSB for redfish.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 44

Figure 24: Historical records of fishing mortality for golden redfish.

 Saithe: MFRI advice for saithe Stock size has increased in recent years and the SSB is now close to the average of 1980– 1990. Harvest rate in 2015 was below HRMSY. 80% of Icelandic catch is taken by bottom trawlers.

Figure 25: Historical records of saithe biomass.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 45

Figure 26: Historical records of harvest rate for saithe.

 Haddock: MFRI advice for haddock

SSB has decreased in recent years but is above MGT Btrigger. Harvest rate in 2014–2015 is estimated at its lowest level in the assessment period and is currently below Harvest Rate Maximum Sustainable Yield. 44% of catches are taken by longlines and 42% by trawls. The remaining catches are mostly caught by demersal seine.

Figure 27: Historical records of haddock biomass.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 46

Figure 28: Historical records of haddock harvest rate.

 Greenland halibut: MFRI advice for Greenland halibut

Fishing mortality has decreased in recent years but is above FMSY. Biomass is slowly increasing. Most of the Icelandic catch is taken by trawlers.

Figure 29: Historical records of Greenland halibut biomass indexes.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 47

Figure 30: Historical records of fishing mortality for Greenland halibut.

 Greater silver smelt: MFRI advice for greater silver smelt

The survey index indicates an increase in stock biomass in 2014, followed by a decrease in 2015. The Fproxy has decreased since 2010 and has been below the target Fproxy since 2014. All catch is taken by trawlers.

Figure 31: Historical records of biomass indexes for greater silver smelt.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 48

Figure 32: Historical records of Fproxy for greater silver smelt.

Information on stock status and fishery advice of most minor species can be found on MFRI and ICES webpages.

Primary species in the catch composition are managed through the establishment of individual transferable fishing quotas. There is also an agreed management plan for certain species, such as cod, haddock, saithe and golden redfish. Besides, there are also different area closures (temporary, seasonal or permanent) in order to protect spawning areas or juvenile fish. Selectivity devices such as fishing grids are mandatory in certain fisheries and there are limitations both in net and mesh sizes. These measures are described in the Fisheries Management Act (Act 116/2006), and enforcement relies on the Icelandic Coast Guard.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 49

Figure 33: Map of spawning area closures (only in Icelandic).

Source: Directorate of Fisheries

Regardless of the implementation of these measures, there are some species in the catch composition (which fall under the secondary species PI, as they are not managed nor protected by any Icelandic or binding international regulation), which are especially vulnerable to fishing pressure. Table 19 below lists these species, their status according to IUCN red list, the existence or not of scientific advice, the global catch taken by all Icelandic vessels in 2015, and the catch taken by ISF vessels in the same year (by Unit of Certification).

Table 19: Vulnerable secondary species present in the catch composition.

UoC1 Icelandic UoC2 catch for English Scientific catch for catch for Scientific name IUCN status 2015 and name advice 2015 2015 2016 (tons) (tons) (tons)

Starry ray Amblyraja radiata No Vulnerable 1396 11 72 Greenland Somniosus No Near Threatened 27.8 0 14 shark microcephalus

Grey skate Dipturus batis No Critically Endangered 157.4 0 30

Vulnerable + Porbeagle Lamna nasus ICES 0.458 0.079 0 CITES Appendix 2

Spurdog Squalus acanthias ICES Vulnerable 7.9 0 2

Source: DNV-GL

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 50

Endangered, threatened or protected species

According to MSC CR v2.0, ETP Species are those that are recognised by national ETP legislation or by an international binding agreement, such as CITES, to which Iceland is a signatory country. It also includes species classified by MSC as “out of scope” (amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) that are listed in the IUCN Redlist as vulnerable (VU), endangered (EN) or critically endangered (CE). Iceland is not a signatory country of any other international agreements described in MSC CR v2.0 SA 3.1.5.

According to that definition, the only ETP species that is affected by the fishery is halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglosus), which is protected by Icelandic Regulation 1164/2011. This regulation entered into force in January 2012, and prohibits fishing for halibut in the Icelandic EEZ, and establishes measures to manage halibut individuals in the event of catch, such as the obligation to release any animal if it is viable, the establishment of a special fee for illegal catches, the collection of the value of halibut at auction places for marine research, the obligation to record halibut catches on the logbook, and the establishment of penalties in case of violation of the regulation.

MFRI advice on halibut stock status for 2017 confirms that this regulation should be maintained until clear indications of improvement in the stock are evident. Around 2000 tonnes of Atlantic halibut were landed annually from Icelandic waters in 1984–1991. A steady decline in catch occurred from 1991 to 1997, after which the catch stabilized between 500 and 800 tonnes until the ban on targeted fishing in 2012. The stock is expected to remain low over the next years. More than 80% of present landings of halibut are caught as bycatch by bottom trawl vessels. Figures 34 and 35 below show biomass index and fishing grounds for halibut in the past years. Tables 20 and 21 below show annual catches of the stock by the Icelandic fleet and catches taken by each UoC for 2015.

Figure 34: Historical biomass index for halibut

Source: MFRI

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 51

Figure 35: Fishing grounds for halibut

Source: MFRI

Table 20: Landings of halibut in 2015

UoC1 Icelandic UoC2 catch for English Scientific catch for catch for Scientific name 2015 and name advice 2015 2015 2016 (tons) (tons) (tons) Halibut Hippoglossus hipoglossus MFRI 87.7 3.5 72

Source: DNV- GL

Table 21: Annual landings of halibut by all Icelandic vessels

Catch Year (tons) Catch (tonnes) 2009 531 2010 561 600 2011 548 500 2012 35 400 2013 41 300 2014 59 200 2015 87 100 2016 122 0

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Source: DNV- GL

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 52

As regards other ETP species present in the area, the Icelandic Institute of Natural History lists the following whales and seals present in the area. Of those, six are listed in CITES Appendix I (and therefore considered as MSC ETP species), but no fatal interactions with marine mammals have been recorded in the recent past years consulted.

Table 22: Marine mammals present in Icelandic waters.

Marine mammals CITES Appendix 1 Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) Yes Bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) Yes Gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) Yes Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) Yes North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) Yes Northern bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon ampullatus) Yes Arctic ringed seal (Phoca hispida hispida) No Atlantic white-sided dolphin (Lagerorhynchus acutus) No Bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus) No Beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) No Blainville's beaked whale (Mesoplodon densirostris) No Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) No Common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) No Cuvier's beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris) No Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) No Grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) No Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocena) No Harbour seal (Phoca vitulina) No Harp seal (Phoca groenlandica) No Hooded seal (Cystophora cristata) No Killer whale (Orchinus orcha) No Long-finned pilot whale (Globicephala melas) No Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) No Narwhal (Monodon monocerus) No Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) No Sowerby's beaked whale (Mesoplodon bidens) No Striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba) No Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus) No White-beaked dolphin (Lagerorhynchus albirostris) No Source: DNV-GL

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 53

Both Iceland and the Faroe Islands have important bird colonies and are stops for migrating birds between Europe and North America. According to the Faroe Islands tourism website (where a guide on birdwatching and seabirds present in the area can be downloaded) and the Icelandic Institute of Natural History website (which lists seabird species present in the island (or exticted: see Great auks), the following seabirds can be found in the UoA. None of the bird species is protected by CITES Appendix I, and only two of them are considered vulnerable by IUCN (these are Atlantic puffin and Leach’s storm petrel). Therefore, only these two species are considered as bird ETP species in the present UoA. It is noteworthy that interviews with the MFRI and the fishermen both reported that bird interactions with the blue whiting fishery are very unlikely.

Table A: Bird species present in Iceland and in the Faroe Islands, and their IUCN and CITES Appendix I status. Scientific name Common name IUCN status CITES Appendix I Alca torda Razorbill NT No Cepphus grylle Black guillemot LC No Fratecula arctica Atlantic puffin Vulnerable No Fulmarus glacialis Northern Fulmar LC No Gavia immer Great Northern/ Common LC No Loon Gavia stellata Red-throated Loon LC No Hydrobates leucorhous Leach's Storm-petrel Vulnerable No Hydrobates pelagicus European storm petrel LC No Larus argentatus European Herring gull LC No Larus canus Common/Mew gull LC No Larus fuscus Lesser black-backed gull LC No Larus hyperboreous Glaucous gull LC No Larus glaucoides Iceland gull LC No Larus marinus Great black-backed gull LC No Larus ridibundus Black-headed gull LC No Mergus serrator Red-breasted Merganser LC No Morus bassanus Northern gannet LC No Phalacrocorax aristotelis European shag LC No Phalacrocorax carbo Great Cormorant LC No Pinguinus impennis Great auk Extinct No Puffinus puffinus Manx sheerwater LC No Rissa tridactyla Black legged kittiwake LC No Somateria molissima Common eider duck NT No Stercorarius parasiticus Arctic skua/jaeger LC No Stercorarius/Catharacta Great skua LC No skua Sterna paradisea Arctic tern LC No Uria aalge Common murre/guillemot LC No Uria lomvia Thick-billed Murre LC No /Brünnich's guillemot NT: Near Threatened; LC: Least Concern Source: DNV-GL

Habitats

Benthic habitats in Icelandic EEZ waters (where the trawl fishery, this is, UoC 2, takes place) are studied by different organizations.

The European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) has mapped both Icelandic and Faroese waters to find out that the most common seabed is comprised by sandy mud (blue light) or sandy bottoms (yellow). There are also some smaller patches of sandy gravel (light brown) and muddy gravel (pink). Rocky areas (dark brown) are only found surrounding the ridges of Reykjanes and Kolbeinsey.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 54

Figure 36: Icelandic and Faroese habitat types. Blue light indicates sandy mud, yellow indicates sand, light brown indicates sandy gravel and pink indicates muddy gravel.

Source: http://www.emodnet-geology.eu/geonetwork/srv/dut/catalog.map

The Marine and Freshwater Research Institute (MRFI) is at present involved in the project of mapping all Icelandic EEZ waters with a multi-beam echo sounder. This project collects information about the shape, structure and geological features of the continental shelf. Emphasis is focussed on mapping fishing grounds and sensitive habitats such as corals. This information shall be useful in the study of the marine environment and the physical characteristics of marine geology and seabed. The project began in year 2000 and is expected to be finish by 2026.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 55

Figure 37: Areas of Icelandic EEZ already mapped in this project. Detailed maps of each area can be downloaded at http://www.hafro.is/.

Source: http://www.hafro.is/seabedmapping

Vulnerable marine ecosystems are studied not only by MFRI, but also by the OSPAR Commission. Iceland is a signatory party of the OSPAR Convention. The OSPAR threatened or declining habitats maps show that vulnerable habitats are often encountered close to the continental shelf break or in deeper waters. Most common Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VME) in Icelandic waters are cold water corals hard corals (Lophelia pertusa) and soft corals (Gorgonacea & Pennetulacea) and sponge aggregations (Geodia spp.). Other VME such as maerl beds and hydrothermal vents are found in coastal waters.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 56

Figure 38: Location of OSPAR threatened or declining habitats in Icelandic waters, Faroese waters, and NEAFC International waters of the Reykjanes Ridge (The map in NEAFC Banana hole waters does not show any OSPAR threatened habitats).

Source: OSPAR

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 57

There is a comprehensive set of marine protected areas in Iceland EEZ. Most of them are closed for fishing to protect spawning or juvenile fish. Closures can be temporary or permanently. Some areas are closed for certain gears, usually bottom trawl or longlines, but some other are closed for protecting certain vulnerable habitats such as cold water reefs (Lophelia pertusa) or hydrothermal chimneys in Eyjafjordud. Distribution of soft corals is studied through the BIOICE programme, and shows that gorgonian corals and seapens are common in deep waters all around Iceland (ICES) and aggregation of large sponges occur off northern and southern Iceland and around the Reykjanes Ridge (Guijarro et al., 2006). The CoralFish project is focused on the research on interactions between cold water corals, fish and fisheries, in order to develop monitoring and predictive modelling tools for ecosystem based management. The Icelandic National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (Ministry for the Environment, 2008) works for the protection of vulnerable ecosystems and threatened species by regulating closed areas and developing lighting fishing methods. As a result, benthic habitats benefit from area closures. Enforcement in area closures is carried out by the Coast Guard.

Figure 39: Areas with restricted fishing. Shadings indicate different levels of restriction and type of gear involved (only in Icelandic). February 2017.

Source: Directorate of Fisheries

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 58

Figure 40: Marine regulated and protected areas in Iceland. Information on reasons and rules for the different area closures can be found here: click this link. (requires the installation of Google Earth).

Source: Google Earth, click this link.

The characteristics of the Faroese benthic flora and fauna are studied by the BIOFAR project, while the benthic characteristics of the NEAFC Reykjanes Ridge are taken into account when setting Mid- Atlantic Closures for the protection of VME. These closures are, from North to South: Northern MAR, Middle MAR, Southern MAR, Altair Seamount and Antialtair Seamount.

Figure 41: VME closures in the NEAFC Regulatory area.

Source: http://neafc.org/closures/mid-atlantic

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 59

Ecosystem

Ecosystem overview of Icelandic waters

Iceland is located in the Mid-Atlantic Ridge just south of the Arctic Circle. The shelf around Iceland is narrow in the south coast and relatively broad in the west, north, and east coasts. The Polar Front lies between Greenland and the west coast of Iceland and separates the cold East Greenland Current from the warmer Irminger Current. The south and east coasts are bathed by the warm North Atlantic Drift which flows towards the Norwegian Sea. As a consequence, Icelandic waters are generally relatively warm and ice free. Icelandic ocean temperature ranges from 4 to 10 degrees depending on the area. There is also a coastal water mass running clockwise around Iceland, characterized by its low salinity, and which comes from runoff of continental waters in the spring and summer time. Figure 42: Marine currents around Iceland.

Source: MFRI

Climate variability has been noticed in these waters, where water temperature has increased 1ºC in the past ten years, and has affected the distribution of different components of the marine ecosystem, such as capelin, which has also led to changes in the distribution of fish species such as cod and seabirds such as puffins. Besides, a decline in the stock size of capelin has also been noticed. The Icelandic shelf is a high productivity ecosystem with phytoplankton blooms in spring and autumn. The spring zooplankton biomass is dominated by copepods such as Calanus finmarchicus and biomass abundance is related to temperature (ICES). Icelandic waters contain more than 20 commercially exploited fish species (which are managed through the Directorate of Fisheries) and other non-commercial species. Of those, capelin is known to be important in the diet of other fish stocks, such as cod, but also in the diet of marine mammals and seabirds as puffins. Besides, Astthorsson and Palsson (2006) have reported on 22 southern fish species that in past 10 years have been recorded for the first time within the Icelandic 200 mile EEZ. The change in the distribution of these southern species is belived to be related to the increase in water temperature.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 60

Most fish species spawn in the southern and southwestern coasts, and marine protected areas have been established to protect spawning seasons and areas. Skates and sharks are also present in the area but the status of these species is not known (ICES Iceland ecosystem overview). Ecosystem overview of Faroese waters

The Faroe Islands are located at the south east of Iceland, at aprox. 430 km from Hofn (Iceland). It is comprised by 18 small islands which are also bathed by the warm Gulf stream, with water temperature of around 8ºC and salinities around 35.25. Deeper waters are cooler and can reach 0ºC. Shallow regions are influenced by tidal currents which mix the shelf water creating an homogeneous water mass at 6-10ºC (depending on the season) which runs clockwise and which is easily distinguishable from offshore waters. Offshore waters have, as Icelandic waters, also experienced an increase in water temperature in the past decades.

Figure 43: Bottom topography, circulation, and water masses at the surface in the area around the Faroes.

Source: ICES Advice 2008, Book 4.

Ecosystem in these areas are also distinguishable as they have different planktonic communities, benthic fauna and fish stocks. As an example, spring phytoplankton bloom takes place earlier in the shallower shelf waters than in the off-shelf area. Regardless occurring first in shelf waters, timing and intensity of blooming varies from year to year, with expected consequences in the ecosystem, such as the availability of food for fish larvae. Primary production also experiences high variability through the years, apparently due to hydrological factors, and shows a mean (on shelf waters) of around 160–200 g C m−2 of which about 50% is estimated to be new production (Debes et al., 2007a). This primary production variability affects higher trophic levels in the ecosystem, and can be used as an indicator of the productive status of the ecosystem for every year.

There are about 240 fish species in Faroese waters, of which 25 are commercially exploited. Blue whiting happens to be the most abundant pelagic fish in the area, while cod, haddock and saithe are the most commercially important demersal stocks. Sandeel and Norway pout also play important roles in the Faroese ecosystem, as they play a prey role for demersal fish species but also for seabirds.

As regards blue whiting, after spawning to the west of the British Isles in early spring, they start their feeding migration further north into the Norwegian Sea. They usually enter the Faroe eco-

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 61

region in late April. They feed mainly on krill, amphipods, and other large zooplankton at depths between 300 and 500 meters, and partly also on the copepod Calanus finmarchicus closer to the surface. In late summer and autumn mature individuals migrate southwards again towards the spawning area while juveniles stay in Faroese water and the Norwegian Sea. Blue whiting serves as a prey both for saithe and cod, especially when located in the shelf slope areas (ICES 2008). The trophic relationships of blue whiting (trophic level 4.1 +/- 0.30) with prey species on the North East Atlantic, these have been studied through different models, such as Ecopath with Ecosim for the North Sea, and other models for the Norwegian Sea (Hjollo et al, 2012; Utne et al, 2012) and Faroese waters (Zeller and Freire, 2001; Zeller and Reinert 2004).

3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background

3.5.1 Jurisdiction

The ISF blue whiting fishery takes place in the Icelandic and the Faroese EEZs.

3.5.2 Legal basis and management set-up

Iceland has a well-established system for fisheries management in place, now codified in the 1990 Fisheries Management Act, amended in 2006. The Act details procedures for the determination of TAC and allocation of harvest rights, including permits and catch quotas. It also lays out the system for individual transferable quotas and procedures for monitoring, control and surveillance and the application of sanctions. Further provisions are provided in a number of other acts, such as the 1997 Act on Fishing in Iceland’s Exclusive Fishing Zone and the 1996 Act concerning the Treatment of Commercial Marine Stocks, as well as in regulations at lower levels of the legal hierarchy, issued by the relevant management authorities. Iceland is also signatory to, and has ratified, the major international agreements pertaining to fisheries management, such as the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention and the 1995 Fish Stocks Agreement.

The Ministry of Industries and Innovation – which has two ministers: one for Industry and Commerce and one for Fisheries and Agriculture – is the policy-making body in Icelandic fisheries management and sets annual TAC based on scientific recommendations from the Marine and Freshwater Research Institute. The Directorate of Fisheries is the implementing body within the management system, formally subordinate to the Ministry as an agency. It issues fishing licenses, allocates annual vessel quotas and oversees the daily operation of the individual transferable quota system. The Directorate is also responsible for monitoring, control and surveillance, in cooperation with the Coast Guard, which is a civilian law enforcement agency under the Ministry of the Interior.

At the international level, NEAFC exists as a framework for cooperation involving all participants in the fishery, and scientific advice is provided for the fishery by ICES. The management of specific species, including blue whiting, is taken care of through separate agreements between the coastal states that are involved in the fishery. In 2005, the EU, Faroe Islands, Iceland and Norway agreed on joint management and allocation of the blue whiting, and in 2008 on a long-term management plan for the fishery. The plan is structured around controlling harvest at precautionary levels to ensure the long-term sustainability for the stock. TAC should be based on scientific advice provided by ICES. This agreement was in place until 2014. Since then, the coastal states have not been able to agree on an allocation scheme. 3.5.3 Objectives

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 62

The objective of Icelandic fisheries management, as stated in the Fisheries Management Act, is to ensure conservation and efficient utilization of marine living resources in the Icelandic EEZ. The precautionary approach is not mentioned explicitly in the Act, but the requirement to protect marine resources and take the best scientific knowledge into account, e.g. through the use of reference points, equals the requirements of the precautionary approach, as laid out in the FAO Code of Conduct. A further objective, also founded in the Fisheries Management Act, is to ensure stable employment and settlement throughout Iceland.

Iceland is signatory to, and has ratified, the 1995 Fish Stocks Agreement, which requires the use of the precautionary approach.

At the international level, the coastal states agreed in October 2016 to implement a new long-term management strategy for the blue whiting stock, consistent with the precautionary and MSY approach and aimed at ensuring harvest rates within safe biological limits.

3.5.4 Stakeholders and consultation processes

Consultation processes cover policies and regulatory issues, and also include discussions of the annual scientific recommendations by the Marine Research Institute. Shortly after presenting the recommendations to the Ministry, representatives of the Institute enter into dialogue with the fishing industry regarding the status of the stocks and the nature of the recommendations. The Ministry also consults with the industry before setting the final TACs. 3.5.5 Enforcement and compliance

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 63

short-term close (usually two weeks) for the fishery of that particular species, vetted by the Marine and Freshwater Research Institute and confirmed by the Directorate of Fisheries. Inspections are conducted using a risk-based framework aimed at utilizing resources to optimize compliance at any given moment. Most importantly, 100 % of the landed fish is weighed by an authorized ‘weighmaster’, employed by the municipality and hence independent of both buyer and seller. Landing data are immediately added to the Directorate’s catch database, where the reported quantities of fish are deducted from the vessel’s quota. The Directorate operates a dynamic and interactive website, where stakeholders at all times can monitor the precise quota status for each species and observe the performance of individual vessels, their catch from each fishing trip and vessel quota status. The fact that the vast majority of fish is exported provides a further control mechanism enabling a mass balance comparison of fish in (i.e. landing declarations) with fish out (i.e. production or export volumes). The majority of fishing activities within the UoA takes place in the Faroese Economic Zone, where control and surveillance is taken care of by the Faroese Fisheries Inspection Service, in collaboration with other states’ enforcement authorities. Fishing vessels are required to keep a logbook and report catches to the Fisheries Inspection Service on a daily basis. Electronical logbooks and VMS are obligatory. The Fisheries Inspection Service has two inspection vessels at its disposal, and there is at any time a vessel from the Royal Danish Navy present in Faroese waters, which also enforces Faroese fisheries regulations. One of the Faroese inspection vessels has a helicopter on board, which enables inspectors to conduct impromptu inspections. The Ministry of Fisheries also has its own helicopter, which can be used for fishery inspections. The inspectors have the possibility to close an area with too much juvenile or bycatch for a period of up to two weeks (real-time closure). All landings have to be reported 12 hours in advance in order to give the inspectors the possibility to check the landed catch. Both landing and at-sea control is risk- based. The Icelandic fishery in the Faroese zone is also monitored by the Icelandic Coast Guard; for example, VMS data is used to control that the number of Icelandic vessels in the Faroese zone at any time does not exceed the number agreed between the two parties. From mid-2017, ERS data between Iceland and the Faroe Islands will be coordinated. There is already a tight cooperation between the Icelandic Coast Guard and the Faroese Fisheries Inspection Service, including exchange of inspectors. Hence, both Iceland and the Faroe Islands have comprehensive and transparent systems for monitoring, control and surveillance, and there are a number of possibilities for enforcement authorities to physically check whether the data provided by fishers through self-reporting are indeed correct. The sanctioning system in Icelandic fisheries is codified in the Fisheries Management Act and the Act concerning the Treatment of Commercial Marine Stocks. A system for graduated sanctions is applied. For a first-time offence, a warning (‘reprimand’) is given if the infringement is of a less serious nature. In the other end of the spectrum, serious or repeated deliberate violations can be liable to imprisonment of up to six years. Fines for first offences shall not exceed ISK 4,000,000,-, depending upon the nature and scope of the violation. Repeated offences shall be fined by a minimum of ISK 400,000 and a maximum of ISK 8,000,000,-. Withdrawal of fishing permit can be applied in a number of situations. As an example, if information of the Directorate of Fisheries suggests that a vessel has caught in excess of its catch quotas for any species, the Directorate must notify this to the vessel operator and master of the vessel concerned, stating in addition that the vessel’s commercial fishing permit is suspended on the fourth working day thereafter unless sufficient catch quotas have been transferred to the vessel within that time. If the recipient of the notification is of the opinion that the information of the Directorate of Fisheries concerning the vessel’s catch is incorrect and that the vessel has not caught in excess of its catch quotas, he/she must convey such objections to the Directorate of Fisheries within three days. If a permit is suspended for the second time during the same fishing year due to catch exceeding catch quotas, the Directorate of Fisheries shall suspend a vessel’s commercial fishing permit for two weeks in addition to the time resulting from the suspension provided for in the first paragraph, for six weeks if it occurs for the third time and for twelve weeks if it occurs more often. As another example, the Directorate of Fisheries shall suspend the commercial fishing permits of vessels failing to submit catch log books; such suspensions shall remain in force until submissions are received or explanations provided for the reasons for failure to submit.

In the first instance of a violation which is liable to suspension of fishing permit, the suspension shall apply for at least one week and no longer than 12 weeks, depending upon the nature and scope of the violation. In the case of repeated violations, a suspension shall apply for at least four DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 64

weeks and not longer than one year. If a vessel’s commercial fishing permit has repeatedly been suspended, the Directorate of Fisheries may decide that a fishing inspector shall be stationed aboard the vessel at the expense of the vessel operator for a specific period of up to two months. The vessel operation must then pay all cost arising from the presence of the fishing inspector aboard, including salary cost. If there is suspicion of more serious infringements, the case may be transferred to the Ministry or to a court. All decisions on the suspension of harvest rights are to be made publicly available.

Also the Faroese enforcement system uses a graduated sanctioning system, with sanctions ranging from temporary withdrawal of license, confiscation of gear and fines to formal prosecution and possibly permanent withdrawal of licence. If the fishers do not accept the fines issued by the enforcement or prosecution authority, they can take the case to court. The decision of a lower- level court can then be appealed to higher-level courts. For a first-time offence, a warning is given if the infringement is not of a very serious nature. If it is repeated, the license will normally be withdrawn and/or the fishing gear will be confiscated. The duration of the withdrawal depends on the seriousness of the infringement, but typically the license will be withdrawn for a two-week period. If the offence is repeated again, a fine will be introduced in addition to the withdrawal of the license or the case will be brought to court.

The Icelandic Directorate of Fisheries produces detailed overviews of compliance levels among Icelandic fisheries, in aggregate form in its annual reports and on a running basis on its website. This information suggests that there is a high degree of confidence that fishers comply with regulations. The main infringement is failure to submit the catch log after completion of a fishing trip (which happened in 4% of the instances where the logbook should have been handed in), but that applies only to the small coastal fishing vessels that fish over the summer months, and to the small lumpfish vessels. The bigger vessels all have electronic logbooks, so this problem does not occure there. According to the Icelandic Coast Guard, there have been no infringements in the blue whiting fishery since 2014. The last infringements occurring were lack of notification before entering the harbor. Most cases were caused by the same fishing vessel, which due to communication problems failed to report to Icelandic authorities (but did adhere to the NEAFC reporting requirements). The Faroese Fisheries Inspection Service similarly reports about a ‘clean’ fishery, with no significant infringements in the fishery in recent years. While inspection statistics are treated as confidential, the assessment team has not come across information that gives us reason to question the reported high level of compliance.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 65

4 EVALUATION PROCEDURE

4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment At the time of the assessment there are different fisheries that overlap with the Icelandic blue whiting fishery. The present assessment covers two different Units of Certification:

- Unit of Certification 1: The pelagic trawl and purse seine gears. This Unit of Certification covers Faroese, Icelandic, and NEAFC International waters of the Banana hole and the Reykjanes Ridge, however, most blue withing catches take place in Faroese waters during the blue whiting fishing season (spring time). Blue whiting is also caught as bycatch by the pelagic fleet when targeting other species such as herring, mackerel or ling in Icelandic and NEAFC International waters. All Icelandic purse seine boats are at the same time pelagic trawlers, as all vessels in the UoC carry both gears on board. Both gears are treated as different scoring elements of the same UoC. In both cases, the catch is pumped on board through a suction pump.

- Unit of Certification 2: Bottom trawlers targeting other species in Icelandic EEZ. In this UoC, blue whiting is only a minor part of the catch composition. The client has included this UoC in the assessment process in order to facilitate traceability, so as all blue whiting taken by the Icelandic industrial fleet shall be covered by the MSC certificate.

Given this situation, Principle 1 for UoC 1 overlaps with the already MSC certified Faroese Pelagic Organization North east Atlantic blue whiting fishery, the SPSG, DPPO, PFA, KFO & Compagnie des Pêches St Malo Northeast Atlantic Blue Whiting pelagic trawl fishery, and the Norwegian scope extension for blue whiting in the herring certificate, at present in assessment. Principle 2 overlaps with the Faroese Pelagic Organization North east Atlantic blue whiting fishery (in Faroese waters, for UoC 1) and with all Icelandic bottom trawls operating in Icelandic EEZ (for UoC 2). Principle 3 overlaps with all Icelandic MSC certified fisheries.

4.1.1 Overlapping fisheries Icelandic Sustainable Fisheries is an engaged fishing group which has carried out several successful MSC certification processes. These include:

- ISF Norwegian and Icelandic herring trawl and seine

- ISF Iceland cod

- ISF Iceland haddock

- ISF Iceland golden redfish

- ISF Iceland saithe and ling

Besides, the client is currently undergoing MSC certification process of the following fisheries:

- ISF Iceland mackerel

- ISF Iceland capelin

- ISF Greenland halibut

The following table shows different MSC certified fisheries that overlap in one way or another with the present Icelandic blue whiting fishery.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 66

Table 23: Overlapping fisheries

Fishery Assessment FAO ICES area Catch Decision on status area method harmonization

Faroese Pelagic MSC certified 27 Vb1 and Pelagic trawl Applicable (P1) Organization NEA blue Vb2 and purse whiting fishery seine

I–IX, XII, SPSG, DPPO, PFA, KFO MSC certified 27 Pelagic trawl Applicable (P1) and XIV & Compagnie des

Pêches St Malo Northeast Atlantic Blue Whiting pelagic trawl fishery

ISF Iceland cod MSC certified 27 Va Bottom trawl Applicable (P2)

ISF Iceland haddock MSC certified 27 Va Bottom trawl Applicable (P2)

ISF Iceland golden MSC certified 27 Va Bottom trawl Not applicable redfish (different FCR versions)

ISF Iceland saithe and MSC certified 27 Va Bottom trawl Not applicable ling (different FCR versions)

ISF Iceland mackerel In assessment 27 Va Bottom trawl In assessment

ISF Greenland halibut In assessment 27 Va Bottom trawl In assessment

Norway spring In assessment 27 IIa, IVa, Purse seine, In assessment spawning herring: VIa, VIb, pelagic trawl scope extension for VIIb, VIIc, and bottom blue whiting VIIj, VIIk. trawl

ISF Samherji MSC Certified 27 IIa, Va and Mid-water Not-applicable Norwegian and Vb1b trawl (different fishing Icelandic herring grounds)

Source: DNV-GL

4.1.2 Harmonisation activities a) Faroese Pelagic Organization North East Atlantic blue whiting fishery (certified) and the Norwegian Fiskarlaget herring fishery scope extension for blue whiting (in assessment). Harmonization activities in form of telephonic calls and emails have taken place among Principle 1 expert for this assessment and Principle 1 experts for the Faroese Pelagic Organization North East Atlantic blue whiting fishery (certified) and the Norwegian Fiskarlaget herring fishery scope extension for blue whiting (in assessment). The three fisheries have been (or are been) assessed by the same CAB. It was not possible

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 67

to harmonize assessment trees as the Norwegian herring fishery blue whiting scope extension falls under CR v1.3 while the Icelandic blue whiting fishery falls under CR v.2.

b) SPSG, DPPO, PFA, KFO & Compagnie des Pêches St Malo Northeast Atlantic Blue Whiting pelagic trawl fishery. A skype harmonization meeting took place on April 27th, with project managers from MEC Ltd (as regards the SPSG, DPPO, PFA, KFO & Compagnie des Pêches St Malo Northeast Atlantic Blue Whiting pelagic trawl fishery) and DNV-GL (as regards the Icelandic blue whiting fishery, the Norwegian scope extension for blue whiting in the herring fishery, and the Faroese Pelagic Organization blue whiting fishery). Project managers and team members for both CABs were present in the meeting.

- From DNV-GL: Stefan Midteide (Project Manager for the Icelandic and also Norwegian blue whiting assessment), John Henry Nichols (P1 assessor for the Icelandic and the Faroese blue whiting assessment), Hans Lassen (P1 assessor for the Norwegian blue whiting assessment), Geir Honneland (P3 assessor for the Icelandic, Norwegian and Faroese blue whiting assessments) and Lucia Revenga (team leader and P2 assessor for both Icelandic and Norwegian blue whiting assessments). DNV-GL is the CAB for the Icelandic, Norwegian and Faroese blue whiting fisheries.

- From MEC Ltd.: Hugh Jones (Project Manager), Michael Greg Pawson (P1 assessor) and Sophie des Clers (P3 assessor) for the SPSG, DPPO, PFA, KFO & Compagnie des Pêches St Malo blue whiting fishery.

Principle 1 and Principle 3 assessors for both CABs exchanged views and shared the description of the rationales which lead to each team conclusion. During the meeting, it was agreed by all CABs and team members that conditions should remain in PI 1.2.1: Harvest Startegy and PI 1.2.2: Harvest Control rules, for all blue whiting fisheries in the North East Atlantic until the Coastal States Agreement on blue whiting is effectively in place. The Faroese Pelagic Organization and the SPSG, DPPO, PFA, KFO & Compagnie des Pêches St Malo fisheries for blue whiting will review the scoring of these PI and establish the relevant conditions at next surveillance audits.

Table 24: Principle 1 scores for overlapping blue whiting fisheries

Principle 1: NEA blue whiting

MSC Report CAB 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.2.4 Standard DNV- ISF Blue whiting v.2 90 N/A N/A 70 65 90 95 GL

Norway spring spawning 90 DNV- herring: scope extension for v1.3 90 N/A 70 65 90 95 GL blue whiting (in assessment).

Faroese Pelagic Organization DNV- NEA blue whiting fishery (MSC- v1.3 100 90 N/A 100* 80* 90 100 GL certified) SPSG, DPPO, PFA, KFO & Compagnie des Pêches St Malo MEC V1.3 90 90 N/A 85* 90* 90 95 Northeast Atlantic Blue Whiting Ltd pelagic trawl fishery * To be reviewed at next surveillance audits. Source: DNV-GL

Differences in PI 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 arise from the date at which each report has taken place, as the international agreement on the blue whiting fishery was void after the Faroese Pelagic Organization NEA blue whiting fishery and the SPSG, DPPO, PFA, KFO & Compagnie des Pêches St

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 68

Malo Northeast Atlantic Blue Whiting pelagic trawl fishery were certified. As the different CABs reached an agreement during the harmonization meeting held on April 27th, it is expected that the score of these fisheries will be reviewed at next surveillance audits in order to harmonise their scoring and conditions until the coastal Agreement on the blue whiting fishery is effectively in place.

Care attention has also been paid to the different overlapping certified fisheries in Icelandic water, as regards the results of Principle 2 for UoC2. Discrepancies have been found in different PI but these differences are believed to be justified due to the different species considered under each PI. The following tables show the Principle 2 PI scores given to fisheries fishing with the same gear in the same area.

Table 25: Principle 2 scores for overlapping pelagic trawl and purse seine fisheries

Principle 2

MSC Report CAB 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.3 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3 Standard ISF Blue v.2 DNV‐GL 90 95 95 90 85 95 95 85 80 100 80 95 80 95 95 whiting Faroese Pelagic Organization v1.3 DNV‐GL 95 100 85 100 100 100 85 80 80 80 80 95 90 85 95 NEA blue whiting fishery Vottunarst ISF cod v.2 ofan Tun 95 95 100 90 90 85 100 100 100 100 85 85 80 100 90 ehf. Vottunarst ISF haddock v.2 ofan Tun 100 95 100 90 90 85 100 100 100 100 85 85 80 100 85 ehf. Source: DNV- GL

Table 26: Principle 2 scores for overlapping bottom trawl fisheries

Principle 2 MSC Report CAB 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.3 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3 Standard ISF Blue v.2 DNV‐GL 85 95 95 90 85 95 85 85 80 70 80 85 80 95 85 whiting Vottunarstofan ISF haddock v.2 95 95 100 90 90 85 100 100 100 70 75 85 80 95 85 Tun ehf. Vottunarstofan ISF cod v.2 95 95 100 90 90 85 100 100 100 70 75 85 80 95 85 Tun ehf. ISF saithe and Vottunarstofan v1.3 75 75 85 100 100 85 80 80 85 60 90 85 100 100 100 ling Tun ehf. ISF Golden Vottunarstofan v1.3 75 75 85 100 100 85 80 80 85 75 75 85 85 100 100 redfish Tun ehf.

Source: DNV- GL

Differences in PI 2.4.2.a arise from what is considered as a “partial strategy” by the team.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 69

Table 27 below shows the Principle 3 PI scores of different Icelandic MSC certified fisheries.

Table 27: Principle 3 scores for overlapping Icelandic fisheries

Principle 3 MSC Report CAB 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.2.5 Standard ISF Blue whiting v.2 DNV‐GL 65 100 100 NA 90 95 100 80 NA ISF capelin v.2 SAI Global 85 95 100 NA 100 80 100 90 NA Vottunarstofan ISF cod v.2 100 100 100 NA 90 100 100 80 NA Tun ehf. Vottunarstofan ISF haddock v.2 100 100 100 NA 90 100 100 80 NA Tun ehf. Faroese Pelagic Organization v1.3 DNV‐GL 65 100 100 100 100 85 100 80 90 NEA blue whiting fishery

Source: DNV-GL

Differences in scoring in PI 3.1.1 The reason the two blue whiting fisheries score 65 on PI 3.1.1, while the other fisheries score 85–100, is that at the moment, there is no agreed TAC for the blue whiting stock among the coastal states engaged in this fishery. This weakness is not found in the other fisheries listed in the table, which are managed at the national level in Iceland only. As follows from the rationale for PI 3.1.1 in the scoring table of the present fishery, the national component of the Icelandic blue whiting fishery also meets the requirements for a 100 score; it is the international component that brings the score down to 60 on SIs 3.1.1 a) and b).

4.1.3 Harmonisation outcomes The assessment team contacted both the CAB and assessment teams for the Norway spring spawning herring: scope extension for blue whiting, the Faroese Pelagic Organization and the SPSG, DPPO, PFA, KFO & Compagnie des Pêches St Malo Northeast Atlantic Blue Whiting pelagic trawl fishery. Conversations were held about those PI in which the fishery did not meet SG80 for any of the assessment teams. A skype harmonization meeting was held on April 27th in order to share and clarify all points of view and finally an agreement was reached as regards the need of a condition on PI 1.2.1 and PI 1.2.2.

4.2 Previous assessments

The client hasn’t undergone any previous assessment to certify the blue whiting fishery, but it has successfully passed the MSC certification process for different fisheries. These are:

- ISF Norwegian and Icelandic herring trawl and seine - ISF Iceland cod - ISF Iceland haddock - ISF Iceland golden redfish - ISF Iceland saithe and ling Besides, the client is currently undergoing MSC certification process of the following fisheries: - ISF Iceland mackerel - ISF Iceland capelin - ISF Greenland halibut

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 70

4.3 Assessment Methodologies

Table 30: Assessment methodologies Standard MSC Fishery Certification Requirements and Guidance version 2.0. Report template MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 Assessment tree Default assessment tree

4.3.1 The MSC fisheries standard

The MSC fisheries standard sets out requirements that a fishery must meet to enable it to claim that its fish come from a well-managed and sustainable source. The MSC standard applies to wild- capture fisheries that meet the scope requirements as confirmed in section 3.1.

The MSC fisheries standard comprises three core principles:

Principle 1: Sustainable target fish stocks

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 2: Environmental impact of fishing

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.

Principle 3: Effective management

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. 4.3.2 The assessment tree structure The default tree structure is divided into four main levels for the purposes of scoring, as summarised below and illustrated in Figure 44.

- Principle: The Principles represent the overarching basis for the assessment tree

- Component: A high level sub-division of the Principle

- Performance Indicator (PI): A further sub-division of the Principle

- Scoring Issue (SI): A sub-division of the PI into related but different topics. Each PI has one or more scoring issues against which the fishery is assessed at the SG 60, 80, and 100 levels.

The detailed assessment tree used in this assessment is included in Appendix 1.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 71

Figure 44: The assessment tree structure

Source: MSC

4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques

Site visits to the fishery were performed by the certification body (here DNV GL) and the assessment team and consultations were done with interested stakeholders. The performance indicators and the pertaining scoring systems were evaluated, and it was judged if the fishery meets the requirements for MSC certification.

In order to fulfil the requirements for certification the following minimum scores are required: - The fishery must obtain a score of 80 or more for each of the three MSC Principles, based on the weighted aggregate scores for all Performance Indicators under each Criterion in each Principle. - The fishery must obtain a score of 60 or more for each Performance Indicator under each Criterion in each Principle.

Even though a fishery fulfils the criteria for certification, there may still be some important potential risks to future sustainability that are revealed during assessment. These are performance indicators that score less than 80, but more than 60. In order to be granted a MSC fishery certificate the client must agree to further improvements to raise the score to 80. The certification body (here DNV GL) sets a timescale for the fishery to improve the relevant areas, so that the certification process can continue. Default performance indicators and the scorings allocated in the evaluation are enclosed in the section 6.2.

4.4.1 Site Visits Relevant stakeholders have been identified and stakeholder meetings were scheduled and carried out as planned in Reykjavik (Iceland) in January 2017. Persons consulted and key issues discussed

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 72

during these site-visits are outlined in Table 31. Information gathered was used as a basis for this report and is presented throughout several chapters and in the scoring tables.

Table 31: Stakeholders meetings conducted and key issues discussed.

Date Name and affiliation Summary of information obtained. The following topics Location of the meeting were included in the agenda for the meetings. 24.01.2017 Client:  Basic info about the company Erla Kristinsdottir  Review of fishing operations Kristinn Hjálmarsson  Review of impact on ecosystem ISF Offices.  Compliance with rules and regulations 24.01.2017 Directorate of Fisheries:  Inspection and monitoring Sævar Gudmundsson  Control, surveillance and monitoring Þorsteinn Hilmarsson routines/regulations applied to the fishery in (area)  Landing control Directorate of Fisheries  Quotas and level of catches Offices.  Fishermen’s compliance with laws and regulations.  Consultation and decision-making process  Mechanisms for resolution of legal disputes  Review of regulations for the fisheries  Harvest strategy for the target species  Long-term objectives for the fisheries  Strategy for minimising or eliminating ETP by-catch  Strategy in scientific research.  Research programmes for fishery under assessment  Strategy and plans for protection of sensitive habitats 24.01.2017 Vessel: Venus NS150,  Description of the vessel and fishing gears HB Grandi, Port of Reykjavik  Description of fishing activities Captain: Robert A. Axelsson.  Description of logbook requirements 25.01.2017 Coast Guard  Inspection and monitoring Ásgrímur L. Ásgrímsson  Control, surveillance and monitoring Björgólfur Ingason routines/regulations applied to the fishery in (area)  Observed fishing patterns (gear used, fishing area, Coast Guard Offices. number of boats, fishing season).  Level of slipping/discards in the fisheries.  Fishermen’s compliance with laws and regulations.  Mechanisms for resolution of legal disputes Marine and Freshwater  Stock status, stock structure and recruitment Research Institute  Review of Limit and Target reference points Þorsteinn Sigurðsson established for the stock Anna H Olafsdottir  Approach to stock assessments  Sampling programes and level of sampling  Level of discards (composition of species, quantities) Offices of MFRI  Level of by-catch (composition of species, quantities)  Monitoring programes for ETP species. Can extent of interactions with ETP species be quantified?  Impact of fisheries on ecosystem  Impact of fisheries on marine habitats  Long term objectives and fishery specific objectives. Ministry of Industries and Fisheries Management Innovation, Department of  Consultation and decision-making process Fisheries and Aquaculture  International negotiations Sigurgeir Thorgeirsson  Mechanisms for resolution of legal disputes Asta Einarsdottir  Review of regulations for the fishery in (area)  Harvest strategy for shrimp Offices of the Ministry.  Long-term objectives for the fisheries  Strategy for minimising or eliminating ETP by-catch  Strategy in scientific research.  Research programmes for fishery under assessment  Strategy and plans for protection of sensitive habitats

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 73

4.4.2 Consultations 4.4.2.1 Site visit consultations The assessment team met with relevant stakeholders as outlined in Table 31. Information gathered is presented in this report and in the enclosed scoring tables. 4.4.2.2 Process consultations Several stakeholders have been identified and contacted during the assessment of the North East Atlantic Blue Whiting Fishery.

Information was made publicly available at different stages of the assessment (Table 32). Notifications on the MSC website (www.msc.org) were distributed to listed stakeholders in directed mails. As no stakeholder comments were submitted during the stakeholder consultancy period prior to the site visit in Reykjavik, information gathered during the site visits formed the main basis of the stakeholder consultancy for this assessment (ref. section 4.4.1 above).

Table 32: Process announcements and consultations Consultation subject Consultation date Consultation channels Announcement of full assessment 05.Dec.2016 MSC.org E-mail Notification of assessment timeline 05.Dec.2016 MSC.org Public comment draft report 30th May, 2017 MSC.org Final report TBC Public certification report TBC

4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques

4.4.3.1 Announcements The assessment was announced at MSC.org to reach international stakeholders and e-mails were used to reach local stakeholders.

At the beginning of the full-assessment, the CAB compiled a stakeholder list based on a guidance from the client and existing stakeholder list from the full-assessment and subsequent surveillances. The list covers 116 stakeholders and has been used at every stage of the consultation process undertaken for this fishery. 4.4.3.2 Methodology used The assessment was made against the MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing v. 1.1. The methodology applied is specified in the MSC Certification Requirements, Version 2.0 (1st October 2014). The MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 is used as basis for this report. assessment team proposed the use of the Default Assessment Tree as the main assessment framework. No comments or objections were received and therefore the Default Assessment Tree was therefore used.

4.4.3.3 Scoring process After all relevant information was compiled and analysed, the assessment team scored the Unit of Assessment against the Performance Indicator Scoring Guideposts (PISGs) in the final tree. The team discussed evidence together while in Reykjavik, weighed up the balance of evidence and used their judgement to agree on a final score following MSC FCR processes and based on consensus. New information on catch composition was made available after the site visit. Scoring on PI 2.1.1, PI 2.2.1 and PI 2.3.1 was discussed through a skype meeting at later date.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 74

Individual Performance indicators are scored. Scores for individual PIs are assigned in increments of five points. Any divisions of less than five points are justified. Scores for each of the three Principles are reported to the nearest one decimal.

- If one or more of the scoring issues fails to meet the scoring guidepost at the 60 level, the UoA fails and no further scoring is provided for the Performance indicator.

- Where all of the SG60 scoring issues are met, the PI achieves at least a 60 score, and the team assesses each of the scoring issues at the SG80 level.

- Where one or more of the SG80 scoring issues is not met, the PI is given an intermediate score reflecting the overall performance against the different SG80 scoring issues, and one or more condition(s) are assigned to the PI.

- Where all of the 60 scoring issues and all of the 80 issues are met, the PI achieves at least an 80 score, and the team assesses each of the scoring issues at the SG100 level.

- Where one or more of the SG100 scoring issues is not met, the PI is given an intermediates score reflecting the overall performance against the different SG100 scoring issues.

- Where all of the SG60, SG80 and SG100 scoring issues are met, the PI achieves a 100 score.

In Principle 1 and 2 the scoring may include PI with multiple scoring elements, such as the use of diferent gears in UoC1 (Purse seine and pelagic trawl). Scoring is then applied to the individual scoring elements and the overall score for the PI is determined based on the score of the different scoring elements. Scoring elements considered in this assessment are listed in Table 33 below.

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

- The fishery must obtain a score of 80 or more for each of the three MSC Principles, based on the weighted aggregate scores for all Performance Indicators under each Principle.

- The fishery must obtain a score of 60 or more for each individual scoring issue under each Performance Indicator in each Principle.

The final scores are based on group consensus within the assessment team. The assessment team will recommend certification where the weighted average score is 80 or more for all the three Principles, and were all individual scoring issues are met at the SG60 level.

Conditions are set where the fishery fails to achieve a score of 80 to any Performance Indicators. Conditions with milestones are set to result in improved performance to at least the 80 level within a period set by the assessment team. The client is required to provide a client action plan to be accepted by the assessment team. The client action plan shall detail:

- how conditions and milestones will be addressed

- who will address the conditions

- the specified time period within which the conditions and milestones will be addressed

- how the action(s) is expected to improve the performance of the UoA

- how the CAB will assess outcomes and milestones in each subsequent surveillance or assessment

- how progress to meeting conditions will be shown to CABs.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 75

According to MSC CR v2.0, SA 3.4.1, a species shall be considered main if: The catch of a species by the UoA comprises 5% or more by weight of the total catch of all species by the UoA or if 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. Landings by all Icelandic vessels is known thanks to the thorough landing system and landing obligation which was implemented in 1973. The Data deficient column refers to those species where stock status is unknown.

Table 33: Scoring elements for both UoCs. Data English name Scientific name MSC classification deficient? Blue whiting Micromesistius poutassou Principle 1 No Altantic wolfish Anarhichas lupus Primary Minor No Minor Greater silver smelt Argentina silus Primary (UoC1) and No Main (UoC2) Anglerfish Lophius piscatorius Primary Minor No Blue ling Molva dypterygi Primary Minor No Bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus Primary Minor No Cod Gadus morhua Primary Main No Dab Limanda limanda Primary Minor No Deepwater redfish Sebastes mentella Primary Minor No Golden redfish Sebastes marinus Primary Minor No Golden redfish Sebastes norvegicus Primary Main No Minor Greenland halibut Reinhardtius hippoglossoides Primary (UoC1) and No Main (UoC2) Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus Primary Main No Herring Cuplea harengus Primary Minor No Lemon sole Microstomus kitt Primary Minor No Ling Molva molva Primary Minor No Northern shrimp Pandalus borealis Primary Minor No Norway redfish Sebastes viviparus Primary Minor No Plaice Pleuronectes platessa Primary Minor No Saithe Pollachius virens Primary Minor No Tusk Brosme brosme Primary Minor No Witch Glyptocephalus cynoglossus Primary Minor No Starry ray Amblyraja radiata Secondary Minor Yes Black scabbardfish Aphanopus carbo Secondary Minor Yes Greenland shark Somniosus microcephalus Secondary Minor Yes Grenadiers Macrouridae spp. Secondary Minor Yes Grey skate Dipturus batis Secondary Minor Yes Long rough dab Hippoglossoides platessoides Secondary Minor No Lumpfish Cyclopterus lumpus Secondary Minor No Main (UoC1) Mackerel Scomber scombrus Secondary and Minor No (UoC2)

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 76

Data English name Scientific name MSC classification deficient? Megrim Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis Secondary Minor Yes Northern wolfish Anarhichas denticulatus Secondary Minor Yes Norway pout Trisopterus esmarkii Secondary Minor Yes Porbeagle Lamna nasus Secondary Minor No Roughhead grenadier Macrourus berglax Secondary Minor Yes Roundnose grenadier Coryphaenoides rupestris Secondary Minor No Salmon Salmo salar Secondary Minor No Spotted wolffish Anarhichas minor Secondary Minor No Spurdog Squalus acanthias Secondary Minor No Squid Todarodes sagitattus Secondary Minor Yes Whiting Merlangius merlangus Secondary Minor No

Source: DNV-GL

Both purse seines and pelagic trawls have been considered as a single UoC (UoC 1), due to the fact that all vessels carry both gears at all times, and that data on catch composition was not disaggregated by gear type. However, they have been scored as different scoring elements due to the fact that there are some slights differences as regards the impacts that the gear may have in the ecosystem.

4.4.3.4 Risk Based Framework The RBF has not been used to score any PI of this assessment.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 77

5 TRACEABILITY

5.1 Eligibility Date

The Target Eligibility Date for the ISF blue whiting fishery is 3 months before the date of the PCDR. This is possible as the fishery applied for a variation request in order to allow the client to take an advantage of this opportunity and was also connected to the start of the fishing season. The variation request was accepted, and the Eligibility Date for the ISF blue whiting fishery 3 months before the date of the PCDR. Estimated date of the PDCR is July 15th. Estimated targeted eligibility date is April 15th.

The eligibility date is set before the certification date. Any fish harvested after the eligibility date and sold or stored as under-MSC-assessment fish shall be handled in conformity with relevant under-MSC-assessment product requirements in the MSC Chain of Custody standard.

Traceability and segregation systems applied to the ISF NEA blue whiting fishery are the same as for several ISF certified fisheries, such as cod, haddock, saithe or golden redfish. These systems were implemented before the TED.

5.2 Traceability within the Fishery Icelandic vessels carry on board VMS and electronic logbooks where to record time and location of the deployment of the gear. These logbooks shall also record an estimate of the catch taken (quantity and catch species) and the information must be sent to the Directorate of Fisheries before return of the vessel. When landed, the catch is weighted and sampled by certified scales or licensed operators. The Directorate of Fisheries collects, retains and publishes on its website data on landings of the different species by year, vessel and gear type. If necessary, these records can be traced back to individual vessels.

The Directorate of Fisheries is also responsible for the enforcement system that ensures the compliance with fishing legislation. Fishing inspections can occur at sea, at landing ports, or through aerial surveillance.

Both UoCs cover all Icelandic industrial bottom trawl, pelagic trawl and purse seine vessels. It is unlikely that certified blue whiting would mix with uncertified blue whiting (which would only come from the coastal fishery, or from sporadic catches in the Danish seine, gillnet, longline or handline). Besides, the detailed level of monitoring carried out by the Directorate of Fisheries, helps to minimise the risk of non-certified fish entering the chain of custody.

According to Icelandic Act ner 22 (1998) on Fishing and Processing by Foreign Vessels in Iceland’s Exclusive Fishing Zone, unless otherwise prescribed by international agreement, fishing by foreign vessels in the exclusive fishing zone shall be governed by the same provisions that apply to Icelandic fishing vessels, and are obliged to use at all moments VMS and electronic logbooks. The regulations on the weighing of marine catch in Icelandic ports shall apply if foreign vessels land their catch in Iceland. 5.2.1 Traceability risk factors

Table 34 Traceability risk factors within the fishery 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)

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 78

Potential for non- Low risk. ISF is including all industrial vessels that catch blue whiting to certified gear/s to be facilitate traceability of the product, regardless it being just a small proportion used within the fishery of bycatch (1%) in the bottom trawl fleet. The certificate covers all pelagic trawlers, purse seines and bottom trawlers of the Icelandic fleet.

Potential for vessels The UoC covers the fishing grounds where the fishery takes place, this is, both from the UoC to fish Icelandic and Faroese waters. All Icelandic vessels are obliged to carry VMS on outside the UoC or in board and to log in the electronic logbook when the fishing operation begins. different geographical These data are monitored by the Icelandic Coast Guard which can distinguish areas (on the same not only where the vessels are but also if the vessels are fishing or not. trips or different trips)

Potential for vessels The blue whiting stock is spread all over North East Atlantic waters, therefore outside of the UoC or the risk for vessels outside the UoC or client group fishing the same stock is client group fishing the high. same stock UoC 1 covers Icelandic, Faroese, and NEAFC International waters, while UoC 2 only covers Icelandic and Faroese waters. As for Icelandic waters, it is highly unlikely that foreign vessels would come to target blue whiting (bearing in mind that Icelandic vessels go abroad to target it). However, there is a small risk of foreign vessels catching blue whiting when targeting other species in Icelandic waters. The fact that all catch landed in Iceland, regardless the vessels nationality, is weighted at landing ports by weight-masters who work for the municipality and not for fishing companies or the auction place, gives confidence to the traceability system. The blue whiting pelagic fishery, which takes place in Faroese waters, shares the stock and the fishing grounds with Faroese vessels, but always lands it catch in Icelandic ports. Pelagic vessels may also have some bycatch of blue whiting when targeting other species in NEAFC International waters. As before, the catch is always landed in Icelandic ports. Risks of mixing All fishing vessels – Icelandic and foreign vessels operating within the Icelandic between certified and EEZ – are required to keep logbooks for the recording of fishing by species, non-certified catch gear and area. Furthermore, all catch landed in Iceland by the fishing fleet during storage, must be reported to the Directorate of Fisheries and to Port Authorities, who transport, or handling are responsible for weighing (and sampling) catch on certified scales either by activities (including licensed weight-masters operators or processing plants approved for this transport at sea and purpose. Foreign vessels landing fish in Iceland are subject to the same on land, points of requirements. Icelandic regulation requires fish from foreign vessels to be kept landing, and sales at and processed separate from all other fish throughout the chain of custody. auction) Both UoCs always land their catch in Iceland. If they were to land abroad, they would continue to have the obligation of reporting to the Directorate of Fisheries landings in foreign ports by type of species, fishing gear, area and quantities. Furthermore, the Directorate of Fisheries issues catch certificates required for entry into a third country. This should serve to ensure the traceability of these products, should they ever land abroad. The fact that MSC ISF blue whiting certificate covers all blue whiting caught by all bottom trawl and pelagic trawl and purse seine Icelandic vessels substantially decreases this risk.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 79

Risks of mixing Pelagic vessels pump the catch on board into a reception tank. Vessels go back between certified and to port when the tanks are full (normally after 2 fishing days) and the catch is non-certified catch sorted in after landing. during processing The final destination of blue whiting is the elaboration of fish meal. Some activities (at-sea vessels have the capability to fabricate fish meal on board, however this and/or before situation does not often occur and most of the fish meal process takes place subsequent Chain of when the fish is landed at the processing plants. Custody) Should it be the case that fish meal is produced on board pelagic vessels, there is a low risk of other bycatch species (herring) in the catch composition being mixed with blue whiting during the processing of fish meal. However, data reported by the Directorate of Fisheries shows that catches of blue whiting during the fishing season, which takes place in Faroese waters, is very clean, with more than 99% of the catch being blue whiting and less than 1% being herring. Bottom trawl vessels normally do the basic handling of the catch, such as heading and gutting. Further processing (whole, headed/gutted, fillets) can be done after landing or on board big trawlers with fish factories on board. This can be monitored by weighing landed products and using a conversion factor to estimate green weight. Risks of mixing Transhipment does not take place in this fishery. The Directorate of Fisheries between certified and monitors VMS tracks to verify that this does not take place. non-certified catch Icelandic Act 224/2006, which regulates weighting and recording of catches, during transhipment stipulates that any unprocessed fish must be landed and weighed in Iceland ports prior to export.

Any other risks of None identified. substitution between fish from the UoC (certified catch) and fish from outside this unit (non-certified catch) before subsequent Chain of Custody is required

5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody

Table 35 Eligibility to enter further chains of custody Conclusion and Fresh, chilled or frozen whole round blue whiting and fish meal, determination caught and produced on board by Icelandic vessels engaged in NEA blue whiting fishery (this is, the pelagic trawl and purse seine vessels, but also bottom trawlers that catch blue whiting as bycatch) are eligible to enter further certified chains of custody and be sold as MSC certified or carry the MSC ecolabel. List of parties, or category Icelandic vessels (pelagic trawls and purse seines targeting blue of parties, eligible to use whiting, and bottom trawlers which catch blue whiting as the fishery certificate and bycatch), with valid licenses to fish blue whiting in Icelandic EZZ, sell product as MSC Faroese EEZ and NEAFC International waters of Reykjanes Ridge certified and Banana hole. Annex 7 shows the list of vessels in February 2017. An update of the list of vessels is available at the Directorate of Fisheries upon request. Point of intended change of Fishing ports or fishing auctions where registration of landings is ownership of product carried out and weights registered. List of eligible landing See table 36 below. points (if relevant)

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 80

Point from which Most fish go into a processing plant or factory without going subsequent Chain of through auction, either because both factories and vessels belong Custody is required to the same industrial group or because there are commercial agreements between the vessels and the factories to buy all blue withing catch in order to elaborate fish meal. The processing plant or factory will require a separate Chain of Custody Certification.

In order to include fish meal in this MSC certificate, the processing plant or factory needs a Chain of Custody Certificate to ensure that fish/fish meal from the blue whiting fishing season does not get mixed with fish meal from other fishing season or species.

Fish meal produced on board of the fishing vessels covered by the unit of assessment are included in the MSC fishery certificate. The fish meal consist of 99% Blue Whiting, with occasional inclution of herring of approximately 1%.

Chain of custody for the fish meal produced on board will have the same start as chain of custody for frozen products

Only small vessels and bottom trawlers sell blue whiting through auctions houses. Should this be the case, Chain of custody shall begin following the first sale of fresh, chilled or frozen whole round fish at the point of landing. Auctions that merely serve as facilitators of trade do not need chain of custody certification. The most common landing ports for the two different UoC are listed in Table 36. However, the certificate is not exclusively limited to the listed ports as other ports approved by Icelandic authorities, such as those shown in Figure 45, may be used at a later stage.

Table 36: Most common landing ports. Landing ports for the blue whiting fishery (UoC 1) Akranes Hafnarfjörður Reykjavík Vestmannaeyjar Akureyri Hornafjörður Reyðarfjörður Vopnafjörður Eskifjörður Ísafjörður Sauðárkrókur Þorlákshöfn Fáskrúðsfjörður Keflavík Seyðisfjörður Þórshöfn Grindavík Neskaupstaður Skagaströnd Landing ports for the bottom trawl fleet (UoC2) Akureyri Grindavík Neskaupstaður Seyðisfjörður Bakkafjörður Grundarfjörður Noregur Siglufjörður Bíldudalur Hafnarfjörður Patreksfjörður Skagaströnd Bolungarvík Hornafjörður Raufarhöfn Súðavík Dalvík Hrísey Reyðarfjörður Suðureyri Eskifjörður Húsavík Reykjavík Þorlákshöfn Fáskrúðsfjörður Ísafjörður Sandgerði Þórshöfn Flateyri Keflavík Sauðárkrókur Vestmannaeyjar Source: ISF

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 81

Figure 45: Map of Icelandic official approved landing ports.

Source: http://gafl.fiskistofa.is/

5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody There are no Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stocks within this fishery.

6 EVALUATION RESULTS

6.1 Principle Level Scores

Table 37: Final Principle scores for the ISF blue whiting fishery. Principle Score pelagic trawl Score purse seine Score bottom trawl (UoC 1) (UoC 1) (UoC 2) Principle 1 – Target Species 83.6 83.6 83.6 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 90.3 90.3 86.0 Principle 3 – Management System 89.8 89.8 89.8

All ISF group pelagic vessels are designed to carry two different pelagic gears at all times, and use one or another depending on the position of the fish shoal or the target species at the moment (the same vessels target different species at different seasons). Both pelagic gears (pelagic trawls and purse seines) have been assessed together under a single Unit of certification (Unit of Certification 1), as impacts to habitats and ecosystem by both of them are expected to be similar and skippers use one or another indistinctly. Bottom trawlers are assessed separately under Unit of Certification 2.

6.2 Summary of PI Level Scores Table 38: Summary of scores.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 82

Score Score Principle Component Performance Indicator (PI) UoC 1 UoC 2

Outcome 1.1.1 Stock status 90 90

1.2.1 Harvest strategy 70 70

One 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 65 65 Management 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 90 90

1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 95 95

2.1.1 Outcome 90 85

Primary 2.1.2 Management strategy 95 95 species

2.1.3 Information/Monitoring 95 95

2.2.1 Outcome 90 90

Secondary 2.2.2 Management strategy 85 85 species

2.2.3 Information/Monitoring 95 95

2.3.1 Outcome 95 85

Two ETP species 2.3.2 Management strategy 85 85

2.3.3 Information strategy 80 80

2.4.1 Outcome 100 70

Habitats 2.4.2 Management strategy 80 80

2.4.3 Information 95 85

2.5.1 Outcome 80 80

Ecosystem 2.5.2 Management 95 95

2.5.3 Information 95 85

Legal &/or customary 3.1.1 65 65 framework Governance Consultation, roles & 3.1.2 100 100 and policy responsibilities

3.1.3 Long term objectives 100 100

Three 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 90 90

Fishery 3.2.2 Decision making processes 95 95 specific management system 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 100 100 Monitoring & management 3.2.4 80 80 performance evaluation

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 83

6.3 Summary of Conditions

Table 39: Summary of Conditions Related to Condition Condition Performance previously number indicator raised condition? 1 By the 4th surveillance audit there must be 1.2.1 (all UoC) N/A evidence that the 2016 revised long term management strategy is being implemented and is effective in reducing the fishing mortality from the current high level of F 0.465 in line with the MSY requirement for a fishing mortality of F 0.32 and compliant with the harvest strategy based on the MSY approach. 2 By the 4th surveillance audit there must be 1.2.2 (all UoC) N/A evidence of organised and effective cooperation between affected parties able to deliver outcomes consistent with meeting the requirements of Principle 1. This requires that the revised Long-term Management Strategy must be seen to be operational as the agreed basis on which ICES provides its advice in 2017 on the management of the fishery in 2018. There must also be evidence that all parties participating in the fishery accept the resultant ICES advised total TAC and agree the national allocation of shares in that TAC according to the Coastal States agreement on the national percentages. The total of the national allocation of shares must not exceed the ICES advised catch. 3 By the fourth surveillance audit necessary 2.4.1 (only for UoC2) N/A conservation and management measures for all vulnerable marine habitats shall be in place and implemented, such that the trawl fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, on a regional or bioregional basis, and function. 4 By the fourth surveillance audit there should 3.1.1 (all UoC) N/A be evidence of organised and effective cooperation between affected parties able to deliver outcomes consistent with meeting the requirements of Principle 1. There should also be evidence of an effective and transparent mechanism for dispute resolution between the parties.

6.4 Recommendations

Table 40: Summary of Recommendations Recommendation Recommendation Performance number indicator 1 Different Principle 2 PI (primary, secondary and ETP species) would Principle 2 benefit from UoA records of non-fatal interactions with halibuts, sharks, Performance skates, rays and ETP marine mammals sightings. Indicators Records on benthic species would benefit the score of bottom trawlers in PI related to habitats

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 84

6.5 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement (Required for FR and PCR)

The report shall include a formal statement as to the certification determination recommendation reached by the Assessment Team about whether or not the fishery should be certified. (Reference: FCR 7.16)

(Required for PCR)

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

FR: Final determination

PCR: Formal statement from decision making entity]

The ISF blue whiting fishery achieved a score of 80 or more for each of the three MSC Principles, and did not score under 60 for any of the set MSC criteria.

Based on the evaluation of the fishery presented in this report, the assessment team recommends the certification of the blue whiting fishery for the ISF (Icelandic Sustainable Fisheries) client.

As the fishery achieved a score of below 80 against 4 scoring indicators, the assessment team has set 4 conditions for the continued certification that the client is required to address. The conditions are applicable to improve performance to at least the 80 level within the period set by the assessment team. The assessment team also makes one recommendation for the fishery.

6.6 Changes in the fishery prior to and since Pre- Assessment

As a result of conditions resulting from other MSC assessments in the bottom trawl fleet, some vessels of the Icelandic bottom trawl fleet are already taking part in the collection of benthic information as required in the PI 2.4.1 condition, as the condition has been harmonised with similar conditions in the bottom trawl fleet.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 85

REFERENCES

 Act No.47/1971. Nature Conservation Act.  Act No. 57/1996 on the Treatment of Commercial Marine Stocks, amended by Act No. 144/2008.  Act No.151/1996 on Fishing Outside Iceland Jurisdiction.  Act No. 79/1997 on Fishing in Iceland’s Exclusive Fishing Zone.  Act No. 22/1998 on Fishing and processing by foreign vessels in Iceland. https://eng.atvinnuvegaraduneyti.is/media/acts/Act-no-22-1998-Fishing-and-Processing- by-Foreign-Vessels-in-Iceland.pdf  Act No. 38/1999 on Fisheries Management, amended as Act No. 116/2006. Act No. 28/1998 on Fishing and Processing by Foreign Vessels in Iceland’s Exclusive Economic Zone.  Act No. 44/1999. Nature Conservation Act  Act No. 116/2006 Fisheries Management Act.  Act No. 224/2006 on Weighing and recording of catches.  Agreed Record of Conclusions of Fisheries Consultations between the European Union, the Faroe Islands, Iceland and Norway on the Management of Blue Whiting in the North-East Atlantic in 2017, including Arrangement for the Long-term Management of the Blue Whiting Stock, London, 27 October 2016.  Annual reports for the Directorate of Fisheries, 2014 and 2015.  Anon 2017. Agreed Record of Conclusions of Fisheries Consultations Between the European Union, The Faroe Islands, Iceland, Norway on the Management of Blue Whiting in the North-East Atlantic in 2017. London, 27 October 2016.  Arnason, R. (2005), ‘Property rights in fisheries: Iceland’s experience with ITQs’, Review of Fish Biology and Fisheries 15: 243–264.  Astthorsson, O.S., Gislasona, A., Jonssona, S. 2007. Climate variability and the Icelandic marine ecosystem. Deep-Sea Research II 54 (2007) 2456–2477.  Astthorsson, O. S., and Pálsson, J. 2006. New species and records of rare southern species in Icelandic waters in the warm period 1996-2005. ICES CM 2006/C:20.  Berg, C.W., and Nielsen, A. 2016. Accounting for correlated observations in an age-based state–space stock assessment model. ICES Journal of Marine Science, doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsw046.  Bailey, R.S. 1982. The population biology of Blue Whiting in the North Atlantic. Advances in Marine Biology, 19: pp 257-355  Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in North-East Atlantic Fisheries, 2006.  Danielsson, A. (1997), ‘Fisheries management in Iceland’, Ocean & Coastal Management 35: 121–135.  Debes, H. H., Gaard, E., and Hansen, B. 2007a. Primary production on the Faroe Shelf: Temporal variability and environmental influences. Journal of Marine Systems: s 74 (2008) 686–697. http://www.zhonghuanhentek.com/uploads/soft/160817/1-160QG55H1.pdf  Ekerhovd, N-A. 2008. The Blue Whiting coalition game. SNF Working Paper No. 23/08 Institute for Research in Economics and Business Administration, Bergen, Sept. 2008, 50p.  Eythórsson, E. (2000), ‘A decade of ITQ-management in Icelandic fisheries: consolidation without consensus’, Marine Policy 24: 483–492.  FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, 1995.  Faroe Islands Fisheries & Aquaculture: Responsible Management for a Sustainable Future, Ministry of Fisheries (undated).  Faroese Fisheries Laboratory. 2002. Workshop on Ecosystem Modelling of Faroese Waters

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 86

 Fisheries Surveillance 2016, the Icelandic Coast Guard.  Gezelius, S.S. (2012), Regulation and Compliance in the Atlantic Fisheries, Dordrecht: Springer.  Guijarro, E. G., Ragnarsson, S. A., Steingrimsson, S. A., Nævestad, D., Haraldsson, H. Þ., Tendal, O. S., Fosså, J. H., and Eriksson, H. 2006. Bottom trawling and scallop dredging in the Arctic. Impacts of fishing on non-target species, vulnerable habitats and cultural heritage. Thema Nord 529.  Gunnarsson, K., Jónsson, G., & Pálsson, O. K. (1998). Sjávarnytjar við Ísland (p. 280 p). Reykjavík: Mál og menning.  Hjøllo SS, Huse G, Skogen MD, Melle W. (2012). Modeling secondary production in the Norwegian Sea with a fully coupled physical/primary production/individual-based Calanus finmarchicus model system. Marine Biology Research 8:508-526.  Hønneland, G. (2013), Making Fishery Agreements Work, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.  http://en.ni.is/ The Icelandic Institute of Natural History.  http://www.fiskistofa.is/english The Directorate of Fisheries  http://www.fisheries.is/management/ Icelandic Fisheries  http://www.icelandsustainable.is/isf-partners.html Iceland Sustainable Fisheries  http://www.hafro.is/undir_eng.php?ID=26&REF=4 The Marine and Freshwater Research Institute.  http://www.fishbase.org Blue whiting  http://www.iucnredlist.org/ The IUCN red list of threatened species.  https://www.cites.org/eng/app/index.php The CITES Appendices.  http://odims.ospar.org/maps/?limit=100&offset=0 The OSPAR Commission.  http://www.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/default.aspx?page=2025 The European Marine Observation and Data Network: EMODnet.  http://eu-fp7-coralfish.net/ The CoralFish Project.  Icelandic National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (Ministry for the Environment). Page 17. https://eng.umhverfisraduneyti.is/media/PDF_skrar/Sjalfbar__roun_enska.pdf  Iceland Regulation No. 224/2006, 14 March 2006, on Weighing and Recording of Catch.  Iceland Regulation 557/2007 on the use of logbooks.  Iceland Regulation 1164/2011 on banning the catch of halibut.  ICES Advice 2008, Book 2. Greenland and Iceland ecosystem overview.  ICES 2008, ICES Advice 2008, Book 4. Faroe plateau ecosystem overview.  ICES. 2008. EC/Faroe Islands/Iceland/Norway request on long-term management of blue whiting. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2008. ICES Advice 2008, Book 9, Section 9.3.2.9.  ICES 2012. Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Pelagic Stocks (WKPELA 2012) 13–17 February 2012 Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2012/ACOM:47  ICES. 2013a. NEAFC request to ICES to evaluate the harvest control rule element of the long-term management plan for blue whiting. Special request, Advice May 2013. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2013. ICES Advice 2013, Book 9, Section 9.3.3.1.  ICES. 2013b. NEAFC request on additional management plan evaluation for blue whiting. Special request, Advice October 2013. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2013. ICES Advice 2013, Book 9, Section 9.3.3.7.  ICES. 2014a. First Interim Report of the Stock Identification Methods Working Group (SIMWG), by correspondence. ICES CM 2014/SSGSUE:02. 31 pp.  ICES 2014b. Report of the Working Group of International Pelagic Surveys (WGIPS). ICES CM 2014/SSGESS:01

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 87

 ICES. 2014c. Advice basis. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2014. ICES Advice 2014, Book 1, Section 1.2.  ICES 2014d. Report of the Working Group on Widely Distributed Stocks (WGWIDE), 26 August – 1 September 2014, ICES HQ, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2014/ACOM:15. 945 pp.  ICES. 2015. Advice basis. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2015. ICES Advice 2015, Book 1, Section 1.2.  ICES, 2016a Report of the Working Group on Widely Distributed Stocks (WGWIDE) 31 August–6 September 2016, ICES HQ, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2016/ACOM:16. Annexe 22 http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Stock%20Annexes/2016/whbcom_S A.pdf  ICES. 2016b. General context of ICES advice. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2016. ICES Advice 2016, Book 1, Section 1.2.  ICES. 2016c. Report of the Inter-Benchmark Protocol for Blue Whiting (IBPBLW), 10 March–10 May 2016, by correspondence. ICES CM 2016/ACOM:36. 118 pp.  ICES. 2016d. Report of the Workshop on Blue Whiting Long Term Management Strategy Evaluation (WKBWMS), 30 August 2016ICES HQ, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2016/ACOM:53  ICES, 2016e. ICES Special Request Advice Northeast Atlantic. NEAFC request to ICES to evaluate a long-term management strategy for the fisheries on the blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou) stock. ICES Advice 2016, Book 9, section 9.4.2. Published 30 September 2016. 10pp.  ICES 2016 advice on cod.  Kaiser, M.J., Clarke, K.R., Hinz, H., Austen M.C.V., Somerfield, P.J., Karakassis, I. 2006. Global analysis of response and recovery of benthic biota to fishing. Marine Ecology Progress Series: Vol. 311: 1–14, 2006. doi:10.3354/meps311001. http://www.int- res.com/abstracts/meps/v311/p1-14/  Kokorsch, M., Karlsdóttir, A. and Benediktsson, K. (2015), ‘Improving or overturning the ITQ system? Views of stakeholders in Icelandic fisheries’, Maritime Studies 14:15.  Kristjansson, L. (1985). Íslenskir sjávarhættir - 4 (p. 546 p). Reykjavík, Iceland: Bókaútgafa Menningarsjóðs. (In Icelandic).  Mackinson, S. and Daskalov, G., 2007. An ecosystem model of the North Sea to support an ecosystem approach to fisheries management: description and parameterisation. Sci. Ser. Tech Rep., Cefas Lowestoft, 142: 196pp. https://www.cefas.co.uk/publications/techrep/tech142.pdf  Mendy, A.N. and Buchary, E. 2001. Constructing an Icelandic marine ecosystem model for 1997 using a mass-balance modelling approach. Book Fisheries Impacts on North Atlantic Ecosystems: Models and Analyses, Publisher: Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Editors: S. Guénette, V. Christensen, D. Pauly, pp.182-197.  NEAFC Dispute Resolution Mechanism, Annex K – Amendment of the Convention on Dispute Settlement, 2004.  NEAFC: Recommendation 2:2017 on Conservation and Management Measures for Blue Whiting in the NEAFC Regulatory Area for 2017. https://www.neafc.org/system/files/Rec.2%20-%20Blue-Whiting.pdf  Nielsen, A., and Berg, C.W. 2014. Estimation of time-varying selectivity in stock assessments using state-space models. Fisheries Research, 158: 96-10  Ólafsdóttir S.H. and Burgos J.M. 2012. Cold water coral conservation in Iceland and the North Atlantic. Environmental Conditions in Icelandic Waters 2011. Hafrannsóknir 162, pp. 30-35.  Pawson, M.G. 1979. Blue Whiting. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Directorate of Fisheries Research, Laboratory Leaflet No.45, Lowestoft, 17p.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 88

 Þór, J. Þ. (2003). Sjósókn og sjávarfang - Saga sjávarútvegs a Íslandi - 2. bindi - Uppgangsár og barningaskeið (p. 296 p). Akureyri, Iceland: Bókaútgafan Hólar. (In Icelandic)  Þór, J. Þ. (2005). Sjósókn og sjávarfang - Saga sjávarútvegs a Íslandi - 3. bindi - Nýsköpunaröldin (p. 286 p). Akureyri, Iceland: Bókaútgafan Hólar. (In Icelandic)  Russell, F.S. 1976. The eggs and planktonic stages of British marine fishes. Academic Press, New York. 524pp.  The Atlanto-Scandian Herring Arbitration (The Kingdom of Denmark in respect of the Faroe Islands v. The European Union), Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague, 2003.  The Icelandic Institute of Natural History, Ministry of Environment, 2001. Biological diversity in Iceland  UN Fish Stocks Agreement, 1995.  UN Law of the Sea Convention, 1982.  Utne K.R., Huse G., Ottersen G., Holst J. C., Zabavnikov V., Oskarsson G. J., Nøttestad L. Horizontal distribution and overlap of planktivorous fish stocks in the Norwegian Sea during summers 1995–2006, Marine Biology Research , 2012, vol.8 (pg. 420-441). http://www.academia.edu/6650650/Utne_et_al._Horizontal_distribution_MBR_2012  Valdimarsson, H., Astthorsson, O. S., Palsson, J. 2012. Hydrographic variability in Icelandic waters. ICES Journal of Marine Science (2012), 69(5), 816 –825. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fss027.  Wheeler, A. 1969. The fishes of the British Isles and North-West Europe. Macmillan, London, 613pp.  Worsøe Clausen, L., Power, G., Timoshenko, N. and Tangen, O. 2005. Report of the Blue Whit-ing Otolith Ageing Workshop. ICES Planning Group on Commercial Catch, Discards and Biological Sampling (PGCCDBS). Co-sponsored by the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1639/2001.  Webster, C. 2016. Impacts of benthic trawling on sponge community composition around Western Iceland. MSc Thesis. University College London (UCL).  Ystuvíkurstrýtur chimneys  Zeller, D. and Freire, K.2001. A North East Atlantic marine ecosystem model for the Faroe Islands (ICES Area Vb)  Zeller, D. and Reinert, J. 2004. Modelling Spatial Closures and Fishing Effort Restrictions in the Faroe Islands Marine Ecosystem. Ecological Modelling 172(2):403-420. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2003.09.020

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 89

APPENDIX 1 SCORING AND RATIONALES Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale

Principle 1: All UoCs. Evaluation Table for 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 SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Stock status relative to recruitment impairment Guide It is likely that the stock It is highly likely that There is a high degree post is above the point where the stock is above the of certainty that the recruitment would be PRI. stock is above the PRI. impaired (PRI).

Met? Y Y Y Justifi The biomass limit level is set at 1.5 million tonnes which is based on an cation approximation of Bloss, the lowest observed SSB in the time series dating back to 1981. The retrospective values of SSB in the most recent assessment show that the lowest values observed in that time series were 1,37 million tonnes in 1990 (1.13/1.65 95%CI) and 1.54 million tonnes in 1989 (1.29 /1.85 95% CI). In the absence of a good stock and recruitment relationship Bloss is an acceptable proxy for the point below which recruitment would be impaired. ICES re-evaluated the biomass limit level in 2013 and again in 2016 and recommended that it remains unchanged. The SSB in 2015 was estimated at 4.29 million tonnes (6.14/-3.00 95% CI) which is almost three times the biomass limit level. The provisional estimate of SSB at spawning time in 2016 was 5.03 million tonnes (8.24/3.07 95% CI). The lower 95% confidence interval estimate in 2015 and 2016 is twice the biomass limit level. The provision of the 95% confidence intervals in the SAM model provides strong evidence that the stock is above a point where recruitment would be impaired with a high degree of certainty (95% probability). The requirement at SG 100 is fully met. b Stock status in relation to achievement of MSY Guide The stock is at or There is a high degree post fluctuating around a level of certainty that the consistent with MSY. stock has been fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years. Met? Y N Justifi SSB reference points were all reviewed by ICES in 2013 and again in 2016. The cation MSY Btrigger and Precautionary approach reference points were all confirmed at 2.25 million tonnes. The 95% confidence interval lowest estimate of SSB in 2015 was 3 million tonnes and the preliminary lowest estimate in 2016 was 3.1 million tonnes. The last time that the SSB was below MSY B trigger was in 1996 (2.21 million tonnes) and the last time that the 95% confidence level low estimate was below MSY B trigger was in 2011 (2.08 million tonnes). Since 1998 the SSB has generally been well above 3 million tonnes only falling below that level from 2009 to 2011. The 95% confidence interval on the estimate of SSB confirms the lowest estimated low value since 1997 was 2.07 million tonnes, in 2010. Whilst there is a high degree of certainty that the SSB has been above its target

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 90

The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low PI 1.1.1 probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue reference point over recent years the same confidence cannot be applied to the estimates of fishing mortality. F MSY is set at 0.32, confirmed in 2016 on the basis of stochastic simulations with segmented regression stock / recruitment relationship. The retrospective estimates of F in the 2016 assessment show that fishing mortality was below F MSY from 2009 to 2013 but then increased in 2014 and 2015 to F 0.382 and F 0.465 respectively. The preliminary estimate for the 2016 fishery indicates a small reduction to F 0.386. This dramatic increase in F has been the result of the failure on the part of the Coastal States to reach an agreement on the national allocation of the TAC and the consequential breakdown of the long-term management plan. This specific issue is dealt with under PI 1.2.1 The status of the stock in relation to MSY B trigger and the low fishing mortalities between 2009 and 2013 (below F MSY) confirms that the stock can be considered to meet the requirements at SG 80 to be fluctuating around its target reference point. However, because of the recent high levels of fishing mortality, which preliminary estimates show will remain above F MSY in 2016, the stock does not achieve the high degree of certainty required at SG 100. ICES, 2013a; ICES, 2013b; ICES, 2014c; ICES, 2015; ICES, 2016a; ICES, 2016b References

Stock Status relative to Reference Points Type of reference Value of reference Current stock status point point relative to reference point Reference MSY Btrigger, Bpa, a. million tonnes 2015: 4.29 million t (3.00 / point used in 6.14 95% CI) scoring Blim (B loss) 1.5 million tonnes 2016: 5.03 million t (3.07 / stock 8.24 95% CI) relative to PRI (SIa) Reference MSY B trigger a. million tonnes 2015: 4.29 million t (3.00 / point used in 6.14 95% CI) scoring 2016: 5.03 million t (3.07 / stock 8.24 95% CI) relative to

MSY (SIb) 2015: F 0.465 (.712 / .304 F MSY F 0.32 95% CI) F pa F 0.53 2016: Preliminary F 0.386 Flim F 0.88 (0.702 / 0.212 95% CI)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Evaluation Table PI 1.1.1. Alternative is deleted as blue whiting is not considered as a Key Low Trophic Level species as is not listed as a species by default in CR V2.0 SA 2.2.10 (Box SA1). Evaluation Table PI 1.1.2. Stock rebuilding is not applicable as the stock is not in a rebuilding situation.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 91

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding Evaluation Table PI 1.1.2. Stock rebuilding is not applicable as the stock is not in a rebuilding situation. Where the stock is reduced, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within PI 1.1.2 a specified timeframe Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Rebuilding timeframes Guide A rebuilding timeframe is The shortest practicable post specified for the stock rebuilding timeframe is that is the shorter of specified which does not 20 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? N/A N/A Justifi cation b Rebuilding evaluation Guide Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that There is strong evidence post determine whether the the rebuilding strategies that the rebuilding rebuilding strategies are are rebuilding stocks, or strategies are rebuilding effective in rebuilding the it is likely based on stocks, or it is highly stock within the specified simulation modelling, likely based on timeframe. exploitation rates or simulation modelling, previous performance exploitation rates or that they will be able to previous performance rebuild the stock within that they will be able to the specified timeframe. rebuild the stock within the specified timeframe. Met? N/A N/A N/A Justifi cation References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: N/A CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 92

Evaluation Table for 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 Guide The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is post expected to achieve responsive to the state of responsive to the state of stock management the stock and the the stock and is objectives reflected in PI elements of the harvest designed to achieve 1.1.1 SG80. strategy work together stock management towards achieving stock objectives reflected in PI management objectives 1.1.1 SG80. reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Met? Y Y N Justifi A long-term management plan (Harvest control rule) was agreed by Norway, the cation EU, Faroe Islands and Iceland, constituting the Coastal States, in November 2008. This management plan was operative and effective in the management of the fishery from 2010 to 2014. The operation of the management plan within the Coastal States Agreement began to break down in 2014 during negotiations on the allocation of the advised TAC of 840kt for the 2015 fishery. Since then the management plan has been set aside with the ICES advice provided on the basis of the MSY approach. The result has been that the participants in the fishery (the Coastal States) have unilaterally declared their intentions each year and the sum of their unilateral quotas has exceeded the advice in the 2015 and 2016 fisheries by 50% and 48% respectively. The actual catch in 2015 was 1,391kt which was 66% above the ICES advice. In the absence of an agreed and operational management plan it is reasonable to conclude that a harvest strategy based on the MSY approach should be expected to achieve the stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 at SG 80. The MSY approach should retain the stock above a point where recruitment might be impaired with an 80% probability and should ensure that the stock fluctuates around a level consistent with maximum sustainable yield. The requirements at SG 60 are therefore met. The MSY approach, with a fixed fishing mortality (F0.32) and an MSY biomass target (2.25 million t) is clearly responsive to the state of the stock and those two elements of the strategy are able to work together to set an advised catch based on the current status of the stock. This strategy should work even in the current situation where the catches of the participating countries in the fishery are exceeding the annual scientific advice; The requirements at SG 80 are met. However, whilst this MSY strategy is effective in the short term it is not designed to cope with a long-term situation where the parties involved in a fishery ignore the scientific advice. Basically, the simple MSY strategy cannot react quickly enough in a situation where the stock starts to fall towards a point where recruitment might be impaired. The MSY strategy results in a gradual reduction in F in line with falling SSB whereas a management strategy has action points, related to falling SSB, with more drastic reductions in F. This situation clearly needs a robust management strategy which progressively reduces F in line with SSB trigger levels and has a trigger level which effectively closes the fishery. The MSY approach cannot achieve that action and is therefore not designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. The requirements at SG 100 are not met. b Harvest strategy evaluation Guide The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy The performance of the post likely to work based on may not have been fully harvest strategy has prior experience or tested but evidence been fully evaluated plausible argument. exists that it is achieving and evidence exists to its objectives. show that it is achieving

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 93

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Met? Y N N Justifi The current strategy of basing the advice on the management of the fishery on cation the ICES MSY approach has a good track record in the management of some other fisheries. It can be an effective management method, which is likely to work in the absence of a formal management plan, provided that all participants in the fishery ‘sign up’ to the strategy. In this fishery the advised catch will continue to be based on the current assessment of the SSB and the MSY approach and will be reduced accordingly in line with falling SSB. The requirements at SG 60 are met. The current situation, where the long-term management plan has been set aside and the ICES MSY approach advice on the fishery is ignored, is clearly leading to a situation where the status of the stock will be adversely affected. Currently the problem is only manifested in increased fishing mortality to above F MSY. The fact that since 2011 the SSB has been increasing is mainly due to a succession of good year classes, and in particular the very strong year classes of 2013 and 2014, coming into the fishery. Clearly, as evidenced by the annual catches exceeding the advice and current level of fishing mortality, well above F MSY, the harvest strategy, based on the MSY approach, is not achieving its objectives and the requirements at SG 80 are not met. c Harvest strategy monitoring Guide Monitoring is in place post that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Met? Y Justifi There is a comprehensive stock monitoring and assessment programme in place cation which estimates current SSB and fishing mortality rates annually. This process provides the relevant data to evaluate the success of the harvest strategy. The evaluation is firmly based on accurate catch statistics, linked to rigorous monitoring and enforcement of the unilaterally declared TACs and an appropriate level of biological sampling of catches and landings. (SG 60) d Harvest strategy review Guide The harvest strategy is post periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. Met? Y Justifi The long-term management plan agreed by the Coastal States in November cation 2008 contained a clause (8) which specified a review of the plan within five years. As a result, NEAFC requested ICES, in 2013, to consider an alternative to the existing plan. Whilst this evaluation was ongoing the Coastal States failed to reach an agreement, in 2014, on the implementation of the existing plan for the management of the fishery in 2015. In 2016 NEAFC further requested ICES to produce and evaluate a long-term management strategy for the management of this fishery. Following a Workshop (WKBWMSE) and the assessment working group meeting in September 2016 an eleven point Management Strategy was produced and evaluated by ICES and endorsed as consisted with the Precautionary approach. This proposed Management Strategy, with some minor amendments, has now been agreed by Delegates at the Coastal States meeting in October 2016. This should become the basis for the ICES 2017 advice on the management of the fishery in 2018. The ICES advice for the 2016 and 2017 fisheries continued to be provided on the basis of the MSY approach.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 94

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place The ICES Workshop on the Blue Whiting Long Term Management Strategy Evaluation (WKBWMSE) also reviewed all the biological reference points and concluded that Blim should remain the same based on Bloss as there was no apparent stock and recruitment relationship but they revised Flim, Fpa and Fmsy. The revised reference points are listed in the text of this report. It is clear from the details of the NEAFC requests and the ICES responses since 2013 that the harvest strategy is kept under regular review. This is a reasonable conclusion in spite of the fact that the current long term management strategy has been set aside by the Coastal States since 2015. However, a revised management strategy has now been agreed by them and should become effective as the basis for the ICES advice in 2017 (SG 100 is fully met). e Shark finning Guide It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree post finning is not taking shark finning is not of certainty that shark place. taking place. finning is not taking place. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi cation f Review of alternative measures Guide There has been a review There is a regular There is a biennial post of the potential review 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 implemented as are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate.

Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi cation

References Anon, 2017; ICES, 2008; ICES, 2012; ICES, 2013a; ICES, 2013b; ICES, 2015; ICES, 2016a; ICES, 2016b; ICES, 2016c; ICES, 2016d; ICES, 2016e. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 70 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 1

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 95

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in PI 1.2.2 place Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a HCRs design and application Guide Generally understood Well defined HCRs are The HCRs are expected post HCRs are in place or in place that ensure to keep the stock available that are that the exploitation rate fluctuating at or above expected to reduce the is reduced as the PRI is a target level consistent exploitation rate as the approached, are with MSY, or another point of recruitment expected to keep the more appropriate level impairment (PRI) is stock fluctuating taking into account the approached. around a target level ecological role of the consistent with (or stock, most of the time. above) MSY, or for key LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. Met? Y N Justifi Clearly the current long term management plan, on which the annual TAC is cation based, has all the elements at SG 60 in place and available. The TAC rules and the general basis on which they are established, do have a commonality throughout the ICES area and the rules are well defined and understood throughout the relevant sections of the fishing industry. The rules governing the subsequent allocation of the TAC in this fishery, both nationally and by area, through the Coastal States Agreement, are also well defined and understood. The management plan has clear rules which effectively reduce the fishing effort, and thus the resultant advised annual TAC, if the SSB falls below the Management plan trigger level of 2.25 million tones. Fishing effort is effectively reduced to zero (F0.05) if the SSB is predicted to fall to the biomass limit level of 1.5 million tones. The rules governing this type of harvest strategy are common and are generally well understood within the fishing industry. In spite of the fact that the current management plan has been set aside by the Coastal States it is still in place and available. A revised Management Strategy has been developed by ICES, in response to a NEAFC request, and has now been agreed by the Coastal States. The current management of this fishery clearly meets the requirements at SG 60 that generally understood harvest control rules are available which are expected to reduce exploitation rate as the recruitment impairment level is approached (SG 60). However, the requirements at SG 80 specifically require the rules to be in place which we define as ‘operational’. The current situation is that the long-term management plan has been set aside and although a revised management strategy has been agreed by all parties to the Coastal States agreement it has not yet been used as the basis for ICES advice on the management of the fishery. In this situation, the more rigorous requirements at SG 80 are not yet met. b HCRs robustness to uncertainty Guide The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account post robust to the main of 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 affecting the harvest control rule is the reliability of the

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 96

There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in PI 1.2.2 place cation annual stock assessment in estimating current SSB and fishing mortality. These estimates underpin all the advice provided by the ICES advisory committee on managing the stock. Some of that uncertainty is addressed within the new SAM modelling procedure which provides 95% confidence intervals on the annual estimates of SSB and F and recruitment although there is no evidence at present that this is used in setting the TAC. ICES currently consider that there is a low to moderate uncertainty in the absolute estimates of SSB and F although the recent recruitment estimates have a high degree of uncertainty There is considerable uncertainty regarding the stock identity over the geographic range of the species in the Northeast Atlantic. In the absence of definitive data to support stock or component separation the harvest control rules are uniformly applied over the whole distribution range. The catch data from this fishery are considered by ICES to be of good quality. Estimates of discarding rates are provided by some countries and they are seen to be very low. ICES confirms that any difference between catches and recorded landings is negligible and does not affect the reliability of the stock assessment.

From 2010 to 2013, the management plan was effective and international compliance with the agreed TAC, based on the ICES advice, good. However, issues of equitable sharing of the advised TAC arose within the Coastal States in 2014 and the management plan was subsequently set aside. This has led to the declared, unilateral, catch intentions of all the participants exceeding the advised exploitation level since 2014. This situation was not satisfactorily resolved by delegates at the last Coastal States meeting in October 2016 and countries are therefore likely to continue to declare their intentions unilaterally for the foreseeable future Whilst the requirements at SG 80 for the rules to take into account the main uncertainties there is no evidence that the design of the harvest control rules can take into account these current management problems. The more rigorous requirements at SG 100 are therefore not met c HCRs evaluation Guide There is some evidence Available evidence Evidence clearly post that tools used or indicates that the tools shows that the tools in available to implement in use are appropriate use are effective in HCRs are appropriate and effective in achieving achieving the and effective in the exploitation levels exploitation levels controlling exploitation. required under the HCRs. required under the HCRs.

Met? Y N N Justifi At the generic level, setting an annual TAC, based on a reliable annual estimate cation of stock status, backed by either a precautionary long term Management plan or an MSY strategy, together with technical measures, does have a reliable track record for many stocks in the Northeast Atlantic. The management of the North East Atlantic Blue whiting stock has had a management plan in place up to 2014 although management is now based on the MSY approach. The management is supported by rigorous surveillance, monitoring and enforcement of the national declared quotas together with technical measures. Levels of discarding in the various national fisheries are considered by ICES to be very low and total landings are considered to be a reasonable estimate of the actual catch. This provides some evidence from past performance, that the harvest control rules and tools, currently in place, are effective and are appropriate methods to control exploitation satisfying the requirements at SG60. The overarching TAC harvest control rule has a chequered history of success over recent years in controlling exploitation within the constraints of the precautionary approach the long-term management plan and more recently the MSY approach. The Table below clearly shows that since 2006 there have been periods when the catch grossly exceeded the ICES advice and the agreed TAC. The situation prior to that back to 1998 was even worse with catches exceeding the advice by up to three times. Responsibility for the allocation of the annual

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 97

There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in PI 1.2.2 place TAC is administered by a Coastal States Agreement which for this fishery involves the European Union, the Faroe Islands, Iceland and Norway. For the 2010 to 2013 fisheries the Management plan and the performance of all the harvest control rules ensured that catches were in line with the advised TAC. However, since then, and because of the lack of agreement on the implementation of the management plan, actual catches have grossly exceeded the advised catch (Table below). As a consequence, the currently available evidence does not support the more rigorous requirements at SG80. Furthermore, in spite of an agreement, in October 2016, on the part of the Coastal States to a revised long-term management strategy for the stock, there is currently no evidence, and no indication from the Coastal States, that resultant TAC advice will be complied with.

ICES advice * TAC * ICES catch* % catch vs advice 2006 1,500 2,100 1,966 +31 2007 980 1847 1,612 +75 2008 835 1,250 1,252 +49 2009 384 606 635 +65 2010 540 548 540 - 2011 40-223 40 104 ?? 2012 391 391 376 - 2013 643 643 614 -4.5% 2014 950 1200 1148 +20 2015 840 1260 1391 +66 2016 776 1147 1147* +48 2017 1342 *Preliminary

References Anon, 2017; ICES, 2012; ICES, 2014c; ICES, 2014d; ICES, 2015; ICES, 2016a; ICES, 2016b; ICES, 2016c; ICES, 2016d; ICES, 2016e; OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 65 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 2

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 98

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Range of information Guide Some relevant Sufficient relevant A comprehensive post information related to information related to range of information (on stock structure, stock stock structure, stock stock structure, stock productivity and fleet productivity, fleet productivity, fleet composition is available composition and other composition, stock to support the harvest data is available to abundance, UoA strategy. support the harvest removals and other strategy. 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 stock is distributed in the Northeast Atlantic from the Mediterranean along cation the continental shelf west of Europe and extends northwards into Icelandic waters the Norwegian Sea and as far North as Bear Island and Svalbard in the Barents Sea. Stock structure over this wide area is uncertain. Morphological, physiological, and genetic research has suggested that there may be several components of the stock which mix in the spawning area west of the British Isles. Due to the large population size, its considerable migratory capabilities and wide spatial distribution, the stock composition and dynamics require continued monitoring. Prior to 1993 it was assumed that blue whiting had two components, a northern and a southern component. The northern stock was known to feed in the Norwegian Sea and spawn to the west of the British Isles. The southern stock was found along the continental shelf off the coast of Spain and Portugal with the main spawning areas towards the Porcupine Bank. The Porcupine Bank was considered a transitional area between the two main stocks (ICES, 1990). In 1993 it was argued that there was no strong evidence to maintain this division between the two stocks (ICES, 2016b Stock Annexe) Therefore for stock assessment purposes it is not considered possible to differentiate between various stock components and the stock is assessed and managed as a single unit. Prior to 1974 there was very little fishing on this small member of the cod family mainly because of its size and the difficulty of catching it in commercial quantities outside the spawning season and in the spawning areas when it concentrates into dense shoals. It is essentially an oceanic pelagic species found most commonly at depths of 300m to 600m with large diurnal migrations of up to 100m depth at night. Adults reach maturation at 2-7 years old and undertake long annual migrations from the feeding grounds to the spawning grounds (Bailey, 1982). Spawning is off the continental shelf from March to May although at the southern end of its range they may begin spawning as early as late January to early February. Juveniles are abundant in many areas, with an important nursery area believed to be the Norwegian Sea, at least in times of high abundance. The ICES assessment working group provide information on the size and structure of the national fleets exploiting the resource which includes vessel sizes, gear types and catches by gear type. This data base is updated annually in the relevant Annexe to the working group report (ICES, 2016b: Stock Annexe). There is a single acoustic survey providing fishery independent information on stock productivity in support of the assessment and resultant harvest strategy. The requirements at SG 60 and SG 80 are fully met. The routine collection of landings data at the national level is considered by ICES

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 99

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy to be a reliable estimate of the actual catches (ICES, 2016b) There is a programme of monitoring the landings and scientific sampling of those landings to provide the vital information on age, weight growth and sex in support of the harvest strategy. The levels of scientific sampling by country are variable with some countries that take small catches not carrying out any sampling at all. ICES considers that current precision levels of the sampling intensity are unknown and recommends that the sampling frequency and intensity should be reviewed. There is one fishery independent survey carried out in support of the annual stock assessment. This is the International Blue Whiting Spawning Stock Survey (IBWSS) carried out on the spawning grounds west of the British Isles in March- April. The survey started in 2004 and is carried out by Norway, Russia, the Faroe Islands and the EU. The survey provides abundance indices of age 3—8yrs. In addition to this survey other surveys covering parts of the distribution area of blue whiting provide useful background information including environmental data not directly linked to the harvest strategy. The international ecosystem survey of the Nordic Seas and the Norwegian bottom trawl survey provide useful qualitative estimates of recruitment. This comprehensive range of data fully satisfies the requirements at SG 100. b Monitoring Guide Stock abundance and Stock abundance and All information post UoA removals are UoA removals are required by the harvest monitored and at least regularly monitored at control rule is monitored one indicator is available a level of accuracy and with high frequency and and monitored with coverage consistent a high degree of sufficient frequency to with the harvest certainty, and there is a support the harvest control rule, and one or good understanding of control rule. more indicators are inherent uncertainties available and monitored in the information [data] with sufficient frequency and the robustness of to support the harvest assessment and control rule. management to this uncertainty. Met? Y Y N Justifi The total landings data are adequately monitored and most uncertainty related cation to their validity is removed through national monitoring and surveillance programmes. Monitoring of landings in support of the TAC control is carried out contemporaneously with the fishery and enforcement action can be introduced quickly. Discarding is considered to be negligible in this fishery and catches are assumed to be the same as landings. Most of the blue whiting caught in directed fisheries are used for reduction to fishmeal and fish oil. However, there may be a small amount of unrecorded discarding in the fisheries for human consumption and when taken as an unwanted by-catch in other fisheries although there is a legal requirement to land the whole catch. The main fishing nations, Norway, Russia, Iceland and the Faroes accounted for approximately 85% of the total catch in 2015. These major participants all complied with the requirement to carry out scientific sampling of the landings. All the relevant information required for an annual stock assessment in support of the harvest control rule is appropriately monitored. There is only one fishery independent survey used in the assessment, an extensive acoustic survey covering the spawning area spatially and temporally which provides an abundance index for fish ages 3-8 yrs. The state space assessment model used for this stock since 2012 is able to take into consideration a wide range of uncertainty and provides a reliable assessment of stock status with 95% confidence intervals on all parameters. This fully supports the requirements at SG 60 and SG 80.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 100

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

There are some other sources of uncertainty which have an impact on the stock assessment process and resultant harvest control rules. These tend to come mainly from the problem of stock identity. Although there is scientific evidence to support the hypothesis of two components, operationally there is insufficient information for ICES to conduct separate assessments. This source of uncertainty does have an impact on the robustness of the assessment in support of the harvest control rules. As a consequence of this single issue the fishery does not meet all of the rigorous requirements demanded of the high degree of certainty at SG 100. c Comprehensiveness of information Guide There is good post information on all other fishery removals from the stock. Met? Y Justifi There is a requirement that by-catches of blue whiting in other fisheries (e.g. cation mackerel and Norwegian spring spawning herring fisheries) are landed, recorded and counted against the Blue whiting quota. Most of this fishery takes place in the spawning area at spawning time and evidence of bycatches suggests that it is a relatively clean fishery.

References Bailey, 1982; Ekerhovd, 2008; ICES, 2014a; ICES, 2016a; Paswon, 1979; Russell, 1976; Wheeler, 1969; Worsøe Clausen et al, 2005. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 101

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue 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 features relevant to the control rule. biology of the species and the nature of the UoA. Met? Y Y Justifi The Blue whiting assessment was benchmarked February 2012 (ICES 2012b) cation and the State Space Assessment (SAM) model (Nielsen and Berg, 2014) was chosen as the default assessment model for the stock. This model is now being widely used in the assessment of stocks in the ICES area and is considered entirely suitable for this Blue whiting stock assessment. The model offers a flexible way of describing the entire system with relatively few model parameters. Compared with the previous model, SAM gives a slightly better fit to catch data as it allows variations in exploitation pattern from year to year. The assessment output from the SAM and the previous model is almost identical, such that the perception of the stock remains unchanged using SAM. This is a welcome feature as the model has significantly changed the perception of stock status when introduced for some other stocks. Although SAM is now being increasingly used as the preferred assessment modelling framework within ICES, the model is still in its infancy and there are some shortcomings. Although the model has been published in a peer reviewed paper, there is currently no manual on its use. In spite of these shortcomings the model is generally recognised as entirely appropriate for this blue whiting stock and it is able to take into account the major features relevant to the biology of this species and the nature of this bulk catch bulk landing spawning fishery. As a part of the ongoing routine procedures within ICES to review and improve the stock assessment process an Inter-Benchmark Protocol on Blue Whiting (IBPBLW, 2016) was set up in the spring 2016. Their main remit was to investigate methods for a better handling of the large uncertainties of the stock estimates from the only fishery independent tuning index, the International Blue Whiting Spawning Stock Survey (IBWSS). The workshop was also charged with examining the use of available time series of catch per unit of effort of juveniles for the estimation of recruitment. The assessment makes use of only this one survey index (plus the total catch-at-age data matrix). As a result of the deliberations during this Inter-Benchmark Protocol of Blue whiting a version of the SAM model which accounted for correlated observations (Berg and Nielsen, 2016) was tested and found to be a better model to handle “year effects" in survey indices, as observed in the 2015 IBWSS, than the default SAM model. This changed configuration of the SAM model was used for the assessment in 2016 of the status of the stock in 2015. The requirements at SG 80 and SG 100 are fully met. b Assessment approach Guide The assessment The assessment post estimates stock status estimates stock status relative to generic relative to reference reference points points that are appropriate to the appropriate to the stock species category. and can be estimated.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 102

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Met? Y Y Justifi The biological reference points were initially established in 2008, revised in 2013 cation as a result of a NEAFC request and further revised, again following a NEAFC request, in 2016 following a thorough re-investigation by an ICES Workshop. The revised reference points, their value, basis and source are listed in the text of this report. They have been endorsed by ICES as being consistent with the precautionary approach. The SAM model provides estimates of SSB, F and recruitment in the same way that the previous assessment model did. These can be easily related to the MSY and Precautionary approach biological reference points now used as the basis for the ICES advice on managing the stock. The major difference in the output from the SAM model is that the estimates of SSB, F and recruitment are provided with a high and low range representing the 95% confidence intervals on those estimates. This should prove to be an invaluable tool for the management of this fishery. Then requirements at SG 60 and SG 80 are fully met. c Uncertainty in the assessment Guide The assessment The assessment takes The assessment takes post identifies major uncertainty into account. into account uncertainty sources of uncertainty. and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The major source of uncertainty in this stock assessment is the issue of stock cation identity. It is recognised that there are probably two stock components a northern and a southern unit. However, there is currently no way in which the catch or survey data from the two areas could be separated and used independently in a stock assessment process. For stock assessment purposes Blue whiting over the whole area of its distribution in the Northeast Atlantic has to be treated as a single stock. This has implications for the single survey tuning index used in the assessment where there are differences in the quality of the data from the northern and southern stock units. As a result there is a tendency for the assessment to better reflect what is happening in the northern component of the stock. The stock assessment also shows a moderate uncertainty in the absolute estimates of SSB and F and higher uncertainty in the estimate of recruiting year classes. With the new assessment model (SAM) most of these areas of uncertainty are satisfactorily addressed. This fully statistical model is able to down weight the influence of observed parameters according to estimated variances on those observations. The uncertainties in the assessment are expressed as variances on the final estimates of SSB, F and Recruitment with 95% confidence intervals on those final estimates. This fully satisfies the requirement to evaluate stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. SG 100. d Evaluation of assessment Guide The assessment has post been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 103

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status explored. Met? Y Justifi Exploration of alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches forms a cation routine element of the terms of reference for the ICES assessment working groups and is thoroughly addressed when time permits. It is also a major part of the regular benchmark assessments of each stock. At the benchmark assessment of this stock in 2012 rigorous exploration of the existing SMS assessment model and other alternatives was carried out. This resulted in the recommendation to abandon the existing model in favour of the State Space model (SAM). As noted in scoring issue (a) above ICES set up an Inter-Benchmark Protocol on Blue Whiting (IBPBLW) To examine various elements of the SAM model and the way certain data was handled. As a result of their investigations a change was recommended and accepted by ICES to use a recently updated version of the model. This changed configuration was then used for the assessment in 2016 of the status of the stock in 2015. The rigorous process of review and examination of existing procedures and exploration of potential change fully complies with the requirements at SG 100. e Peer review of assessment Guide The assessment of stock The assessment has post status is subject to peer been internally and review. externally peer reviewed. Met? Y N Justifi All ICES assessments are rigorously peer reviewed internally by the ICES cation advisory committee on fisheries management (ACOM) before being released into the public domain and before being used to present advice on the management of the fishery. In addition to this internal review process the published assessment reports and related advice are reviewed by the scientists and administrators from the EU, Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands through the Coastal States meetings and by NEAFC. They all have specialist advisors who are able to review, and question where necessary, the veracity of the conclusions on stock status and the related advice on the management of the stock. In the case of NEAFC they can table specific requests for ICES to address particular topics related to the assessment process. Assessments, assessment methods, management procedures and advice are also subject to frequent scrutiny by a range of third parties from the fishing industry itself through the Regional Advisory Committees to a variety of environmental NGOs. These organisations take a very professional approach to their responsibilities and usually contract stock assessment specialists to review and report back to them on the assessment process. In this way, they are able to play an active role in the decision-making process on the management of the fishery. An integral part of the ICES peer review process is to commission occasional external reviews of specific stock assessments and in particular benchmark assessments. These external reviews involve specialists from other countries, either not directly involved with that specific stock or completely outside the ICES stock assessment system. Because of the relatively recent change to the SAM model this assessment has not yet been subjected to this process This rigorous process clearly fully satisfies the requirements for peer review at SG 80 and most of the requirements at SG 100. However, because of the lack of evidence of a formal external peer review of the use of the new assessment method (the SAM model) the requirements at SG 100 are not yet fully met.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 104

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status

Berg and Neilsen, 2016; ICES, 2008; ICES, 2014b; ICES, 2014d; ICES, 2016a; References ICES, 2016b; ICES, 2016c; ICES, 2016d; ICES, 2016e; Neilsen and Berg, 2014; Worsøe Clausen et al, 2005. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 105

Principle 2 Two Unit of Certifications (UoC) are defined for this certificate and are distinguished according to the different gears. In the scoring table below the abbreviation “PG” (Pelagic Gear) is used for UoC1 and includes pelagic trawl (scoring element “a”) and purse seine (scoring element “b”). The abbreviation “BT” is used for UoC2 and includes bottom trawl. Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not PI 2.1.1 hinder recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Main primary species stock status Guide Main primary species are Main primary species are There is a high degree post likely to be above the highly likely to be of certainty that main PRI above the PRI primary species are above the PRI and are OR OR fluctuating around a level If the species is below If the species is below consistent with MSY. the PRI, the UoA has the PRI, there is either measures in place that evidence of recovery are expected to ensure or a demonstrably that the UoA does not effective strategy in hinder recovery and place between all MSC rebuilding. UoAs which categorise this species as main, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? Y Y Y PG Met? Y Y 95 BT Justifi According to MSC CRv2 SA3.1.3.3, primary species are those where cation management tools and measures are in place, intended to achieve stock management objectives reflected in either limit or target reference points. Main primary species would be those comprising 5% or more of the global catch (per gear), or those less resilient species comprising more than 2% of the catch (MSC CR v2 SA 3.4.2.2).

Landing statistics shown in Table 17 and Table 18 show that, for both scoring elements a and b of the pelagic blue whiting fishery, which takes place in Faroese waters, the only main primary species is Norwegian spring spawning herring. As for the bottom trawl fishery, which operates in Icelandic waters targeting other demersal species, and where blue whiting is only caught as bycatch, main primary species are cod, golden redfish, saithe, haddock, Greenland halibut and Greater silver smelt.

According to the Icelandic Marine and Freshwater Research Institute advice, stock status of these species is in the following situation:

Norwegian spring spawning herring: The stock is declining and estimated to be at BPA in 2016. The available information indicates that year classes after 2004 have all been small. Fishing mortality in 2015 is estimated to be below FMSY. Therefore, even though the stock is declining, Fishing mortality is below FMSY and biomass is above BPA. SG100 is granted for scoring elements a and b in UoC1. As for main primary species for the bottom trawl fishery, and according to the

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 106

The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not PI 2.1.1 hinder recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. MFRI advice, stock status of these species is in the following situation:

Cod: Estimated SSB is larger than in the past 40 years. Harvest rate is at a low value. Biomass is above Btrigger. SG100. Golden redfish: Fishing mortality since 2010 has been estimated to be around FMSY. Spawning-stock biomass has steadily increased for the past 20 years and is well above MSY Btrigger. SG 100. Saithe: Stock size has increased in recent years and the SSB is now close to the average of 1980–2015. Recruitment in 2009–2015 was relatively constant and about 20% higher than the average. Harvest rate in 2015 was below HRMSY. Biomass well above Btrigger. SG100. Haddock: SSB has decreased in recent years but is above Btrigger. Harvest rate is at a low level. Biomass is above Btrigger. SG100. Greenland halibut: Fishing mortality has decreased in recent years, and is estimated to be relatively close to FMSY. Biomass is slowly increasing, and above Btrigger. SG100. Greater silver smelt: MFRI advice for this species doesn’t give an indication of biomass stock status. The survey index indicated an increase in stock biomass in 2014 and a decrease in 2015. Fproxy has decreased since 2010 and has been below the target Fproxy since 2014. MFRI advices that, when the precautionary approach is applied, catches in the fishing year 2016/2017 should be no more than 7885 tones. Landing statistics for year 2016 recorded 5625 landed tones in 2016. The species, which comprises 2,18% of bottom trawl total catch, is considered highly likely to be above PRI, but a high degree of certainty can’t be assured. The species reach SG80.

Scoring element UoC2 SG60 SG80 SG100

Cod Y Y Y

Golden redfish Y Y Y

Saithe Y Y Y

Haddock Y Y Y

Greenland halibut Y Y Y

Greater silver smelt Y Y N

Bottom trawlers reach SG95, according to MSC CR v2 Table 4 on combining scoring elements. b Minor primary species stock status Guide Minor primary species post are highly likely to be above the PRI OR If below the PRI, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of minor primary species Met? N PG

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 107

The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not PI 2.1.1 hinder recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. Met? N BT Justifi Minor primary species include Atlantic wolfish, ling, plaice, lemon sole, blue ling, cation anglerfish, witch and tusk for both UoCs. Besides, minor species for both scoring elements in UoC 1 include golden redfish, deepwater redfish, greeter silver smelt, cod, saithe, Greenland halibut, haddock, Norway redfish, whiting and Bluefin tuna, while minor species for UoC 2 include northern shrimp, deepwater redfish, herring and dab. None of all minor primary species weight more than 1% of the global catch. There are uncertainties on the stock status of several of them, such as for lemon sole, other support a fishing mortality above FMSY, such as tusk, and other stocks are declining such as deepwater redfish or anglerfish. Even though the low proportion of each of this species in the global catch could serve to support that the UoA is not hindering the recovery of these species, the high number of secondary species along with cumulative impacts expected from other fisheries prevent both UoCs from achieving SG100.

http://www.hafro.is/Astand/2016/sild_2016.pdf http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/mac- nea.pdf http://www.hafro.is/Astand/2016/torskur_2016.pdf http://www.hafro.is/Astand/2016/gullkarfi_2016.pdf References http://www.hafro.is/Astand/2016/ufsi_2016.pdf http://www.hafro.is/Astand/2016/ysa_2016.pdf http://www.hafro.is/Astand/2016/gulllax_2016.pdf http://www.hafro.is/Astand/2016/graluda_2016.pdf http://www.hafro.is/Astand/2015/english/beakedredfish_2015.pdf http://www.hafro.is/undir_eng.php?ID=26&REF=4 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Pelagic Gears 90 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Bottom Trawl 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 108

Evaluation Table for 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 primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and PI 2.1.2 implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Management strategy in place Guide There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in post place for the UoA, if strategy in place for the place for the UoA for necessary, that are UoA, if necessary, that is managing main and expected to maintain or expected to maintain or minor primary species. to not hinder rebuilding to not hinder rebuilding of the main primary of the main primary species at/to levels which species at/to levels which are likely to above the are highly likely to be point where recruitment above the point where would be impaired. recruitment would be impaired. Met? Y Y Y PG Met? Y Y Y BT Justifi The management of fisheries in Iceland is the responsibility of the Minister of cation Fisheries and Agriculture, and is based on law. Regulations are issued annually can differ in different years. Both the Icelandic Marine Research Institute and ICES issue scientific advice on fisheries and harvesting of fish stocks. The enforcement of laws and regulations falls under the responsibility of the Directorate of Fisheries and the Coast Guard. As mentioned in PI 2.1.1, the only main primary species for both scoring element a and b in the pelagic blue whiting fishery is Norwegian spring spawning herring. A long-term management plan for the Norwegian spring spawning herring stock was agreed in 1999 (and re-evaluated in 2013) by the EU, Faroe Islands, Iceland, Norway and Russia. The catch of blue whiting and Norwegian spring spawning herring comprises 78% of global landings of this UoC. The team considers that both the existence of the management plans and the low landings of other minor primary species (which are managed through different measures) are sufficient for granting SG100 to both scoring elements a and b in this UoC (pelagic gears). SG100 is met for UoC 1. As for the bottom trawl fishery, main primary species to consider are cod, golden redfish, saithe, haddock, Greenland halibut and greater silver smelt. The Ministry of Fisheries webpage explicitly mentions cod, saithe and haddock in the description of the Icelandic fisheries management strategy. Its goal is to maintain the exploitation rate at levels which are consistent with the precautionary approach that generates MSY (maximum sustainable yield) in the long term. For achieving this, the Ministry relies on the Marine Research Institute advice on order to set quotas for the different species among different fishing vessels. These quotas shall be consistent with the national TAC. Besides, there is a landing obligation, there are gear and mesh restrictions, and both real time and permanent area closures, both set in order to protect juvenile fish. Cod, saithe and haddock are subject to TAC. Golden redfish, Greenland halibut

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 109

There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and PI 2.1.2 implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. and great silver smelt landings are subject to MRI advice on maximum catches. The catch of blue whiting and main primary species comprises 95% of the global landings of the bottom trawl fishery. Again, the team considers that both the existence of these management plans and the low landings of other minor primary species (which are managed through different measures) are sufficient for granting SG100 to this UoC (bottom trawl). b Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high post considered likely to basis for confidence confidence that the work, based on plausible that 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 comparison with similar directly about the fishery about the fishery and/or fisheries/species). and/or species involved. species involved. Met? Y Y N PG Met? Y Y N BT Justifi There is reliable information both on the landings and on the stock status state cation of all main primary species, as they are regularly monitored by MFRI which issues a fishing advice for each of them. The monitoring of the different species and the advice given serve to give confidence to the fishing strategy, as any drop of the stock will easily be noticed, and the advice would result in lower quotas or area closures. The team considers that there is some objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work for any scoring element and UoC evaluated in this assessment, but can’t provide evidence of testing. SG80 is achieved. c Management strategy implementation Guide There is some evidence There is clear evidence post that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is implemented being implemented successfully. successfully and is achieving its overall objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Y Y PG Met? Y Y BT Justifi The team considers that the landing obligation and landing sampling system, cation along with both temporary and permanent area closures, and the allocation of quotas per vessel or fleet, serve as an evidence that the strategy is fully implemented. Besides, the fact that the catch goes into catch tanks without being sorted on board also serves to give confidence on the verifiability of the sampling of the catch, which is done at the landing ports by registered operators. Sampling information can serve to implement fishing restrictions should these be considered needed. Both UoC 1 (with scoring elements a and b) and UoC 2 reach SG100.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 110

There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and PI 2.1.2 implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. d Shark finning Guide It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of post finning is not taking shark finning is not certainty that shark finning place. taking place. is not taking place.

Met? PG Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

Met? BT Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi Shark finning is not an issue in this fishery. cation e Review of alternative measures Guide There is a review of the There is a regular There is a biennial post potential effectiveness review of the potential review 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 primary unwanted catch of main unwanted catch of all species. primary species and they primary species, and are implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate.

Met? PG Y Y Y

Met? BT Y Y Y Justifi Sampling of landings serve to monitor catch composition and provide records of species cation identification and quantities landed. When a high proportion of juveniles (unwanted fish) are taken, the Directorate of Fisheries establishes a real time short term closed area, for one or two weeks. This closure is announced on the vessels radio channel. If the area continues to show a high level of juvenile in future catches, the short-term closure can become a long-term area closure if needed. Data on the sampling of the landings are review annually both by management authorities and by MFRI. Besides, if a vessel lands fish for which they have no quota left, there is a limited 5% overshoot which can be can be carried over between years without penalty, and quota can be exchanged among companies and vessels. Fishing client also works on developing new markets to make good use of unwanted catch or fish refuse. Both UoC 1 (with scoring elements a and b) and UoC 2 reach SG100.

http://www.fisheries.is/main-species/cod/management_plan/ References Act 57/1996. Amended by Act 144/2008. Act concerning the treatment of commercial marine stocks OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Pelagic gears 95 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Bottom trawl 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 111

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.3 – Primary species information Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main primary species Guide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information post adequate to estimate information is available is available and is the impact of the UoA on and is adequate to adequate to assess the main primary species assess the impact of the with a high degree of with respect to status. UoA on the main primary certainty the impact of species with respect to the UoA on main primary OR status. species with respect to If RBF is used to score PI status. OR 2.1.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score PI Qualitative information is 2.1.1 for the UoA: adeqaute to estimate productivity and Some quantitative susceptibility attributes information is adequate for main primary species. to assess productivity and susceptiblity attributes for main primary species. Met? Y Y Y PG Met? Y Y Y BT Justifi Main primary species for both scoring elements a and b in the pelagic gear: cation Norwegian spring spawning herring. Main primary species for the bottom trawl gear: cod, golden redfish, saithe, haddock, Greenland halibut and Greater silver smelt. The implementation in Iceland of landing obligation in 1973 serves to provide verifiable quantitative information on the impact of Icelandic vessels on the different species. As regards the status of these species, this is well known for all main primary species. Of those, the specie on which there is less knowledge is Greater silver smelt, but the low level of catch (2000 tons in the pelagic fishery, which takes place in Faroese fishing grounds, and 5600 tons in the bottom trawl fishery, which takes place in Icelandic waters), which is lower than the recommended catch by IMR, gives a high degree of certainty that the impact of the fishery in relation with greater silver smelt stock status is low. IMR conducts two annual demersal surveys in order to sample catch composition (size and age) of commercial catches. Data collected serves to support IMR advice of fish catches. Both UoCs reach SG100. b Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor primary species Guide Some quantitative post information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor primary species with

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 112

Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species respect to status. Met? Y PG Met? Y BT Justifi The landing obligation provides verifiable quantitative information on the impacts cation the fishery may have both on main and minor primary species. Besides, most minor primary species are subject to MRI annual advice on stock status. Therefore, SG100 is met for both scoring elements in UoC 1 and also by UoC 2. c Information adequacy for management strategy Guide Information is adequate Information is adequate Information is adequate post to support measures to to support a partial to support a strategy to manage main primary strategy to manage manage all primary species. main Primary species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? Y Y N PG Met? Y Y N BT Justifi Information collected through landing records, landing sampling and research cation surveys serves to support a strategy to manage main primary species. This is already done through the publication of fishing advice, the assignation of fishing quotas, and the management and implementation when necessary of fishing closed areas. However, the high number of minor primary species, and the fact that stock status of some of them is not always fully known, prevents the different scoring elements and UoC of the fishery from gaining SG100, as the evaluation of the effectiveness of the strategy can’t always be conducted with a high degree of certainty. http://www.fisheries.is/main-species/codfishes/ References http://www.fiskistofa.is/english/quotas-and-catches/total-catch-and-quota- status/ OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Pelagic gears 95 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Bottom trawl 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 113

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.1 – Secondary species outcome The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based PI 2.2.1 limit and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Main secondary species stock status Guide Main Secondary species Main secondary species There is a high degree post are likely to be within are highly likely to be of certainty that main biologically based limits above biologically based secondary species are limits within biologically based OR limits. OR If below biologically based limits, there are If below biologically measures in place based limits, there is expected to ensure that either evidence of the UoA does not hinder recovery or a recovery and rebuilding. demonstrably effective partial strategy in place such that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. AND Where catches of a main secondary species outside of biological limits are considerable, there is either evidence of recovery or a, demonstrably effective strategy in place between those MSC UoAs that also have considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? Y Y Y PG Met? Y Y Y BT Justifi As shown in Tables 17 and 18, the only main secondary species for UoC 1 (both cation scoring elements a and b) is mackerel. There are no main secondary species for UoC 2. According to MFRI advice on mackerel, the spawning-stock biomass (SSB) is estimated to have increased since the early 2000s and has been above MSY Btrigger since 2009. The fishing mortality (F) has been declining from high levels in the mid-2000s but remains above Fmsy. All year classes since 2005 (except for the 2013 year class) are estimated to be above average. The stock is at full reproductive capacity. Both scoring elements in UoC 1 reach SG100 due to the good stock status situation for mackerel, while UoC 2 reaches SG100 due to the inexistence of

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 114

The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based PI 2.2.1 limit and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. main secondary species in the catch. b Minor secondary species stock status Guide Minor secondary species

post are highly likely to be above biologically based limits. OR If below biologically based limits’, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of secondary species Met? N PG Met? N BT Justifi Both UoCs include the following species as minor secondary species in their cation catch: spotted wolfish, megrim, long rough dab and stary ray. Besides, secondary minor species for both scoring elements a and b in UoC 1 include: squid, black scabbardfish, roughhead grenadier, roundnose grenadier, Norway pout, lumpfish, northern wolfish, salmon, starry ray and porbeagle. UoC 2 includes whiting, mackerel, grenadiers, grey skate, spurdog and Greenland shark. Of those, the status of the following species should be highlighted:  starry ray (Amblyraja radiata: listed as vulnerable in the IUCN red list. 11,4 tonnes landed by UoC 1 in two fishing years, 2015 and 2016, and 72 tonnes landed by UoC 2 in 2015)  porbeagle (Lamna nasus: listed as Vulnerable in the IUCN red list and also listed in CITES appendix 2. 79 kilos landed by UoC 1 in two fishing years, 2015 and 2016)  Greenland shark (Somniosus microcephalus: listed as Near threatened in the IUCN red list. 14 tonnes landed in 2015 by UoC 2)  grey skate (Dipturus batis: listed as Critically Endangered in the IUCN red list. 30 tones landed in 2016 by UoC 2)  and dogfish (Squalus acanthias: listed as vulnerable in the IUCN red list. 2 tones landed in 2016 by UoC 2). As shown above, not all minor primary species are above their biologically based limits, as some of them are listed as vulnerable in the IUCN red list. The high catches of starry ray in the pelagic fishery, and of starry ray and blue skate in the bottom trawl fishery, prevent both UoC from achieving SG100.

http://www.hafro.is/Astand/2016/makrill_2016.pdf References http://www.iucnredlist.org/ OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Pelagic gears 90 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Bottom trawl 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 115

Evaluation Table for 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 PI 2.2.2 and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Management strategy in place Guide There is a strategy in There are measures in There is a partial post place for the UoA for place, if necessary, which strategy in place, if managing main and are expected to maintain necessary, for the UoA minor secondary species. or not hinder rebuilding that is expected to of main secondary maintain or not hinder species at/to levels which rebuilding of main are highly likely to be secondary species at/to within biologically based levels which are highly limits or to ensure that likely to be within the UoA does not hinder biologically based limits their recovery. or to ensure that the UoA does not hinder their recovery. Met? Y Y N PG Met? Y Y N BT Justifi The management of fisheries in Iceland is the responsibility of the Minister of cation Fisheries and Agriculture, and is based on law. Regulations are issued annually can differ in different years. Both the Icelandic Marine and Freshwater Research Institute and ICES issue scientific advice on fisheries and harvesting of fish stocks. The enforcement of laws and regulations falls under the responsibility of the Directorate of Fisheries and the Coast Guard. The avoidance of unwanted catch during fishing operations could also serve as a partial management strategy itself, as catch composition of both gears reach high proportions of target species in the catch (95% for UoC1 and 89% for UoC2). There are general measures in place in order to protect juvenile fish, such as gear and mesh restrictions, landing obligation, landing sampling and the establishment of both real time and permanent area closures. As regards mackerel (main secondary species for both scoring elements in UoC 1), the EU, Faroe Islands (where the Icelandic pelagic fishery takes place), and Norway agreed in 2015 on a long-term management strategy for North East Atlantic mackerel. The team considers these measures as a partial strategy for managing the catch, as both the pelagic gears and the bottom trawl have proven to be very selective. However, they still catch a high number (and small proportion) of different non target species which comprise the bulk of primary and secondary species. The relative small quantities of the catch of these species should serve to justify SG80 in both UoC 1 and Uoc 2, but SG100 can’t be granted as minor secondary species are no specifically managed. b Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high post considered likely to basis for confidence confidence that the work, based on plausible that the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g. general strategy will work, based will work, based on

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 116

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species PI 2.2.2 and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. experience, theory or on some information information directly comparison with similar directly about the UoA about the UoA and/or UoAs/species). and/or species involved. species involved. Met? Y Y N PG Met? Y Y N BT Justifi There is reliable information on the landings of all secondary species, and MFRI cation advice for many of them. The monitoring of the different species and the advice given serve to give confidence to the fishing strategy, as any drop of the stock will easily be noticed, and the advice would result in lower quotas or area closures. The team considers that there is some objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, but can’t provide evidence of testing. SG80 is achieved for both scoring elements in UoC 1 and also for UoC 2. c Management strategy implementation Guide There is some evidence There is clear evidence post that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is implemented being implemented successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Y N PG Met? Y N BT Justifi The team considers that the landing obligation and landing sampling system, cation along with both temporary and permanent area closures, and the allocation of quotas per vessel or fleet, serve as an evidence that the strategy is fully implemented. Besides, the fact that the catch goes into catch tanks without being sorted on board also serves to give confidence on the verifiability of the sampling of the catch, which is done at the landing ports by registered operators. Sampling information can serve to implement fishing restrictions should these be considered needed. However, the bad status of several minor secondary species (starry ray, grey skate, porbeagle, Greenland shark and dogfish) prevent both UoC’s from achieving SG100, as both UoC have an impact on affected stocks. d Shark finning Guide It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree post finning is not taking shark finning is not of certainty that shark place. taking place. finning is not taking place. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant PG Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant BT

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 117

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species PI 2.2.2 and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Justifi Shark finning is not an issue in these fisheries. cation e Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch Justifi There is a review of the There is a regular There is a biennial cation potential effectiveness review of the potential review 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? Y Y Y PG Met? Y Y Y BT Guide Sampling of landings serve to monitor catch composition and provide records of post species identification and quantities landed. When a high proportion of juveniles (unwanted fish) are taken, the Directorate of Fisheries establishes a real time short term closed area, for one or two weeks. This closure is announced on the vessels radio channel. If the area continues to show a high level of juvenile in future catches, the short-term closure can become a long-term area closure if needed. Data on the sampling of the landings are review annually both by management authorities and by MFRI. Fishing client also works on developing new markets to make good use of unwanted catch or fish refuse. Both scoring elements from UoC 1 and also UoC 2 reach SG100.

Act 57/1996. Amended by Act 144/2008. Act concerning the treatment of commercial marine stocks References http://www.iucnredlist.org/ MFRI advice on fish stocks http://www.fisheries.is/management/fisheries-management/ OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Pelagic gears 85 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Bottom trawl 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 118

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.3 – Secondary species information Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is PI 2.2.3 adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on main secondary species Guide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information post adequate to estimate information is available is available and the impact of the UoA on and adequate to adequate to assess the main secondary assess the impact of the with a high degree of species with respect to UoA on main secondary certainty the impact of status. species with respect to the UoA on main OR status. secondary species with If RBF is used to score OR respect to status. PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is adequate to estimate Some quantitative productivity and information is adequate susceptibility attributes to assess productivity for main secondary and susceptibility species. attributes for main secondary species. Met? Y Y Y PG Met? Y Y Y BT Justifi The only main secondary species for both scoring elements in UoC 1 is mackerel. cation Information on landings by the fleet and MFRI advice on stock status serve to quantify with a high degree of certainty the impact of the UoA with respect to status. SG 100 is met for UoC 1. There are no main secondary species to consider for UoC 2. All secondary species occur in a very low proportion and are therefore considered minor secondary species. SG100 is met for UoC 2. b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species Guide Some quantitative

post information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor secondary species with respect to status. Met? Y PG Met? Y BT Justifi The landing obligation provides verifiable quantitative information on the impacts cation the fishery may have both on main and minor secondary species. Besides, several minor secondary species, such as megrim, roundnose grenadier, long rough dab, among others, are subject to annual MFRI advice. The team considers that, even though stock status of minor secondary species is not always known, MFRI advices on these species provide sufficient information in order to achieve SG100 for both UoC. c Information adequacy for management strategy

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 119

Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is PI 2.2.3 adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. Guide Information is adequate Information is adequate Information is adequate post to support measures to to support a partial to support a strategy to manage main secondary strategy to manage manage all secondary species. main secondary species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? Y Y N PG Met? Y Y N BT Justifi Information collected through landing records, landing sampling and research cation surveys serves to support a strategy to manage most species in the catch. This is already done through the publication of fishing advice for many species, including mackerel (only main secondary species to consider here), the assignation of fishing quotas, and the management and implementation when necessary of fishing closed areas. SG80 is granted for both UoCs. However, the fact that stock status of some minor secondary species is not fully known prevents the fishery from gaining SG100, as the evaluation of the effectiveness of the strategy can’t be conducted with a high degree of certainty.

Act 57/1996. Amended by Act 144/2008. Act concerning the treatment of commercial marine stocks http://www.iucnredlist.org/ References MFRI advice on fish stocks http://www.fiskistofa.is/english/quotas-and-catches/catches-in-individual- species/ http://www.fisheries.is/management/fisheries-management/ OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Pelagic gears 95 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Bottom trawl 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 120

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome The UoA meets national and international requirements for the PI 2.3.1 protection of ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Effects of the UoA on population/stock within national or international limits, where applicable Guide Where national and/or Where national and/or Where national and/or post international international international requirements set limits requirements set limits requirements set limits for ETP species, the for ETP species, the for ETP species, there is effects of the UoA on the combined effects of a high degree of population/stock are the MSC UoAs on the certainty that the known and likely to be population/stock are combined effects of within these limits. known and highly likely the MSC UoAs are to be within these limits. within these limits. Met? Y Y N PG Met? Y Y N BT Justifi According to MSC definition of ETP species, the following species should be cation considered in this PI, as they are both protected and present in Icelandic waters:

- Halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus): Regulation 1164/2011 - Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus): CITES Appendix 1 - Bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus): CITES Appendix 1 - Gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus): CITES Appendix 1 - Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae): CITES Appendix 1 - North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis): CITES Appendix 1 - Northern bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon ampullatus): CITES Appendix 1 - Atlantic puffin (Fratercula arctica): IUCN Vulnerable - Leach's Storm-petrel (Hydrobates leucorhous): IUCN Vulnerable

Regardless of two bird species being considered as vulnerable in the area (see ETP section), direct information from the MFRI and the fishermen reported no interactions of the fishery with birds.

As regard interactions with marine species, landing obligation would require vessels to land any dead animal, regardless it being ETP species or not. Landing records show no fatalities of the above mentioned whales but shows landings of halibut, being these 3.5 tons for UoC1 in 2015 and 2016 (data is not splitted by year or scoring elements), but 72 tons for UoC2 in 2015. 87 tons were reported landed by all Icelandic vessels in 2015. Global landings by Icelandic vessels has increased to 122 tons in 2016. 80% of the landings are reported to be by the bottom trawl fleet, comprised by 230 vessels.

According to these data, the team considers that it is highly likely that the combined effects of the MSC UoAs on the stock are within national limits (for halibut) and international limits (for whales). The increasing trend in the number of landings of halibut (from 35 tons in 2012 to 122 tons in 2016) prevent both UoCs from achieving SG100, as it is not possible to determine if trawl vessels are trying to avoid that catch or not. However, it is also reasonable to think that the increasing in landings is due to an improvement in stock status, as shown in MFRI advice on halibut. Both scoring elements a and b in UoC 1 and UoC 2 reach SG80.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 121

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the PI 2.3.1 protection of ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species b Direct effects Guide Known direct effects of Known direct effects of There is a high degree of post the UoA are likely to not the UoA are highly confidence that there are hinder recovery of ETP likely to not hinder no significant detrimental species. recovery of ETP species. direct effects of the UoA on ETP species. Met? Y Y Y PG Met? Y Y N BT Justifi Landing obligation would require vessels to land any dead animal, regardless it cation being ETP species or not. Landing records show about 1.5 tons of halibut landed per year by UoC 1, which accounts for less than 5% of global landings in the country.

The increased number of halibut landings since the implementation of the ban in 2012 (raising from 35 tons in 2012 to 122 tons in 2016), and the knowledge that at least 80% of those landings are reported to be taken by the bottom trawl fleet (UoC2), make it difficult to assure with a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental effects on halibut population. Landings of halibut in 2010 and 2011 (when there was a directed fishery targeting halibut) were 500 tons per year.

As regards interactions with marine mammals, fishermen would prevent these by letting them feed before the catch is pumped or hauled on board. This avoidance prevents expensive damage to the nets. Interviews with different stakeholders (fishermen, the Coast Guard and the Marine Research Institute) all concluded that interactions with birds or marine mammals only occur very rarely.

Both scoring elements a and b in UoC 1 reach SG100 while UoC 2 reach SG80. c Indirect effects Guide Indirect effects have There is a high degree of post been considered and are confidence that there are thought to be highly no significant detrimental likely to not create indirect effects of the unacceptable impacts. fishery on ETP species. Met? Y Y PG Met? Y Y BT Justifi cation Possible indirect effects would arise from trophic disturbances caused by the removal of blue whiting biomass. It is not expected that the removal of blue whiting biomass would affect halibut stock status. As regards all other ETP species present in the area (marine mammals mentioned in SGa), it is noticeable that relationships of blue whiting with higher trophic level predators have been studied through different models and are well known. Trophic models have been produced in the North Sea (Ecopath with Ecosim, Mackinson and Daskalov, 2007), the Norwegian Sea (Hjollo et al, 2012; Utne et al, 2012) and developed for Faroese waters (Zeller and Freire, 2001). In relation to blue whiting, the variation in size of the stock is the factor most likely to exert an ecosystem

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 122

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the PI 2.3.1 protection of ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species effect. It is noted that the blue whiting stock has fluctuated widely, in recent years from around 1.5 to 7 Mt with no observed significant effects on ETP species. Besides, blue whiting is not considered a low trophic species, so high detrimental impacts are not expected. Even though it has been noticed that Atlantic puffins have migrated from the south coast of Iceland to the north coast, this has been related to a decrease in capelin abundance in the southern waters (probably due to the introduction of new fish species in Icelandic waters due to climate change and migration of fish stocks). The team considers that all scoring elements (halibut, marine mammals and birds) meet SG100. Icelandic Regulation 1164/2011. MFRI Advice for halibut 2017 Fiskistofa: landings of halibut in 2016 References CITES Appendix 1 Mackinson and Daskalov, 2007 Hjollo et al, 2012 Utne et al, 2012 Zeller and Freire, 2001 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Pelagic gears 95 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Bottom trawl 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 123

Evaluation Table for 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 SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Management strategy in place (national and international requirements) Guide There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a post place that minimise the place for managing the comprehensive UoA-related mortality of UoA’s impact on ETP strategy in place for ETP species, and are species, including managing the UoA’s expected to be highly measures to minimise impact on ETP species, likely to achieve mortality, which is including measures to national and international designed to be highly minimise mortality, requirements for the likely to achieve which is designed to protection of ETP national and international achieve above national species. requirements for the and international protection of ETP requirements for the species. protection of ETP species. Met? Y Y N PG Met? Y Y N BT Justifi In December 2011, Iceland ordain Regulation 1164/2011 banning fishing for cation halibut in the Icelandic EEZ. The regulation entered into force in January 2012 and established measures to manage halibut individuals in the event of catch, such as the obligation to release any animal if it is viable, the establishment of a special fee for illegal catches, the collection of the value of halibut at auction places for marine research, the obligation to record halibut catches on the logbook, and the establishment of penalties in case of violation of the regulation. As regards interactions with other protected species, these are regulated by Regulation 557/2007 on logbooks. This regulation establishes that fatal interactions or catch of birds or other endangered species must be reported to the Directorate of Fisheries. Marine mammals are regulated by the Fisheries Management Act and Nature Conservation Act. no. 47/1971. Further, in Iceland, whaling is controlled by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and the North-Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO). Every 7 seven years there is an update on the number of estimated mammals in Icelandic waters, which is issued after specific monitoring of these species. Besides, fishermen would prevent fatal interactions by letting marine mammals feed before they pump or haul the catch on board. Interviews with different stakeholders (fishermen, the Coast Guard and the MFRI) all concluded that interactions with birds or marine mammals only occur very rarely. All gears reach SG80, as the UoA is not hindering the recovery of these species, but the strategy is not considered to be comprehensive as it would benefit from records obtained through on going monitoring of non-fatal interactions, such as records of areas and quantities of released halibut or sightings of protected birds and whales. b Management strategy in place (alternative) Guide There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 124

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. post place that are expected place that is expected to comprehensive to ensure the UoA does ensure the UoA does not strategy in place for not hinder the recovery hinder the recovery of managing ETP species, to of ETP species. ETP species. ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant PG Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant BT Justifi cation c Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures are There is an objective The post considered likely to basis for confidence strategy/comprehensive work, based on that the strategy is mainly based plausible argument measures/strategy will on information directly (e.g., general work, based on about the fishery and/or experience, theory or information directly species involved, and a comparison with similar about the fishery and/or quantitative analysis fisheries/species). the species involved. supports high confidence that the strategy will work. Met? Y Y N PG Met? Y Y N BT Justifi The lack of recorded fatal interactions with birds and marine mammals, the cation comprehensive landing weighting and recording system, the enforcement carried out by the Coast Guard, the information on the fisheries general compliance with regulations, MFRI comments on the low probability of interactions of the fishery with birds and marine mammals to take place and MFRI advice on halibut showing a small but noticeable recovery of haddock stock, serve together to give confidence that this strategy is working both as regards marine mammals and the halibut species. The lack of specific knowledge on the status of some protected marine mammals, and the ignorance on specific measures taken by the bottom trawl fleet to avoid halibut catches prevent the fishery from achieving SG100, as a high degree of confidence can’t be granted. Both elements a and b in UoC 1 and UoC2 meet SG80. d Management strategy implementation Guide There is some evidence There is clear evidence post that the that the measures/strategy is strategy/comprehensive being implemented strategy is being successfully. implemented successfully and is achieving its

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 125

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. objective as set out in scoring issue (a) or (b). Met? Y N PG Met? Y N BT Justifi Regulation 1164/2011 banning halibut fishing effectively entered in force in 2012 cation and landings of halibut decreased significantly since then. Landing records of marine mammals are nil. The Coast Guard enforcement system serves to prevent or control infractions of these regulations (such as Regulation 1164/2011, Regulation 557/2007 and 47/1971). The team considers that there is clear evidence that the strategy has been implemented successfully, the lack of specific measures taken by the bottom trawl fleet to avoid bycatch of halibut (where landings have increased from 35 tons in 2012 to 122 tons in 2016) and the lack of information on updated status of ETP species prevent both UoCs from achieving SG100, as data on non-fatal interactions such as halibut releases and sightings of ETP birds and marine mammals (or injuries of whales) are not yet recorded. e Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species Guide There is a review of the There is a regular There is a biennial post potential effectiveness review of the potential review 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 species and they are ETP species, and they implemented as are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Y Y Y PS Met? Y Y Y BT Justifi Sampling of landings serve to monitor catch composition and provide records of cation species identification and quantities landed. It also serves as a historical collection of ETP fatal interactions caused by the fishing fleet. Data on the sampling of the landings, which includes UoA related mortality of halibut, are review annually both by management authorities and by MFRI. This has resulted in the implementation of management measures when necessary, such as the establishment of Regulation 1164/2011 banning the fishing of halibut, which was issued once a significant decrease in halibut stock status was noted. All gears meet SG100. Icelandic Regulation 557/2007 Icelandic Regulation 1164/2011. References MFRI Advice for halibut 2017 Fiskistofa: landings of halibut in 2016 CITES Appendix 1 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Pelagic gears 85

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 126

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. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Bottom trawl 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Evaluation Table for 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 SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Guide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information post adequate to estimate information is adequate is available to assess the UoA related mortality to assess the UoA with a high degree of on ETP species. related mortality and certainty the magnitude impact and to determine of UoA-related OR whether the UoA may be impacts, mortalities If RBF is used to score PI a threat to protection and injuries and the 2.3.1 for the UoA: and recovery of the ETP consequences for the species. status of ETP species. Qualitative information is adequate to estimate OR productivity and If RBF is used to score PI susceptibility attributes 2.3.1 for the UoA: for ETP species. Some quantitative information is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species. Met? Y Y N PG Met? Y Y N BT Justifi There is accurate quantitative information on the UoA related mortality thanks to cation historical landing records, which show no fatal interactions with ETP birds or marine mammals and also the halibut landing trends since the implementation of the ban on fishing halibut. This trend shows that catches have increased from 35 tons per year in 2012 to 122 tons in 2016. The MFRI continues to offer scientific advice on halibut stock status, which shows a slow recovery and advices on the maintenance of Regulation 1164/2011 until the stock is fully recovered. This information is sufficient to determine if the UoA has a threat or not to the protection of ETP species. However, the lack of records on released halibuts (date, location and quantities) and on ETP sightings or on injuries that these species may receive, prevent both UoC from achieving SG100, as the impacts and consequences to the status of ETP species due to non-fatal interactions cannot be defined with a high degree of

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 127

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. certainty. SG80 is reached for all gears. b Information adequacy for management strategy Guide Information is adequate Information is adequate Information is adequate post to support measures to to measure trends and to support a manage the impacts on support a strategy to comprehensive ETP species. manage impacts on ETP strategy to manage species. impacts, minimize mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives. Met? Y Y N PG Met? Y Y N BT Justifi Collected information is adequate to support a strategy to manage impacts on cation ETP species. Landing records would record fatal interaction with protected birds and whales if any. There is also a marine mammal monitoring program which monitors the population of these species every 7 years to update information on populations. Seals are also monitored through a monitoring program which sizes different individuals in seal colonies in the North part of Iceland. As regards halibut, landings have been recorded from long periods, and records show how landings dropped from 2000 tons per year in the past century to 1000 tons and later to 500 tons, until the banning regulation was enforced. Since then, landings have grown from 35 tons in 2012 to 122 tons in 2016. All these data on landings, along with MFRI advice on the stock status, which is review every year, serves to measure trends and support a strategy to manage impacts on ETP species, however, the survival rate of released halibuts has not been estimated yet. The team considers that a better reporting of non-fatal interactions with all ETP species and research conducted to estimate survival rate of released halibuts would benefit the fishery in order to achieve SG100. Icelandic Regulation 557/2007 Icelandic Regulation 1164/2011. References MFRI Advice for halibut 2017 Fiskistofa: landings of halibut in 2016 CITES Appendix 1 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Pelagic gears 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Bottom trawl 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 128

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the PI 2.4.1 governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Commonly encountered habitat status Guide The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that post reduce structure and unlikely to reduce the UoA is highly unlikely function of the commonly structure and function of to reduce structure and encountered habitats to the commonly function of the commonly a point where there encountered habitats to encountered habitats to would be serious or a point where there a point where there irreversible harm. would be serious or would be serious or irreversible harm. irreversible harm. Met? Y Y Y PG Met? Y Y N BT Justifi As for UoC1 (pelagic gears), both the team and the fishermen conclude that it is cation highly unlikely that any of the scoring elements a and b (purse seine and pelagic trawl) interacts with the seafloor. Crew masters can regulate from the bridge the depth at which to deploy the net, avoiding contact with the seafloor. Pelagic trawlers are not expected to touch the seafloor due to their working deployment, while there is a small risk of purse seines touching the seabottom with the lower part of the net. However, this is actively avoided by fishermen as could damage the net. Another potencial situation for interaction of pelagic elements with the seafloor would be in case of gear loss, but this is an uncommon event which is avoided when possible by the crew. If a gear is lost efforts will be made to recover it. The pelagic fishery operates mostly in Faroese waters. In there, VME are closed to all fishing trawlers, including pelagic trawlers and therefore avoiding situations of potential contact with VME. The pelagic fleet also operates in NEAFC regulatory areas targeting other species. NEAFC does also regulate VME closed areas in the Reykjanes Ridge. The evidence to support the statement that pelagic gears do not reduce the structure and function of habitats encountered (if any), would be the design, testing and working operations of pelagic gears both on testing pools and on the sea, which show that interactions with the seafloor are not expected. SG100 is met for both scoring elements in UoC 1. As for UoC2 (bottom trawlers), this UoC is covering blue whiting which is taken as bycatch in different bottom trawl fisheries targeting different species. Therefore, the area covered by this UoC is broad. Affected areas can range from sandy or muddy bottoms to gravel and cobbled areas, but according to the European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) map, mud is the most abundant underwater habitat within Icelandic EEZ. The fact that bottom trawlers fish once and again over the same areas serves to reduce the area affected by the trawling. Kaiser et al. (2006) concluded that otter trawling produced a significant, negative, short-term effect on muddy habitats, but interestingly there was also a longer-term positive effect on the response variables to this impact. Therefore, the team concludes that it is highly unlikely that the gear will reduce habitat structure and function to the point where there would be serious or irreversible

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 129

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the PI 2.4.1 governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. harm. SG80. b VME habitat status Guide The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that post reduce structure and unlikely to reduce the UoA is highly unlikely function of the VME structure and function of to 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. Met? Y Y Y

Y N N Justifi All Icelandic vessels have a VMS on board regardless the vessel’s size. This cation serves the Coast Guard both to locate the vessel should an emergency occur or to verify that vessels do not enter Marine Protected Areas. UoC1 at present takes place mainly in Faroese waters. There are VME such as cold water corals in Faroese EEZ that are closed to all trawling, including pelagic trawls. The Icelandic Coast Guard follows in real time the location of all Icelandic vessels, regardless where they are at any moment. The Coast Guard is in charge of enforcement measures related to compliance with habitat restrictions in protected areas. This also takes place in Faroese waters. Moreover, the Icelandic Coast Guard would make a call if more than 12 Icelandic vessels happen to be in Faroese waters, as the agreement between the regions only allows 12 Icelandic vessels at a time. Besides, pelagic gears are designed no to touch the seafloor. Therefore SG100 is granted for UoC1. UoC2 at present only takes place in Icelandic waters. Many VME have been identified and protected (by the Directorate of Fisheries), but other VME such as soft corals, large sponge aggregations or seapens are at present not protected. Remote Operated Vehicle surveys, carried out under the auspices of the CoralFISH project (data from 2004), indicated widespread damage to corals on the Icelandic outer continental shelf, but undamaged colonies on the continental slope. According to Webster (2016) heavy trawling significantly impacts the sponge communities in the western seas around Iceland, showing a lower diversity of sponge taxa and smaller size of sponges in higher fished sites. The strong enforcement conducted by the Coast Guard through its monitoring system verifies that Marine Protected Areas are not entered by the fleet. This good enforcement system and the high number of protected areas serve to satisfy SG60 for UoC2, but SG80 is not met. c Minor habitat status Guide There is evidence that

post the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the minor habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? Y PG Met? N BT

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 130

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the PI 2.4.1 governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. Justifi As regards UoC 1, it is highly unlikely that pelagic gears would reduce habitat cation structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. The control of the depth of the trawl is usually carried out with electronic sensors, and fishermen would avoid impacts with the seabed as it damages the net. Evidence to support such conclusion is based on the design and operation mechanisms of the pelagic gears. UoC 1 meets SG100.

As regards UoC 2, the team could not find any specific evidence that this gear is highly unlikely to reduce the structure and function of minor habitats to a point where here would be serious or irreversible harm so this fails to meet SG 100. » Jennings, S., Dinmore, T.A., Duplisea, D.E., Warr, K.J., Lancaster, J.E., 2001. Trawling disturbance can modify benthic production processes. J. Animal Ecol. 70, 459-475. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2656.2001.00504.x/pdf » Kaiser, M.J., K. R. Clarke, K.R., Hinz, H., Austen, M.C.V., Somerfield, P.J., Karakassis, I. 2006. Global analysis of response and recovery of benthic References biota to fishing. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Vol. 311: 1–14, 2006. » CoralFISH project. Ecosystem based management of corals, fish and fisheries, in the deep waters of Europe and beyond. Study areas: Region 2: Iceland. http://www.eu-fp7-coralfish.net. » http://www.emodnet.eu/ » Webster, C. 2016 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Pelagic gear 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Bottom trawl 70 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Pelagic gears N/A CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Bottom trawl 3

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 131

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.2 – Habitats management strategy There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not PI 2.4.2 pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Management strategy in place Guide There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in post place, if necessary, that strategy in place, if place for managing the are expected to achieve necessary, that is impact of all MSC the Habitat Outcome 80 expected to achieve the UoAs/non-MSC fisheries level of performance. Habitat Outcome 80 level on habitats. of performance or above. Met? Y Y N PG Met? Y Y N BT Justifi Iceland has a detailed management strategy for protecting certain areas cation (permanent, seasonal or temporary closures), in order to protect both fish spawning areas (Fisheries Management Act:116/2006) or vulnerable habitats such as cold water corals or hydrothermal chimneys (Nature Conservation Act: 44/1999). Besides, Iceland has ratified different international conventions intended to protect habitats and ecosystems, such as the OSPAR Convention, the CITES Convention and the Convention on Biological Biodiversity. The team considers these measures as a strategy to manage impact of the fleet on habitats. However, as VME species such as sponge aggregations or soft corals are not protected yet the team considers this strategy to be partial. Both UoC reach SG80. b Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high post considered likely to basis for confidence confidence that the work, based on plausible that 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. Met? Y Y N PG Met? Y Y N BT Justifi The team considers that there is sufficient information directly about the fishery cation and habitats involved to consider with an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work. This is based on the large number of area closures (of which some of them are focused on the protection of juvenile fish but at the same time are preventing damage in the seafloor, while others are focused on the protection of cold water corals), the strong enforcement system managed by the Coast Guard, which monitors all vessels at real time, and on the establishment of new protected areas. However, some VME species such as sponge beds would benefit from further research and the establishment of new marine protected areas (Webster, C. 2016). The team considers that no testing has been made to support with a high degree of confidence that the partial strategy, as defined right now, is sufficient to

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 132

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not PI 2.4.2 pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. manage all impacts on habitats. Both UoC reach SG80. c Management strategy implementation Guide There is some There is clear post quantitative evidence quantitative evidence that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is implemented being implemented successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a). Met? Y N PG Met? Y N BT Justifi Coast Guard information confirms that vessels accomplish with measures related cation to Marine Protected Areas, and no infringements were reported during 2016. This can be verified as all Icelandic vessels are obliged to carry VMS on board. The team considers that this is sufficient to reach SG80 for all UoC. However, the partial strategy in place is not yet managing the impact of all MSC UoAs/non- MSC fisheries on habitats, as vulnerable habitats such as soft corals or sponge aggregations are not protected. Besides, there is not clear quantitative evidence that habitats recover after closures or how long do they take to recover, as that would require a historic series of seabed habitats maps. SG100 is not reached by any gear type. d Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs Guide There is some There is clear There is qualitative post quantitative evidence quantitative evidence evidence that the UoA that the UoA complies that the UoA complies complies with its with both its with both its management management management requirements to protect requirements and with requirements and with VMEs. protection measures protection measures afforded to VMEs by afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non- other MSC UoAs/non- MSC fisheries, where MSC fisheries, where relevant. relevant. Met? Y Y N PG Met? Y Y N BT Justifi Conversations with the Coast Guard and infringements statistics serve the team cation as clear quantitative evidence to ascertain that Icelandic vessels comply with management requirements such as closed areas. However, there is no clear quantitative evidence of the compliance with (at present non-existent) protection measures afforded to soft corals and sponge aggregations. Both UoC (all gears) reach SG80.

Ystuvíkurstrýtur chimneys. References Webster, C. 2016. Nature Conservation Act 44/1999.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 133

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not PI 2.4.2 pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. Fisheries Management Act 16/2006. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Pelagic gears 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Bottom trawl 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 134

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by PI 2.4.3 the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Information quality Guide The types and The nature, distribution The distribution of all post distribution of the main and vulnerability of the habitats is known over habitats are broadly main habitats in the UoA their range, with understood. area are known at a level particular attention to of detail relevant to the the occurrence of

scale and intensity of the vulnerable habitats. OR UoA. OR If CSA is used to score PI If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: 2.4.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is Some quantitative adequate to estimate the information is available types and distribution of and is adequate to the main habitats. estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats. Met? Y Y Y PG Met? Y Y Y BT Justifi The Mapping European Seabed Habitats portal (www.searchmesh.net) provides cation accurate information on the distribution of the different habitats in European waters, including both Icelandic and Faroese EEZ. Vulnerable habitats are identified and mapped by the OSPAR Commission (www.ospar.org). The CoralFISH project works in assessing the interaction between cold water corals, fish and fisheries. The MFRI conducts two annual demersal research trips which have serve to identify areas of vulnerable benthic habitats in Icelandic waters such as cold water corals, large sponge aggregation areas, seapens or maerl beds in relation to bottom trawl fishing activities. Mandatory VMS on board serves to know the distribution of Icelandic fishing effort. All gears reach SG100. b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Guide Information is adequate Information is adequate The physical impacts of post to broadly understand to allow for identification the gear on all habitats the nature of the main of the main impacts of have been quantified impacts of gear use on the UoA on the main fully. the main habitats, habitats, and there is including spatial overlap reliable information on of habitat with fishing the spatial extent of gear. interaction and on the timing and location of OR use of the fishing gear. OR If CSA is used to score If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: PI 2.4.1 for the UoA:

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 135

Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by PI 2.4.3 the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. Some quantitative Qualitative information is information is available adequate to estimate the and is adequate to consequence and spatial estimate the attributes of the main consequence and spatial habitats. attributes of the main habitats. Met? Y Y Y PG Met? Y Y N BT Justifi All Icelandic vessels carry VMS on board at every moment. Electronic logbooks cation record when and where the fishing nets are deployed. These mandatory requirements serve to identify marine areas potentially affected by the UoA. As for UoC 1 (purse seine and pelagic trawl), the physical impacts that these gears may have on habitats is null, unless in cases of gear loss, or bottom contact of purse seines with the seabottom (however this is actively avoided by fishermen in order to avoid damage to the nets). Gear are lost only very sporadically, so impacts due to this cause are considered negligible. However, if lost, the Directorate of Fisheries would be informed of the loss, which would serve to quantify these impacts if necessary. Both scoring elements in UoC1 reach SG100. As for UoC 2 (bottom trawls), the team considers that overlapped information of VMS tracks with OSPAR and seabed habitat maps would provide reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction and on the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. Research conducted by different authors or institutions (such as Webster, C. 2016 thesis on benthic trawling impacts on sponge communities or the MFRI project on Mapping benthic flora and fauna in Icelandic EEZ) allows for the identification of the main impacts that bottom trawling may have on different habitat types. SG80 is granted. As physical impacts of all bottom trawlers in all habitats have not been quantified fully SG100 can’t be granted. c Monitoring Guide Adequate information Changes in habitat post continues to be collected distributions over time to detect any increase in are measured. risk to the main habitats. Met? Y N PG Met? Y N BT Justifi Information on habitat types on Icelandic fishing grounds is collected by research cation vessels from the MFRI, which carry on at least two research trips per year (spring and autumn) where all bottom trawl catch composition is analyzed. The MFRI is carrying out at present the project “Mapping benthic flora and fauna in Icelandic EEZ”. The first sampling for this project was taken in fall 2016. Besides, the MFRI also creates detailed bathymetrical mapping of Icelandic EEZ seabed using a multibeam echo sounder. The lack of historical records difficulty the possibility of measure changes in habitat distribution over time. SG80 is granted for all UoC.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 136

Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by PI 2.4.3 the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat.

Natura Directive (http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/# ), OSPAR Commission (www.ospar.org ) Mapping European Seabed Habitats portal (www.searchmesh.net). Icelandic area closures: click this link (it needs Google Earth installed). References http://www.fisheries.is/management/fisheries-management/area-closures/ Marine Research Institution seabed mapping Webster, C. 2016. Impacts of benthic trawling on sponge community composition around Western Iceland. MSc Thesis. University College London (UCL). http://neafc.org/closures/mid-atlantic OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Pelagic gears 95 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Bottom trawl 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 137

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements PI 2.5.1 of ecosystem structure and function. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Ecosystem status Guide The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that post disrupt the key elements unlikely to disrupt the the UoA is highly unlikely underlying ecosystem key elements underlying to disrupt the key structure and function to ecosystem structure and elements underlying a point where there function to a point where ecosystem structure and would be a serious or there would be a serious function to a point where irreversible harm. or irreversible harm. there would be a serious or irreversible harm. PG Y Y N BT Y Y N Justifi The relationships of blue whiting with prey species, competing pelagic stocks and cation higher trophic level predators on the North East Atlantic are reasonably well established, and have been studied through different models, such as Ecopath with Ecosim for the North Sea, and other models for the Norwegian Sea (Hjollo et al, 2012; Utne et al, 2012) and Faroese waters (Zeller and Freire, 2001).

According to the Ecopath and Ecosim modelling that Zaller and Reinert (2004), studied in the Faroe Islands, blue whiting’s trophic level is 3.6. There are at least 6 other species in the same trophic level. These are: haddock (3.6), Greenland halibut (3.6), squid (3.6), redfish (3.7), mackerel (3.7), herring (3.4) and other pelagic fish (3.2). As regards higher trophic levels in the Faroese ecosystem, these include: seabirds (3.8), other demersal fish (4.0), baleen whales (4.0), other deepwater fish (4.2) and toothed mammals (4.7).

The facts that blue whiting is not a low trophic level specie, that there are other fish species at the same trophic level, and that removals of blue whiting and other bycatch species biomass is low when compared to their respective stock status, give confidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to create trophic disturbances that would disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. It is also worth mention that the blue whiting stock has fluctuated widely, in recent years from around 1.5 to 7 Mt with no observed significant effects on ecosystem structure and function. Besides, catch of both UoC is very clean. 95% of the catch of the pelagic gears is formed by blue whiting, herring and mackerel. Catch composition of the pelagic trawl fleet is formed by 89% of cod, saithe, golden redfish and haddock, all MSC certified fisheries. The lack of evidence on the minimum impact of the UoA on the ecosystem prevent the fishery from obtaining SG100. SG80 is granted. Hjollo et al, 2012; Utne et al, 2012a, b References Zeller and Freire, 2001 Zeller and Reinert, 2004. ICES, 2013a,2013c, 2014a, 2014c and 2014d. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Pelagic gears 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Bottom trawl 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 138

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management strategy There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Management strategy in place Guide There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy that post place, if necessary which strategy in place, if consists of a plan, in take into account the necessary, which takes place which contains potential impacts of into account available measures to address all the fishery on key information and is main impacts of the elements of the expected to restrain UoA on the ecosystem, ecosystem. impacts of the UoA on and at least some of the ecosystem so as to these measures are in achieve the Ecosystem place. Outcome 80 level of performance. Met? Y Y Y PG Met? Y Y Y BT Justifi The Icelandic Fisheries Management Act serves as a strategy to address all main cation impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. The objective of the Act is to promote conservation and efficient utilization of marine stocks. There are different measures to accomplish this goal: - Establishment of both permanent and temporary fishing closures. These have been designed either to protect fish spawning areas or vulnerable marine ecosystems. - fish species management: with the establishment of TACs and quotas. - Landing obligation and weighting and sampling of the landings. - Enforcement system and mandatory VMS and logbook - Scientific advice for many fish species, were natural mortality of the different species is taken into account. - Research on marine species and habitats. - Natural mortality is an important element in the stock assessment program. SG100 is granted. b Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high post considered likely to work, basis for confidence confidence that the based on plausible that 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 comparison with similar directly about the UoA about the UoA and/or fisheries/ ecosystems). and/or the ecosystem ecosystem involved involved Met? Y Y N PG Met? Y Y N BT Justifi The comprehensive collection of information of fishing removals, the research cation undertaken by MFRI both on the status many fish stocks but also on the mapping of benthic areas and study of benthic organisms, along with a highly equipped

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 139

There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. and effective enforcement system, and the immediate answer given to the presence of juveniles in catch composition, which would lead the a real time short time closures (one or two weeks), and the fact that when a certain area continues to present juvenile fish in different time periods it becomes a long term closure, along with the already existing protected areas for the protection of spawning fish or vulnerable ecosystems give objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work. The lack of testing on this strategy along with the lack of protection on vulnerable ecosystems such as sponge communities or soft corals prevent the fishery from gaining SG100. SG80 is met. c Management strategy implementation Guide There is some evidence There is clear evidence post that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is implemented being implemented successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Y Y PG Met? Y Y BT Justifi The Icelandic Fisheries Management Act was agreed in August 2006 and the cation different measures have been implemented since then through different means, such as banning bycatch, the obligation of the use of VMS, regulating closed areas both for the protection of juveniles and for the protection of vulnerable habitats, establishing procedures for the weighing and sampling of landings, promoting marine research, establishing quotas for different marine stocks in accordance with marine research, and establishment a strong enforcement system through the Directorate of Fisheries and the Coast Guard that assures the accomplishment of the different measures. Infringements are negligible. SG100 is granted.

Icelandic Fisheries Management Act. References http://www.hafro.is/undir_eng.php?REF=2 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Pelagic Gears 95 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Bottom trawl 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 140

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.3 – Ecosystem information There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the PI 2.5.3 ecosystem. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Information quality Guide Information is adequate Information is adequate post to identify the key to broadly understand elements of the the key elements of the ecosystem. ecosystem. Met? Y Y PG Met? Y Y BT Justifi Key elements of the ecosystem, such as primary and secondary productivity, and cation predator-prey relationships, have been studied through different ecosystem models in the grounds where the different UoC take place. The Faroese ecosystem (where the pelagic blue whiting fishery takes place) has been studied through different models (Zeller and Freire, 2001; Zeller and Reinert 2004) and also by the Faroese Fisheries Laboratory and the Faroe Marine Research Institute. The Icelandic ecosystem (where the bottom trawl fishery takes place) has also been studied by different researches (Astthorssona, O.S., Gislasona, A., and Jonssona S. 2007; Valdimarsson, H., Astthorsson, O. S., and Palsson, J. 2012) and institutions, such as the Icelandic Marine and Freshwater Research Institute, ICES or the Icelandic Institute of Natural History. Information from these studies is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem in this area. SG80 is met by all UoCs. b Investigation of UoA impacts Guide Main impacts of the UoA Main impacts of the UoA Main interactions post on these key ecosystem on these key ecosystem between the UoA and elements can be inferred elements can be inferred these ecosystem from existing from existing elements can be inferred information, but have information, and some from existing not been investigated have been information, and have in detail. investigated in detail. been investigated in detail. Met? Y Y N PG Met? Y Y N BT Justifi The different models and projects mentioned in SIa serve to describe main cation impacts and interactions between the UoA and the different ecosystem elements, such as fishery biomass removal, trophic interactions and prey relationships or impacts on the seabed. But there is still little information as regards the impact the fishery may have in some minor secondary species or in not protected vulnerable habitats. The team agrees that main impacts and some interactions have been investigated in detail, therefore a SG80 is granted for all UoCs. c Understanding of component functions

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 141

There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the PI 2.5.3 ecosystem. Guide The main functions of the The impacts of the UoA post components (i.e., P1 on P1 target species, target species, primary, primary, secondary and secondary and ETP ETP species and Habitats species and Habitats) in are identified and the the ecosystem are main functions of these known. components in the ecosystem are understood. Met? Y Y

Y N Justifi Impacts of the fishery on target, primary, secondary or ETP species are fully cation quantified and monitored. Different ecosystem models (mentioned in SIa) provide a broad knowledge of the impacts that the UoA has on the blue whiting population and each one of the different ecosystem elements. The MFRI continues to run two research trips per year to study fishing impacts on ecosystem elements and habitats. As regards UoC1, all fishery removals are identified as all the catch is pumped and loaded inside fish tanks. The crew has no access to these fish tanks and all the catch is landed, weighed and sampled at the authorized landing ports. The bottom trawl fishery hauls the catch on board, where the catch is sorted by the crew. During this sorting, benthic species are discarded and there are no records of these interactions, so these impacts are difficult to identify, quantify, or investigate. The assessment team is however aware of the existence of a pilot project carried out by 4 bottom trawlers of the fleet in which benthic bycatch is identified and recorded. Both elements of UoC1 reach SG100 while UoC2 reaches SG80. d Information relevance Guide Adequate information is Adequate information is post available on the impacts available on the impacts of the UoA on these of the UoA on the components to allow components and some of the main elements to allow the consequences for the main consequences for ecosystem to be inferred. the ecosystem to be inferred. Met? Y Y PG Met? Y N BT Justifi Available information gathered by landing records and sampling, research cation investigation and ecosystem modelling is considered adequate to allow some of the main consequences for the ecosystem. In UoC 1 (purse seine and pelagic trawl), there are less components and elements to consider, as impacts on benthic habitats is expected to be negligible. The main consequences of pelagic fishing for the ecosystem can be inferred from existing trophic models. Both scoring elements in UoC1 reach SG100. UoC 2 (bottom trawl) has impacts on different habitat types which at present are not fully identified nor quantified. The team considers that present information on bottom trawl impacts on components and elements is not sufficient to grant

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 142

There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the PI 2.5.3 ecosystem. SG100. e Monitoring Guide Adequate data continue Information is adequate post to be collected to detect to support the any increase in risk level. development of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. Met? Y Y PG Met? Y Y BT Justifi Detailed information obtained though landing obligation, landing records and cation sampling, VMS tracks on fishing grounds, MFRI and ICES advice on different fishing stocks, MFRI research trips, sampling on benthic communities and mapping of Icelandic EEZ seabed, Coast Guard enforcement system and monitoring of protected areas, monitoring of marine mammals and bird populations (even though sporadic), studies on climate change impacts (Astthorssona et al., 2007), is considered adequate to detect any increase in risk level and to support the development of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. SG100 is granted for all UoCs.

Zeller, D. and Freire, K.2001. A North East Atlantic marine ecosystem model for the Faroe Islands (ICES Area Vb) Faroese Fisheries Laboratory. 2002. Workshop on Ecosystem Modelling of Faroese Waters Astthorssona, O.S., Gislasona, A., Jonssona, S. 2007. Climate variability and the Icelandic marine ecosystem. Deep-Sea Research II 54 (2007) 2456–2477. References ICES 2008. Greenland and Iceland ecosystem overview. ICES Advice 2008, Book 2. Valdimarsson, H., Astthorsson, O. S., Palsson, J. 2012. Hydrographic variability in Icelandic waters. ICES Journal of Marine Science (2012), 69(5), 816 –825. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fss027 The Icelandic Institute of Natural History, Ministry of Environment, 2001. Biological diversity in Iceland OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Pelagic gears 95 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Bottom trawl 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 143

Principle 3: All UoCs. Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.1 – Legal and/or customary framework The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it:  Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC PI 3.1.1 Principles 1 and 2; and  Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and  Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a There is an effective There is an effective There is an effective national national legal system national legal system legal system and binding and a framework for and organised and procedures governing cooperation with other effective cooperation cooperation with other parties parties, where with other parties, which delivers management necessary, to deliver where necessary, to outcomes consistent with MSC management deliver management Principles 1 and 2. outcomes consistent outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 with MSC Principles 1 and 2. and 2.

Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y N N

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 144

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it:  Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC PI 3.1.1 Principles 1 and 2; and  Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and  Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. Iceland has a well-established system for fisheries management in place, now codified in the 1990 Fisheries Management Act, amended in 2006. The Act details procedures for the determination of TAC (Art. 3) and allocation of harvest rights, including permits and catch quotas (Art. 4–14). It also lays out the system for individual transferable quotas in some detail (Art. 15), as well as procedures for monitoring, control and surveillance (Art. 16–18) and the application of sanctions (Art. 24–27). Further provisions are provided in a number of other acts, such as the 1997 Act on Fishing in Iceland’s Exclusive Fishing Zone and the 1996 Act concerning the Treatment of Commercial Marine Stocks, as well as in regulations at lower levels of the legal hierarchy, issued by the relevant management authorities. Iceland is also signatory to, and has ratified, the major international agreements pertaining to fisheries management, such as the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention and the 1995 Fish Stocks Agreement. The Ministry of Industries and Innovation – which has two ministers: one for Tourism and Innovation and one for Fisheries and Agriculture – is the policy- making body in Icelandic fisheries management and sets annual TAC based on scientific recommendations from the Marine Research Institute. The Minister of Fisheries and Agriculture, in turn, is responsible for two departments: one on fisheries and aquaculture and one for food and agriculture. The Directorate of Fisheries is the implementing body within the management system, formally subordinate to the Ministry as an agency. It issues fishing licenses, allocates annual vessel quotas and oversees the daily operation of the individual transferable quota system. The Directorate is also responsible for monitoring, control and surveillance, in cooperation with the Coast Guard, which is a civilian law enforcement agency under the Ministry of the Interior (see PI 3.2.3). Fishing by foreign vessels is regulated by the 1998 Act on Fishing and Processing by Foreign Vessels in Iceland’s Exclusive Economic Zone. Icelandic vessels’ fishing outside Icelandic the Icelandic EEZ is regulated by the 1996 Act on Fishing outside of Icelandic Jurisdiction. Through the Fisheries Management Act, other relevant acts and regulations issued by the Ministry and the Directorate, binding procedures for cooperation between the different governmental agencies involved are in place, able to provide management outcomes that are consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. At the international level, NEAFC exists as a framework for cooperation involving all participants in the fishery, and scientific advice is provided for the fishery by ICES. In that context the fishery does meet the requirements of SG 60, as the international cooperation at least delivers the intent of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, Article 10 d), e), f) and g), pertaining to the collection and sharing of scientific data, the scientific assessment of stock status, and the development of scientific advice (CBA 4.2.1.3), through ICES. SG 80 is not met, however, as there is no evidence of organized and effective cooperation between affected partied which is able to deliver outcomes consistent with the requirements of Principle 1, as reflected in the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, Article 10 a), h) and j). Since 2014, the coastal states have not been able to agree on a TAC for the fishery that all fishing nations adhere to. Justification

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 145

There is an effective, transparent dispute resolution mechanism in place in Iceland, as fishers can take their case to court if they do not accept the rationale behind an infringement accusation by enforcement authorities or the fees levied against them. Verdicts at the lower court levels can be appealed to higher levels. The proceedings of the courts are open to the public and the rulings are easily accessible on the internet. Although rare, there have been examples of fishers taking their case to court, and the system has proven effective in resolving disputes in a timely manner. In practice, however, the vast majority of disputes are resolved within the management system, which incorporates ample formal and informal opportunities for fishers and other stakeholders to interact with the authorities (see PI 3.1.2), e.g. to clear out disagreement and conflict among users and between users and authorities. There are no binding mechanisms within the Coastal States regime that can effectively and legally resolve disputes. The inability of the coastal states to reach agreement on a TAC since 2014 has highlighted the lack of a formal and legally backed system for the allocation of quota shares, and also the lack of any dispute resolution mechanism for the fishery. At the international level in general, a state can institute proceedings against another state through mechanisms such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), or bring a dispute before the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). At the regional level in the North East Atlantic, NEAFC in 2004 adopted a recommendation for compulsory dispute settlement. None of these mechanisms have so far been widely used as means for solving fisheries disputes, but ICJ has over many decades had a number of cases regarding fisheries jurisdiction, and ITLOS has in recent years had cases on the prompt release of detained fishing vessels and the use of provisional measures. PCA was called upon in 2013 to solve certain aspects of the dispute between the EU and Faroe Islands regarding the coastal state management regime of Atlanto-Scandian herring. The case was terminated a year later as agreement between the parties was reached, but nevertheless goes to show that dispute resolution mechanisms appropriate to the context of the fishery do exist. However, the ongoing dispute in relation to the NEA blue whiting is a clear indication that the management system does not have a mechanism to address legal disputes that is ‘effective in dealing with most issues’. Hence, SG 80 is not met. Justification

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 146

Iceland is highly dependent on fisheries, and the rights of traditional users were in the main secured when individual transferable quotas were introduced on the basis of historical fishing. One of the main objectives of Icelandic fisheries management, in addition to conservation and efficient utilization of marine living resources (see PI 3.1.3), is to ensure stable employment and settlement throughout Iceland. According to the Fisheries Management Act (Art. 10), the Minister of Fisheries each fishing year shall have available harvest rights amounting to up to 12,000 tonnes which he or she may use to offset major economic or social disturbances that may occur in times of sizeable fluctuations in catch quotas, or for regional support to smaller communities that have experienced significant reduction in employment as a result of unexpected cutbacks in quotas. Such additional quotas can be allocated for up to three years at a time. The Act (Art. 6) further grants all citizens the right to fish in Icelandic waters provided the catch is for their own consumption. Overall, distribution of harvest rights is considered to be consistent with the social and cultural context of Icelandic fisheries. The NEAFC Convention recognizes social benefits as part of sustainable management insofar as it requires that NEAFC ensure the long-term conservation and optimum utilization of the fishery resources in the Convention Area, providing sustainable economic, environmental and social benefits (Art. 2). Justification

Act on Fishing in Iceland’s Exclusive Fishing Zone No. 79/1997. Act on Fisheries Management No. 38/1999, amended as Act No. 116/2006. Act on Fishing and Processing by Foreign Vessels in Iceland’s Exclusive Economic Zone No. 28/1998. Act concerning the Treatment of Commercial Marine Stocks No. 57/1996. Arnason, R. (2005), ‘Property rights in fisheries: Iceland’s experience with ITQs’, References Review of Fish Biology and Fisheries 15: 243–264. Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in North-East Atlantic Fisheries, 2006. Danielsson, A. (1997), ‘Fisheries management in Iceland’, Ocean & Coastal Management 35: 121–135. Eythórsson, E. (2000), ‘A decade of ITQ-management in Icelandic fisheries: consolidation without consensus’, Marine Policy 24: 483–492.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 147

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 65

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 4

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 148

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.2 The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Organisations and Organisations and Organisations and individuals individuals involved in individuals involved in involved in the management the management the management process have been identified. process have been process have been Functions, roles and identified. Functions, identified. Functions, responsibilities are explicitly roles and roles and defined and well understood responsibilities are responsibilities are for all areas of responsibility generally understood. explicitly defined and and interaction. well understood for key areas of responsibility and interaction. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y Y Y

The functions, roles and responsibilities of all actors in the Icelandic system for fisheries management are explicitly defined in the Fisheries Management Act and supporting legislation and are, according to our interviews during site visit, well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction. As laid out under SI 3.1.1 a), governance functions are split between the Minister of Fisheries, the Directorate of Fisheries, the Marine Research Institute and the Coast Guard. Different user groups are well integrated in the management process; see SI 3.1.2 b). In both NEAFC and the Coastal State negotiations, the roles and responsibilities of each state are explicitly defined and well understood for all areas of responsibility and action. There is no evidence to the contrary in the team’s interviews during site visits or other documentation provided by stakeholders. Justification b The management The management The management system system includes system includes includes consultation consultation processes consultation processes processes that regularly seek that obtain relevant that regularly seek and and accept relevant information from the accept relevant information, including local main affected parties, information, including knowledge. The management including local local knowledge. The system demonstrates knowledge, to inform management system consideration of the the management demonstrates information and explains how system. consideration of the it is used or not used. information obtained. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y Y Y

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 149

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

Iceland has a consensus-based system for fisheries management and long tradition of continuous consultation and close cooperation between government agencies and user-group organizations. As emphasized by all stakeholders interviewed during the site visit, lines of communication are short and much consultation takes place informally, in direct and often spontaneous contact between representatives of user groups and authorities. At a more formal level, all major interest organizations are regularly invited to sit on committees established to review changes in government, and they meet for regular consultations with the Ministry, the Directorate and the Parliament’s (Althing) Permanent Committee for Fisheries and Agriculture. These include, but are not restricted to, Iceland Fisheries (which was established in 2014 as the result of a merger between two of the most influential user-groups in Icelandic fisheries: the Federation of Icelandic Fishing Vessel Owners and the Federation of Icelandic Fish Processing Plants) and the Fisheries Association of Iceland (which also incorporates the two latter as well as the Federation of Owners of Small Fishing Vessels, the Icelandic Seamen’s Federation and others). Further, local authorities are actively engaged in fisheries management and have easy access to the management system. There are no NGOs that show any interest in fisheries management in Icelandic waters. Major international NGOs that usually engage actively in discussions about fisheries management, such as Greenpeace and WWF, do not have offices in Iceland. Local NGOs are more concerned with nature protection on land. Consultation processes cover policies and regulatory issues, and also include discussions of the annual scientific recommendations by the Marine Research Institute. Shortly after presenting the recommendations to the Ministry, representatives of the Institute enter into dialogue with the fishing industry regarding the status of the stocks and the nature of the recommendations. The Ministry also consults with the industry before setting the final TACs. The situation is similar at the international level, where user-groups participate in Coastal State negotiations, while NGOs may participate as observers at meetings in regional organizations such as the Pelagic Advisory Council (PAC), NEAFC and OSPAR. The PAC is the main consultation mechanism through which industry engages with management authorities. It includes European industry and NGO representatives ensuring local knowledge is considered within the management system. The PAC actively develops policy and advice to the European Commission, which are considered as part of the EC’s management system. Stakeholders report consultation processes to be inclusive and transparent, with management authorities displaying consideration of the information obtained from stakeholders and explaining how it is used or not used, mostly in direct communication via email, telephone or informal personal meetings. Justification c The consultation The consultation process process provides provides opportunity and opportunity for all encouragement for all interested and affected interested and affected parties parties to be involved. to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y Y

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 150

As follows from SI 3.1.2 b), the consultation processes provide ample opportunity for all interested and affected parties to become involved in discussions about fisheries management in Iceland. Authorities invite relevant stakeholders to meetings and seminars and actively seek their opinion on management measures. The level of active encouragement is considered appropriate to the scope and context of the fishery. Justification

Act on Fisheries Management No. 38/1999, amended as Act No. 116/2006. Arnason, R. (2005), ‘Property rights in fisheries: Iceland’s experience with ITQs’, Review of Fish Biology and Fisheries 15: 243–264. Eythórsson, E. (2000), ‘A decade of ITQ-management in Icelandic fisheries: consolidation without consensus’, Marine Policy 24: 483–492. References Interviews with representatives of the Directorate of Fisheries, Icelandic Sustainable Fisheries and the Ministry of Industry and Innovation during the site visit. Kokorsch, M., Karlsdóttir, A. and Benediktsson, K. (2015), ‘Improving or overturning the ITQ system? Views of stakeholders in Icelandic fisheries’, Maritime Studies 14:15.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 151

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.3 The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide PI 3.1.3 decision-making that are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Long-term objectives Clear long-term Clear long-term objectives to guide decision- objectives that guide that guide decision-making, making, consistent decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles with the MSC consistent with MSC and Criteria and the Principles and Criteria Principles and Criteria precautionary approach, are and the precautionary and the precautionary explicit within and required by approach, are implicit approach are explicit management policy. within management within management policy policy. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y Y Y

The objective of Icelandic fisheries management, as stated in the Fisheries Management Act (Art. 1), is to ensure conservation and efficient utilization of marine living resources in the Icelandic EEZ. The precautionary approach is not mentioned explicitly in the Act, but the requirement to protect marine resources and take the best scientific knowledge into account (Art. 3), e.g. through the use of reference points, equals the requirements of the precautionary approach, as laid out in the FAO Code of Conduct. Since these principles are codified in formal law, their application is required by management policy. Iceland is also signatory to, and has ratified, the 1995 Fish Stocks Agreement, which requires the use of the precautionary approach. At the international level, the coastal states agreed in October 2016 to implement a new long-term management strategy for the blue whiting stock, consistent with the precautionary and MSY approach and aimed at ensuring harvest rates within safe biological limits. Justification

Act on Fisheries Management No. 38/1999, amended as Act No. 116/2006. Agreed Record of Conclusions of Fisheries Consultations between the European Union, the Faroe Islands, Iceland and Norway on the Management of Blue References Whiting in the North-East Atlantic in 2017, including Arrangement for the Long- term Management of the Blue Whiting Stock, London, 27 October 2016. FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, 1995. UN Fish Stocks Agreement, 1995.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 152

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.1 The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the PI 3.2.1 outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Objectives, which are Short and long-term Well defined and measurable broadly consistent objectives, which are short and long-term with achieving the consistent with objectives, which are outcomes expressed achieving the demonstrably consistent with by MSC’s Principles 1 outcomes expressed achieving the outcomes and 2, are implicit by MSC’s Principles 1 expressed by MSC’s Principles within the fishery’s and 2, are explicit 1 and 2, are explicit within the management system within the fishery’s fishery’s management system. management system. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y Y P

Well defined and measurable short and long-term objectives consistent with achieving the outcomes of MSC Principle 1 are explicit in the 2016 long-term management strategy for blue whiting, as well as in the Fisheries Management Act and supporting legislation at national level in Iceland, including the overarching objective to maintain fish stocks at sustainable levels and the specific objectives defined in the management plans for the fishery. Objectives related to P2 issues are less well defined (notably for ETP species), which warrants a partial score for this PI. Justification

Act on Fishing in Iceland’s Exclusive Fishing Zone No. 79/1997. Act on Fisheries Management No. 38/1999, amended as Act No. 116/2006. Act on Fishing and Processing by Foreign Vessels in Iceland’s Exclusive Economic Zone No. 28/1998. References Act concerning the Treatment of Commercial Marine Stocks No. 57/1996. Agreed Record of Conclusions of Fisheries Consultations between the European Union, the Faroe Islands, Iceland and Norway on the Management of Blue Whiting in the North-East Atlantic in 2017, including Arrangement for the Long- term Management of the Blue Whiting Stock, London, 27 October 2016.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 153

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.2 The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision- making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the PI 3.2.2 objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a There are some There are established decision-making decision-making processes in place processes that result that result in in measures and measures and strategies to achieve strategies to achieve the fishery-specific the fishery-specific objectives. objectives. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y Y

Established decision-making procedures in the Icelandic fisheries management system – evolved over several decades and now codified in the Fisheries Management Act and supporting legislation – ensure that strategies are produced and measures taken to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. This applies to the blue whiting fisheries as it does to Icelandic fisheries in general; see PIs 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 above. Measures include, among other things, the establishment of TACs on the basis of scientific advice, technical regulation of the fisheries (such as gear regulations) and closure of areas; cf. P1 and P2 above. Justification b Decision-making Decision-making Decision-making processes processes respond to processes respond to respond to all issues identified serious issues serious and other in relevant research, identified in relevant important issues monitoring, evaluation and research, monitoring, identified in relevant consultation, in a transparent, evaluation and research, monitoring, timely and adaptive manner consultation, in a evaluation and and take account of the wider transparent, timely consultation, in a implications of decisions. and adaptive manner transparent, timely and take some and adaptive manner account of the wider and take account of implications of the wider implications decisions. of decisions. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y Y N

According to our interviews during the site visit, the established decision-making procedures at national level in Iceland respond to serious and other important issues identified in research, monitoring, evaluation or by groups with an interest in the fishery. This is ensured through the formal and informal arenas for regular and ad hoc consultations between governmental agencies and the industry. In addition, there is close contact between authorities and scientific research institutions. Both scientists and user-group representatives claim that the relevant government agencies are open to any kind of input at any time. They feel that the authorities’ response is transparent and timely and that the ensuing policy options take adequate account of their advice. From the authorities’ point of view, these consultations contribute to enhanced quality of decision-making and also to the legitimacy of the regulations. However, there are instances where research results are not acted upon by management authorities, for instance research suggesting that the NEA blue whiting consists of two distinct stocks. Therefore SG 100 is not met. Justification

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 154

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision- making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the PI 3.2.2 objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. c Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y

Decision-making processes are based on relevant scientific research by the Marine Research Institute, as well as ICES assessments. Both national legislating and the long-term management plan for the fishery require the use of the precautionary approach (see PI 3.1.3). Justification d Some information on Information on fishery Formal reporting to all fishery performance performance and interested stakeholders and management management action is provides comprehensive action is generally available on request, information on fishery available on request and explanations are performance and management to stakeholders. provided for any actions and describes how the actions or lack of management system action associated with responded to findings and findings and relevant relevant recommendations recommendations emerging from research, emerging from monitoring, evaluation and research, monitoring, review activity. evaluation and review activity. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y Y Y

The Directorate of Fisheries and the Marine Research Institute produce annual reports that are available to the public on request. In these reports, actions taken or not taken by the relevant authority are accounted for, including those proposed on the basis of information from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. This information is also conveyed at the frequent meetings between authorities and all interested stakeholders and, not least, on the website of the Directorate of Fisheries. The website contains detailed and updated information on quotas and catches broken down to individual vessels, species and gear, among other things. In the opinion of the assessment team, this counts as formal reporting appropriate to the context of the fishery, as much as letters to stakeholders would have done. Justification

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 155

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision- making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the PI 3.2.2 objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. e Although the The management The management system or management system or fishery is fishery acts proactively to authority or fishery attempting to comply avoid legal disputes or rapidly may be subject to in a timely fashion implements judicial decisions continuing court with judicial decisions arising from legal challenges. challenges, it is not arising from any legal indicating a disrespect challenges. or defiance of the law by repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y Y Y

The national management authority is not subject to continuing court challenges. When occasionally taken to court by fishing companies, the management authority complies with the judicial decision in a timely manner. The management authority works proactively to avoid legal disputes through the tight cooperation with user-groups at the regulatory level, ensuring as high legitimacy as possible for regulations and other management decisions. Regulatory and enforcement authorities offer advice to the fleet on how to avoid infringements. Only the most serious cases go to prosecution by the police and possible transfer to the court system. Justification

Act on Fisheries Management No. 38/1999, amended as Act No. 116/2006. Interviews with representatives of the Directorate of Fisheries, Icelandic References Sustainable Fisheries and the Ministry of Industry and Innovation during the site visit. Website of the Directorate of Fisheries (www.fiskistofa.is/english).

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 156

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.3 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s PI 3.2.3 management measures are enforced and complied with Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Monitoring, control A monitoring, control A comprehensive monitoring, and surveillance and surveillance control and surveillance mechanisms exist, are system has been system has been implemented implemented in the implemented in the in the fishery under fishery under fishery under assessment and has assessment and there assessment and has demonstrated a consistent is a reasonable demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant expectation that they ability to enforce management measures, are effective. relevant management strategies and/or rules. measures, strategies and/or rules. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y Y Y

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 157

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s PI 3.2.3 management measures are enforced and complied with

Monitoring, control and surveillance is taken care of by the Directorate of Fisheries, in collaboration with the Coast Guard, the Marine Research Institute and coastal municipalities. The enforcement system is based on reports from the vessels, physical inspections at sea and weighing in harbour, as well as information exchange with other states’ enforcement authorities. The structure and procedures of the enforcement system are codified in the Fisheries Management Act (Art. 17–18), while requirements to the weighing system are laid out in the Act concerning the Treatment of Commercial Marine Stocks (Art. 5–12). Fishing vessels are required to keep an electronic logbook and report catches to the Directorate of Fisheries using an electronic recording and reporting system (ERS). VMS is obligatory. Inspectors from the Directorate may accompany fishing vessels on trips or operate from Coast Guard vessels. The Coast Guard has three offshore patrol vessels, as well as a number of smaller boats, helicopters and a surveillance aircraft. At-sea inspections include control of the logbook, catch and gear. If a certain amount of the catch is found to be below size limit, the inspector can initiate a short-term close (usually two weeks) for the fishery of that particular species, vetted by the Marine Research Institute and confirmed by the Directorate of Fisheries. Inspections are conducted using a risk-based framework aimed at utilizing resources to optimize compliance at any given moment. Most importantly, 100 % of the landed fish is weighed by an authorized ‘weighmaster’, employed by the municipality and hence independent of both buyer and seller. Landing data are immediately added to the Directorate’s catch database, where the reported quantities of fish are deducted from the vessel’s quota. The Directorate operates a dynamic and interactive website, where stakeholders at all times can monitor the precise quota status for each species and observe the performance of individual vessels, their catch from each fishing trip and vessel quota status. The fact that the vast majority of fish is exported provides a further control mechanism enabling a mass balance comparison of fish in (i.e. landing declarations) with fish out (i.e. production or export volumes). The majority of fishing activities within the UoA takes place in the Faroese Economic Zone, where control and surveillance is taken care of by the Faroese Fisheries Inspection Service, in collaboration with other states’ enforcement authorities. Fishing vessels are required to keep a logbook and report catches to the Fisheries Inspection Service on a daily basis. Electronical logbooks and VMS are obligatory. The Fisheries Inspection Service has two inspection vessels at its disposal, and there is at any time a vessel from the Royal Danish Navy present in Faroese waters, which also enforces Faroese fisheries regulations. One of the Faroese inspection vessels has a helicopter on board, which enables inspectors to conduct impromptu inspections. The Ministry of Fisheries also has its own helicopter, which can be used for fishery inspections. The inspectors have the possibility to close an area with too much juvenile or bycatch for a period of up to two weeks (real-time closure). All landings have to be reported 12 hours in advance in order to give the inspectors the possibility to check the landed catch. Both landing and at-sea control is risk-based. The Icelandic fishery in the Faroese zone is also monitored by the Icelandic Coast Guard; for example, VMS data is used to control that the number of Icelandic vessels in the Faroese zone at any time does not exceed the number agreed between the two parties. From mid-2017, ERS data between Iceland and the Faroe Islands will be coordinated. There is already a tight cooperation between the Icelandic Coast Guard and the Faroese Fisheries Inspection Service, including exchange of inspectors. Hence, both Iceland and the Faroe Islands have comprehensive and transparent systems for monitoring, control and surveillance, and there are a number of possibilities for enforcement authorities to physically check whether the data provided by fishers through self-reporting are indeed correct. In addition, VMS data enables control of whether area restrictions are observed, among other things. Justification Justification

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 158

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s PI 3.2.3 management measures are enforced and complied with b Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with non- non-compliance exist non-compliance exist, compliance exist, are and there is some are consistently consistently applied and evidence that they are applied and thought to demonstrably provide effective applied. provide effective deterrence. deterrence. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y Y Y

The sanctioning system in Icelandic fisheries is codified in the Fisheries Management Act (Art. 24–27) and the Act concerning the Treatment of Commercial Marine Stocks (Art. 13– 24). A system for graduated sanctions is applied. For a first-time offence, a warning (‘reprimand’) is given if the infringement is of a less serious nature (Fisheries Management Act, Art. 24). In the other end of the spectrum, serious or repeated deliberate violations can be liable to imprisonment of up to six years (Art. 25). Fines for first offences shall not exceed ISK 4,000,000,-, depending upon the nature and scope of the violation. Repeated offences shall be fined by a minimum of ISK 400,000 and a maximum of ISK 8,000,000,- (Art. 25). Withdrawal of fishing permit can be applied in a number of situations. As an example (cf. the Act concerning the Treatment of Commercial Marine Stocks, Art. 14), if information of the Directorate of Fisheries suggests that a vessel has caught in excess of its catch quotas for any species, the Directorate must notify this to the vessel operator and master of the vessel concerned, stating in addition that the vessel’s commercial fishing permit is suspended on the fourth working day thereafter unless sufficient catch quotas have been transferred to the vessel within that time. If the recipient of the notification is of the opinion that the information of the Directorate of Fisheries concerning the vessel’s catch is incorrect and that the vessel has not caught in excess of its catch quotas, he/she must convey such objections to the Directorate of Fisheries within three days. If a permit is suspended for the second time during the same fishing year due to catch exceeding catch quotas, the Directorate of Fisheries shall suspend a vessel’s commercial fishing permit for two weeks in addition to the time resulting from the suspension provided for in the first paragraph, for six weeks if it occurs for the third time and for twelve weeks if it occurs more often. As another example (Fisheries Management Act, Art. 17), the Directorate of Fisheries shall suspend the commercial fishing permits of vessels failing to submit catch log books; such suspensions shall remain in force until submissions are received or explanations provided for the reasons for failure to submit. In the first instance of a violation which is liable to suspension of fishing permit, the suspension shall apply for at least one week and no longer than 12 weeks, depending upon the nature and scope of the violation. In the case of repeated violations, a suspension shall apply for at least four weeks and not longer than one year (Act concerning the Treatment of Commercial Marine Stocks, Art. 15). If a vessel’s commercial fishing permit has repeatedly been suspended, as provided for in Articles 14 and 15 of this Act, the Directorate of Fisheries may decide that a fishing inspector shall be stationed aboard the vessel at the expense of the vessel operator for a specific period of up to two months. The vessel operation must then pay all cost arising from the presence of the fishing inspector aboard, including salary cost (Art. 16). If there is suspicion of more serious infringements, the case may be transferred to the Ministry (Art. 18) or to a court (Art. 20). All decisions on the suspension of harvest rights are to be made publicly available (Art. 21). Also the Faroese enforcement system uses a graduated sanctioning system, with sanctions ranging from temporary withdrawal of license, confiscation of gear and fines to formal prosecution and possibly permanent withdrawal of licence. If the fishers do not accept the fines issued by the enforcement or prosecution authority, they can take the case to court. The decision of a lower-level court can then be appealed to higher-level courts. For a first- time offence, a warning is given if the infringement is not of a very serious nature. If it is repeated, the license will normally be withdrawn and/or the fishing gear will be confiscated. The duration of the withdrawal depends on the seriousness of the infringement, but typically the license will be withdrawn for a two-week period. If the offence is repeated again, a fine will be introduced in addition to the withdrawal of the license or the case will be brought to court. The comprehensive enforcement system (see SI 3.2.3 a) combined with the high level of compliance (see SI 3.2.3 c) makes it reasonable to assume that the system provides effective deterrence. Justification Justification

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 159

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s PI 3.2.3 management measures are enforced and complied with c Fishers are generally Some evidence exists There is a high degree of thought to comply to demonstrate fishers confidence that fishers comply with the management comply with the with the management system system for the fishery management system under assessment, including, under assessment, under assessment, providing information of including, when including, when importance to the effective required, providing required, providing management of the fishery. information of information of importance to the importance to the effective management effective management of the fishery. of the fishery. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y Y Y

As follows from SI 3.2.3 a) above, Iceland has a comprehensive system for physical inspection of catches, through observers and spot checks at sea and, not least, 100 % coverage of independent landing checks. According to the Icelandic Coast Guard, there have been no infringements in the blue whiting fishery since 2014. The last infringements occurring were lack of notification before entering the harbor. Most cases were caused by the same fishing vessel, which due to communication problems failed to report to Icelandic authorities (but did adhere to the NEAFC reporting requirements). The Faroese Fisheries Inspection Service similarly reports about a ‘clean’ fishery, with no significant infringements in the fishery in recent years. While inspection statistics are treated as confidential, the assessment team has not come across information that gives us reason to question the reported high level of compliance. In addition to these coercive compliance mechanisms, various forms of norm-, legitimacy- and communication-related mechanisms have also proven to be effective in delivering compliance in fisheries. In Iceland, there is a degree of social control in the small coastal communities from which the fishery takes place, and the high level of user-group involvement (see PI 3.1.2 above) may provide regulations with a degree of legitimacy that increases fishermen’s inclination to comply with them. The same applies to the relationship between fishermen and enforcement officers, which is reported to be good, not least because the Coast Guard (Iceland) and Fisheries Inspection Service (Faroe Islands) are not only policing the fishing ground, but also the most important service providers and search and rescue operators at sea. Further, inspectors are reported to approach the fishermen in a respectful manner and provide guidance on how to avoid infringements, thus taking a more consultative role in addition to their traditional policing role towards the fishing fleet. Justification Justification d There is no evidence of systematic non- compliance. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y

According to the Coast Guard and the Directorate of Fisheries in Iceland and the Fisheries Inspection Service in the Faroe Islands, there is no evidence of systematic non-compliance in the fishery. The assessment team has not come across information indicating that this is not the case. Justification Justification

Act on Fisheries Management No. 38/1999, amended as Act No. 116/2006. References Act concerning the Treatment of Commercial Marine Stocks No. 57/1996.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 160

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s PI 3.2.3 management measures are enforced and complied with Annual reports for the Directorate of Fisheries, 2014 and 2015. Email correspondence with representatives of the Faroese Fisheries Inspection Service. Faroe Islands Fisheries & Aquaculture: Responsible Management for a Sustainable Future, Ministry of Fisheries (undated) Fisheries Surveillance 2016, the Icelandic Coast Guard. Gezelius, S.S. (2003/2012), Regulation and Compliance in the Atlantic Fisheries, Dordrecht: Springer. Hønneland, G. (2013), Making Fishery Agreements Work, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Interviews with representatives of the Coast Guard, the Directorate of Fisheries, Icelandic Sustainable Fisheries and the Ministry of Industry and Innovation during the site visit. Regulation No. 224, 14 March 2006, on Weighing and Recording of Catch. Website of the Icelandic Coast Guard (www.lhg.is).

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 161

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.4 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 SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a The fishery has in The fishery has in The fishery has in place place mechanisms to place mechanisms to mechanisms to evaluate all evaluate some parts evaluate key parts of parts of the management of the management the management system. system. system Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y Y N

The Ministry of Industries and Innovation, the Fisheries Directorate and the Coast Guard report that there is a constant process of internal review and consultation, including of scientific advice, and that there is a patchwork review of technical regulations. Key aspects of the fisheries management system are continuously reviewed by the Icelandic Parliament, in committee hearings but more often at ad hoc meetings, which reflects that Iceland is a small and fishery-dependent country, with short lines of communication. The scientific basis of the management system is evaluated by ICES, while the financial side of the system is reviewed by the Icelandic National Audit Office. Hence, key parts of the management system are subject to review. It is a principal challenge to claim that ‘all’ parts of a fisheries management system are subject to review, but it seems reasonable to expect some sort of a formal and holistic evaluation of the system as such to be in place for SG 100 to be met, which is not the case in the Icelandic management of the blue whiting Justification fishery. b The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific management system management system management system is subject is subject to is subject to regular to regular internal and occasional internal internal and occasional external review. review. external review. Guidepost Guidepost Met? Y Y N

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 162

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

As follows from SI 3.2.4 a) above, the fishery-specific management system is subject to regular internal review, although not of a holistic character. SI 3.2.4 b), as opposed to SI 3.2.4 a) above, does not ask about the extent of reviews (covering some/key/all parts of the management system), but rather about their frequency and whether they are internal or external to the management system. Hence, various forms of evaluation can be taken into consideration under this SI even if they do not comprise the entire management system (the ‘holistic’ review required to score a 100 at SI 3.2.4 a)). But some level of interrelationship between these PIs must be assumed, so that external reviews of only peripheral components of the management system should not automatically lead to a positive score on the external review indicator. Hence, the external review of the scientific component of the Icelandic blue whiting fishery provides an independent assessment of the performance of parts of the fishery management system, but does not cover the blue whiting management system as such. The same goes for the reviews by the Icelandic National Audit Office, which concentrate on the financial side of the management. Therefore, with the Icelandic Government’s internal review of its own management activities, as well as some level of external review, SG 80 is met. However, it is difficult to conclude that there is a regular external evaluation of the Icelandic system for management of the blue whiting fishery because the external review procedures are incomplete and therefore only constitute an occasional review over time. Therefore, SG 100 is not met. Justification

Interviews with representatives of the Directorate of Fisheries, Icelandic References Sustainable Fisheries and the Ministry of Industry and Innovation during the site visit.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 163

Appendix 1.2 Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs The RBF has not been used in this assessment.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 164

Appendix 1.3 Conditions

Table 41: Condition 1: For all UoC. Performance PI 1.2.1: There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in Indicator place. Score 70 Rationale Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy SG 80 SI b) requirement: The harvest strategy may not have been fully tested but evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives Finding: The current situation, where the long-term management plan has been set aside and the ICES MSY approach advice on the fishery is ignored is clearly leading to a situation where the status of the stock will be adversely affected. Currently the problem is only manifested in increased fishing mortality to above F MSY. The fact that since 2011 the SSB has been increasing is mainly due to a succession of good year classes, and in particular the very strong year classes of 2013 and 2014, coming into the fishery. Clearly, as evidenced by the annual catches exceeding the advice and current level of fishing mortality, well above F MSY, the harvest strategy, based on the MSY approach, is not achieving all its objectives and the requirements at SG 80 are not met. Condition The SG80 requirements for scoring issue b) must be met. SG 80 SI b): There must be evidence that the 2016 revised long term management strategy is being implemented and is effective in reducing the fishing mortality from the current high level of F 0.465 in line with the MSY requirement for a fishing mortality of F 0.32 and compliant with the harvest strategy based on the MSY approach. It is accepted that, in terms of the SSB, the MSY based strategy is currently working with SSB well above MSY B trigger. That situation must continue as F is reduced towards F MSY. Milestones Year 1: Communication should be progressed with the Coastal States and NEAFC to promote cooperation by all participants in the fishery to deliver outcomes consistent with meeting the requirements of Principle 1 and achieving satisfactory progress towards a reduction in fishing mortality consistent with the MSY approach and, once implemented, consistent with the agreed Long Term Management Strategy.

Year 2 and Year 3: It is understood that the condition could be closed after an ICES working group assessment shows that fishing mortality has fallen to at or below FMSY thus providing sufficient additional evidence that the harvest strategy is achieving its objectives. Years 2 and 3 should therefore provide information on all relevant actions by the Coastal States and NEAFC towards achieving the requirement for evidence that the harvest strategy is achieving its objectives in relation to both SSB and F.

Year 4: The SG80 (b) requirements should be met. At the time this is achieved, this PI will be rescored at 80 or more. Client action Harmonizing blue whiting fisheries with European Union, the Faroe Islands plan and Norway. Year 1: ISF will meet with Ministry of Industry and Innovation (MII), to explain the condition and seek ways to fulfill the condition as milestones suggest and begin discussions with representatives from other coastal states and NEAFC to reach an agreement on a harvest strategy for blue whiting. In 2015 a coastal agreement was reached regarding capelin and ISF will work with MII to push for the same action to be taken regarding blue whiting fisheries. ISF will, as a client group of 48 fishing companies, exporters and producers emphasize the importance of resolution. Improvements expected: Initial approach to other coastal states in reaching a harvest control rule. ISF expects to have communicated with MII regarding the condition, and that MII will engage the Marine Research Institute to carry

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 165

out relevant analyses, to address the condition and provide information needed to for the continuance of the work, to achieve a harvest control rule. At ISF, the hope is that the issue will be agreed upon by the authorities of the coastal states, the importance of resolving it and closing the condition will be understood by all stakeholders. However, it is recognized at ISF that the actions to close this condition, are in the hands of governments of the respective coastal states. Auditing: At the Year 1 audit, ISF will present i) the most recent MRI advice for blue whiting and harmonization actions; ii) a log of actions and meetings during the timeframe to next scheduled surveillance. Year 2 and year 3: In years 2 and 3, ISF continues to provide information on the progress of the possible coastal state agreement on a harvest strategy. Improvements expected: Continued talks and communication on harmoniszation, expecting to have the issue closed, but planning for continued work into year 4. Auditing: At the Year 2 and 3 audit, ISF will present the progress from Coastal States’ meetings, resolutions or, preferably a decided harvest strategy. Year 4: In year 4, if the coastal states have not reached an agreement by this time, ISF will continue to ask for the resolution before end of the certification period. Improvements expected: It is expected that the harmonization condition will be met during or before year 4. Auditing: Evidence will be a signed agreement among the coastal states, stating the harvest strategy. However, this is in the hands of the governments of the respective coastal states. Consultation on [include details of any consultations required to meet requirements in FCR condition 7.11.3]

Table 42: Condition 2: For all UoC Performance PI 1.2.2: There are well defined and effective harvest control rules Indicator (HCRs) in place. Score 65 Rationale Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools SG 80 SI a) requirement: Well defined HCRs are in place that ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY, or for key LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs.

Finding: The requirements at SG 80 specifically require the rules to be in place which we define as ‘operational’ rather than simply available, which they are, at SG 60. The current situation is that the long-term management plan has been set aside and although a revised management strategy has been agreed by all parties to the Coastal States agreement it has not yet been used as the basis for ICES advice on the management of the fishery. The 2016 ICES advice on the management of the fishery in 2017 is still based on the MSY approach. In this sittuation the more rigorous requirements at SG 80 are not yet met. SG 80 SI c) requirement: Available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs.

Finding: Since 2013 there has been no agreement on the implementation of the management plan and for the 2014 fishery the rules dictating the allocation of TAC shares have been set aside. The result has been that the exploitation has been based on the unilateral declarations of intent by each of

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 166

the participants in the fishery. As a consecuence the actual catches have grossly exceeded the ICES advised catch based initially on the management plan but from 2016 based on the MSY approach. The ICES advised catches have been exceeded by 20%, 66% and 48% in 2014, 2015 and 2016 respectively. The resultant fishing pressure is currently well above the maximum sustainable yield level of F 0.32 (0.38; 0.47; 0.39 in 2014, 2015, and 2016 respectively). As a consecuence the currently available evidence does not support the requirements at SG80. Furthermore, in spite of an agreement, in October 2016, on the part of the Coastal States to a revised Long-Term Management Strategy for the stock, there is currently no evidence that resultant TAC advice, still based on the MSY approach for 2017, will be complied with. The two relevant clauses from the agreed strategy are reproduced below:

“4. In the case that the spawning biomass is forecast to be above or equal to Btrigger (=Bpa) on 1 January of the year for which the TAC is to be set, the TAC shall be fixed to a fishing mortality of Fmsy. 5. Where the rules in paragraph 4 would lead to a TAC, which deviates by more than 20% from the TAC of the preceding year, the Parties shall fix a TAC that is no more than 20% greater or 20% less than the TAC of the preceding year”. Condition The SG80 requirements for SI a) and b) must be met.

SG 80 SI a): There should be evidence of organised and effective cooperation between affected parties able to deliver outcomes consistent with meeting the requirements of Principle 1. This requires that the revised Long-term Management Strategy must be seen to be operational as the agreed basis on which ICES provides its advice in 2017 on the management of the fishery in 2018

SG 80 SI c): There must also be evidence that all parties participating in the fishery accept the resultant ICES advised total TAC and agree the national allocation of shares in that TAC according to the Coastal States agreement on the national percentages. The total of the national allocation of shares must not exceed the ICES advised catch. Milestones Year 1: A revised Long Term Management Strategy(LTMS) has been endorsed by ICES as consistent with the Precautionary approach and agreed by the Coastal States (with a minor amendment) This revised strategy should be used by ICES from 2017 for their advice on the fishery in 2018 and subsequent years. Year 2 and Year 3: It is understood that the condition could be closed at any time. The evidence required to close the condition will be that:  The Long-Term Management Strategy is being used by ICES as the basis for their advice:  The Coastal States allocation of shares does not exceed the ICES advice;  The total annual catch does not exceed the ICES advised catch (subject to clause 5 in the LTMS)

Year 4: The SG80 requirements should be met. At the time this is achieved, this PI will be rescored at 80 or more. Client action Long Term Management Strategy (LTMS). plan Year 1: ISF will meet with Ministry of Industry and Innovation (MII), to explain the condition and seek ways to fulfill the condition as the milestones suggest. The resolution of the condition is not upto ISF to solve, as it is an issue dealt with between governments. In 2015 a coastal agreement was reached regarding capelin and ISF will approach the MII to push for the same action to be taken regarding blue whiting fisheries. ISF will, as a client group of 48 fishing companies, exporters and producers emphasize the importance of resolution. Improvements expected: Initial approach to other coastal states in

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 167

establishing a revised LTMS, consistent with the precautionary approach. ISF expects to have communicated with MII regarding the condition, and that MII will engage the Marine Research Institute to carry out relevant analyses, to address the condition and provide information needed to for the continuance of the work, to achieve a harvest control rule. At ISF, the hope is that the issue will be agreed upon by the authorities, the importance of resolving it and closing the condition will be understood by all stakeholders. However, providing the actions to close this condition, is in the hands of governments of the respective coastal states. Auditing: At the Year 2 audit, ISF will present i) the most recent MRI advice for Blue whiting and LTMS actions by the MII; ii) a log of actions and meetings during the timeframe to next scheduled surveillance, by ISF and the government agencies involved. Year 2 and year 3: In year 3, ISF continues to provide information on the progress of the possible coastal state agreement on an LTMS. Improvements expected: Continued talks and communication on an LTMS, expecting to have the issue closed, but planning for continued work into year 4. Auditing: At the Year 3 audit, ISF will present the progress. Year 4: In year 4, if the coastal states have not reached an agreement by this time, ISF will continue to ask for the resolution before end of the certification period. Improvements expected: It is expected that the LTMS condition will be met during or before year 4. Auditing: Evidence will be a signed agreement among the coastal states. However, this is in the hands of the governments of the respective coastal states. Consultation on [include details of any consultations required to meet requirements in FCR condition 7.11.3]

Table 43: Condition 3: Only for UoC 2 (bottom trawlers) Performance PI 2.4.1: The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to Indicator habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. Score 70 Rationale Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome VME habitat status SG80 SIb: requirement: The UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the VME habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Finding: Many VME have been identified and protected (by the Directorate of Fisheries), but other VME such as soft corals, large sponge aggregations or seapens are at present not protected. Remote Operated Vehicle surveys, carried out under the auspices of the CoralFISH project (data from 2004), indicated widespread damage to corals on the Icelandic outer continental shelf, but undamaged colonies on the continental slope. According to Webster (2016) heavy trawling significantly impacts the sponge communities in the western seas around Iceland, showing a lower diversity of sponge taxa and smaller size of sponges in higher fished sites. Condition The SG80 requirements for Sib must be met. By the fourth surveillance audit necessary conservation and management measures for all vulnerable marine habitats shall be in place and implemented, such that the trawl fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, on a regional or bioregional basis, and function. This condition is harmonised with that for ISF golden redfish, ISF saithe and ling and ISF cod fisheries, but the milestones have been modified to include vulnerable benthic species such as seapens. ISF will also need to provide overlapped maps of bottom trawling activity and OSPAR threatened or

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 168

declining habitats. Milestones Year 1: There shall be evidence of the Client’s plan to evaluate potential damage to deep-sea sponge aggregations, corals and seapens appropriate to this UoA. There shall be evidence of engagement with the Marine and Freshwater Research Institute (MFRI) with the goal of evaluating potential damage to all vulnerable habitats by fishing activities. If MFRI is unable to provide support for the implementation of the plan, the fishery shall prepare the plan on the basis of other means (e.g. independent consultants or scientists or other means as appropriate). The plan may include an Environmental Impact Assessment or other similar analysis. Score 75. Year 2: By the end of Year 2 there shall be evidence of ongoing work towards the implementation of the plan; i.e. developing options for conservation and management measures to all vulnerable habitats, such that the fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, on a regional or bioregional basis, and function. These options may be developed with the support of MFRI, or may be developed within the client group, as appropriate. Options may include closed areas, move on thresholds or other actions as appropriate, but should be sufficient to ensure that there serious and irreversible harm to sponges, coral gardens and seapens is highly unlikely. The client shall provide overlapped maps of VMS records and OSPAR threatened or declining habitats. Score 75 Year 3: Evaluate the options developed in year 2. Consider suggested modifications, if needed and finalise and agree on conservation and management measures. By the end of the year a partial strategy for the protection of deep-sea sponge aggregations and coral gardens from trawling shall be agreed upon, either at client group level or at a higher level. Score 75. Year 4: Implement the agreed upon partial strategy. A formal commitment to the agreed upon conservation and management measures shall remain in place for the duration of the certification period. The client shall provide overlapped maps of VMS records and OSPAR threatened or declining habitats, to show avoidance on VME. Score 80. Client action Year 1: ISF will engage MRI for data and information on potential damages plan caused by bottom trawling on all vulnerable habitats. In the event that MRI can not provide the information and data, ISF will commit to work with an outside researcher. ISF will engage their members to agree upon and implement methods of benthic bycatch monitoring by ISF member vessels. Improvements: All available information on coral gardens, seapens and deep- sea sponge habitats’ interaction with this fishery will be brought together. Data gaps will be clearly identified. Direct monitoring of the impacts of this fishery will be in preparation. Auditing: At the Year 1 audit, ISF will present i) evidence of engagement with MRI on habitat mapping and trawl impacts (e.g. meeting agendas and summaries or similar); ii) the data available from previous mapping (e.g. MRI reports or similar); iii) information on mapping projects underway or planned by MRI; iv) evidence of engagement with ISF members on benthic bycatch monitoring (e.g. meeting agendas etc.). Year 2: Based on findings in year 1, ISF will meet with MRI and request an engagement by MRI to conserve vulnerable habitats and ask for options and plans to prevent serious or irreversible harm to habitat structures, if necessary. ISF will meet with members of the client group to discuss the condition and ask for feedback on actions made by each member to address the condition. The actions will be formalized into a plan, intended for engagement by members of the client group to meet the condition. To purpose is to ensure that serious or irreversible harm to cold water corals, sponge agregations and seapens becomes a highly unlikely causes of bottom trawling. Improvements: Implementation of a monitoring plan will have begun to monitor impacts on coral gardens, sea pens and sponges and reduce them to acceptable levels as required.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 169

Auditing: At the Year 2 audit, ISF will present the action plan, along with evidence from the monitoring efforts. Year 3: ISF will meet with MRI to discuss findings from annual research on cold water corals, sponge agregations and seapens incidents. The meeting is intended to review statistics and discuss alternative actions, if needed. ISF will meet with members from the client group to discuss effects of actions taken in year 2 and adjust for improved efficiency, as needed. The goal is to protect deep sea sponge aggregations, sea pens and coral gardens from impacts of trawling and seek an agreement among the members of the client group to this type of conservation. The actions of Year 3 are contingent on the outcome of findings showing whether and how conservation actions are required. Improvements: The plan, if required, is updated according to the results of ongoing monitoring, and agreed by ISF and all relevant parties. Auditing: At the Year 3 audit, ISF will present an updated plan, with evidence that it has been agreed by all participating parties (e.g. a signed agreement, meeting minutes, letters of support etc.) Year 4: The agreement reached in year 3 is based on a contingent that there is actually a need for it. If a plan has been proven necessary and agreed upon in year three, ISF will monitor the implementation of the plan in year 4 in cooperation with the members of the client group. Improvements: If required, the plan is implemented; it is updated as new information is available. Auditing: At the Year 4 audit, ISF will present the updated plan if necessary, with evidence of implementation (e.g. benthic logbook data, MRI report or other similar) Consultation on [include details of any consultations required to meet requirements in FCR condition 7.11.3]

Table 44: Condition 4: For all UoC. Performance PI 3.1.1: The management system exists within an appropriate legal Indicator and/or customary framework which ensures that it:  Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2; and  Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. Score 65 Rationale Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.1 – Legal and/or customary framework

SG80 SIa) requirement: Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management. There is an effective national legal system and organised and effective cooperation with other parties, where necessary, to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. Finding: Currently international co-operation does not extend to an ‘agreement and delivery of management actions consistent with … sustainable management advice’ and therefore SG 80 SI a) is not met.

SG80 SIb) requirement: Resolution of disputes. The management system incorporates or is subject by law to a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes which is considered to be effective in dealing with most issues and that is appropriate to the context of the fishery. The management system incorporates or is subject by law to a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes which is considered to be effective in dealing with most issues and that is appropriate to the context of the fishery. Finding: The ongoing disputes in relation to AS herring, NEA mackerel and blue whiting are a clear indication that the management system does not have a mechanism to address disputes that is ‘effective in dealing with most

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 170

issues’ and so SG80 not met. Condition The SG80 requirements for SI a) and b) must be met. SG 80 SI a): There should be evidence of organised and effective cooperation between affected parties able to deliver outcomes consistent with meeting the requirements of Principle 1. SG 80 SI b): There should also be evidence of an effective and transparent mechanism for dispute resolution between the parties (UNFSA Article 10 paragraphs a), h) and j) are particularly relevant to the meeting of this condition). Milestones Year 1: Communication should be begun or continued with relevant parties to promote cooperation on delivery of outcomes consistent with meeting the requirements of Principle 1 and achieving a suitable means of dispute resolution. FPO shall provide documented evidence of all correspondence, meetings, representations etc. Year 2 and Year 3: It is understood that the condition could be closed at any time. Year 2 and 3 should therefore provide information on all relevant correspondence, meetings, representations undertaken and the prevailing situation regarding cooperation between parties and dispute resolution. Year 4: The SG80 requirements should be met. At the time this is achieved, this PI will be rescored at 80 or more. Client action Harmonizing blue whiting fisheries with European Union, the Faroe Islands plan and Norway. Year 1: ISF will meet with Ministry of Industry and Innovation (MII), to explain the condition and seek ways to fulfill the condition as milestones suggest and begin discussions with representatives from other coastal states. The condition is new to the local environment but the issue is known. In 2015 a coastal agreement was reached regarding capelin and ISF will work with MII to push for the same action to be taken regarding blue whiting fisheries. ISF will, as a client group of 42 fishing companies, exporters and producers emphasize the importance of resolution. Improvements expected: Initial approach to other coastal states in reaching a harvest control rule. ISF expects to have communicated with MII regarding the condition, and that MII will engage the Marine Research Institute to carry out relevant analyses, to address the condition and provide information needed to for the continuance of the work, to achieve a harvest control rule. At ISF, the hope is that the issue will be agreed upon by the authorities, the importance of resolving it and closing the condition will be understood by all stakeholders. However, providing the actions to close this condition, is in the hands of governments of the respective coastal states. Auditing: At the Year 1 audit, ISF will present i) the most recent MRI advice for blue whiting and harmonization actions; ii) an analysis of available data from MRI iii) a log of actions and meetings during the timeframe to next scheduled surveillance. Year 2 and year 3: In years 2 and 3, ISF continues to provide information on the progress of the possible coastal state agreement on a harvest control rule. Improvements expected: Continued talks and communication on harmonisation, expecting to have the issue closed, but planning for continued work into year 4. Auditing: At the Year 2 and 3 audit, ISF will present the progress. Year 4: In year 4, if the coastal states have not reached an agreement by this time, ISF will continue to ask for the resolution before end of the certification period. Improvements expected: It is expected that the harmonization condition will be met during or before year 4. Auditing: Evidence will be a signed agreement among the coastal states. However, this is in the hands of the governments of the respective coastal states.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 171

Consultation on Client organisation is member of the quota negotiating delegation for all 3 condition stocks and has a possibility to influence the negotiations. Therefore, they can comply with an action plan without relying on the third parties, but through own activities as presented in the action plan.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 172

Table 45: Recommendations.

Recommendation PI Recommendation number 1 P2 PI Different Principle 2 PI (primary, secondary and ETP species) would benefit from UoA records of non-fatal interactions with halibuts, sharks, skates, rays and marine mammals sightings. Records on benthic species would benefit the score of bottom trawlers in PI related to habitats. These recordings would increase Information PI scorings and would increase the credibility of management strategies. Client ISF will approach the members of the organization who operate Action vessels, and discuss potential ways to increase recordings of non- Plan fatal interactions explained in the recommendation. At Year 1 audit, ISF will report on the progress. Firstly, the extent of interactions will be checked and secondly, a plan to launch a study will be formed within ISF. The study will be to explore and determine the need for continuous logging. At Year 2 audit, ISF will present a summary from the study, indicating the course of actions in light of findings.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 173

APPENDIX 2 PEER REVIEW REPORTS

(PCDR AND ALL SUBSEQUENT REPORTS)

The report shall include the unattributed reports of the peer reviewers in full using the ‘MSC peer review template’ available on the MSC website forms and templates page here.

The report shall also include the explicit responses of the team that include: a. Identification of specifically what (if any) changes to scoring, rationales, or conditions have been made. b. A substantiated justification for not making changes where peer reviewers suggest changes but the team makes no change.

[Note that if undertaking peer reviews before Peer Review College is operational; CABs shall ensure that the ‘Contact information’ table in the Peer Review report is removed before inserting in this report.]  (Reference: FCR 7.14.11 and sub-clauses)

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 174

APPENDIX 3 STAKEHOLDER SUBMISSIONS No stakeholder comments were received during consultation opportunities prior to public commend draft report.

1. The report shall include: a. All written submissions made by stakeholders during consultation opportunities listed in FCR 7.15.4.1. b. All written and a detailed summary of verbal submissions received during site visits regarding issues of concern material to the outcome of the assessment (Reference FCR 7.15.4.2) c. Explicit responses from the team to stakeholder submissions included in line with above requirements (Reference: FCR 7.15.4.3)

(REQUIRED FOR FR AND PCR)

2. The report shall include all written submissions made by stakeholders about the public comment draft report in full, together with the explicit responses of the team to points raised in comments on the public comment draft report that identify: a. Specifically what (if any) changes to scoring, rationales, or conditions have been made. b. A substantiated justification for not making changes where stakeholders suggest changes but the team makes no change.   (Reference: FCR 7.15.5-7.15.6)

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 175

APPENDIX 4 SURVEILLANCE FREQUENCY

1. The report shall include a rationale for any reduction from the default surveillance level following FCR 7.23.4 in Table 5 (46). 2. The report shall include a rationale for any deviations from carrying out the surveillance audit before or after the anniversary date of certification in Table 6.(47) 3. The report shall include a completed fishery surveillance program in Table 7. (48)

[To be included in the PCDR and subsequent reports]

Table 5 Surveillance level rationale Year Surveillance Number of Rationale activity auditors e.g.3 e.g.On-site audit e.g. 1 auditor on- e.g. From client action plan it can be deduced site with remote that information needed to verify progress support from 1 towards conditions 1.2.1, 2.2.3 and 3.2.3 can auditor be provided remotely in year 3. Considering that milestones indicate that most conditions will be closed out in year 3, the CAB proposes to have an on-site audit with 1 auditor on-site with remote support – this is to ensure that all information is collected and because the information can be provided remotely.

Table 6 Timing of surveillance audit Year Anniversary Proposed date of Rationale date of surveillance certificate audit e.g. 1 e.g. May 2014 e.g. July 2014 e.g. Scientific advice to be released in June 2014, proposal to postpone audit to include findings of scientific advice

Table 7 Fishery Surveillance Program Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Level e.g. Level 5 e.g. On-site e.g. On-site e.g. On-site e.g. On-site surveillance audit surveillance audit surveillance audit surveillance audit & re-certification site visit

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 176

APPENDIX 5 OBJECTIONS PROCESS

(REQUIRED FOR THE PCR IN ASSESSMENTS WHERE AN OBJECTION WAS RAISED AND ACCEPTED BY AN INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATOR)

The report shall include all written decisions arising from an objection.

(Reference: FCR 7.19.1)

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 177

7 APPENDIX – LIST OF VESSELS

List of vessels (with licenses) covered by UoC1:

Skr.number Name Category 155 Lundey NS 14 A 1293 Birtingur NK 124 A 1525 Jón Kjartansson SU 111 A

1742 Kap VE 4 A 1902 Höfrungur III AK 250 A 2170 Örfirisey RE 4 A 2182 Baldvin Njálsson GK 400 A

2184 Vigri RE 71 A 2281 Sighvatur Bjarnason VE 81 A

2345 Hoffell II SU 802 A 2363 Kap VE 41 A 2388 Ísleifur VE 63 A 2407 Hákon EA 148 A 2410 Vilhelm Þorsteinsson EA 11 A

2411 Huginn VE 55 A 2618 Jóna Eðvalds SF 200 A

2662 Kristina EA 410 A 2699 Aðalsteinn Jónsson II SU 211 A

2750 Oddeyrin EA 210 A 2770 Brimnes RE 27 A 2772 Álsey VE 2 A 2780 Ásgrímur Halldórsson SF 250 A

2812 Heimaey VE 1 A 2862 Beitir NK 123 A 2865 Börkur NK 122 A 2881 Venus NS 150 A 2882 Víkingur AK 100 A 2883 Sigurður VE 15 A 2885 Hoffell SU 80 A 2900 Beitir NK 123 A 2903 Margret EA 710 A 2909 Bjarni Ólafsson AK 70 A

2929 Aðalsteinn Jónsson SU 11 A

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 178

List of vessels (with licenses) covered by UoC 2:

Skr.nr. Skip Eink.st. Einkanr. Id. höfn 173 Sigurður Ólafsson SF 44 149 182 Vestri BA 63 57 259 Jökull ÞH 259 115 259 Jökull ÞH 259 119 259 Jökull ÞH 259 17 968 Glófaxi VE 300 1 1102 Reginn ÁR 228 11 1131 Bjarni Sæmundsson RE 30 101 1131 Bjarni Sæmundsson RE 30 115 1131 Bjarni Sæmundsson RE 30 33 1131 Bjarni Sæmundsson RE 30 93 1270 Mánaberg ÓF 42 27 1270 Mánaberg ÓF 42 33 1270 Mánaberg ÓF 42 93 1274 Páll Pálsson ÍS 102 73 1275 Jón Vídalín VE 82 101 1275 Jón Vídalín VE 82 33 1275 Jón Vídalín VE 82 1 1275 Jón Vídalín VE 82 73 1277 Ljósafell SU 70 101 1277 Ljósafell SU 70 137 1277 Ljósafell SU 70 141 1277 Ljósafell SU 70 45 1277 Ljósafell SU 70 135 1277 Ljósafell SU 70 33 1277 Ljósafell SU 70 139 1277 Ljósafell SU 70 1 1277 Ljósafell SU 70 73 1277 Ljósafell SU 70 150 1278 Bjartur NK 121 107 1278 Bjartur NK 121 101 1278 Bjartur NK 121 27 1278 Bjartur NK 121 135 1278 Bjartur NK 121 131 1278 Bjartur NK 121 73 1281 Múlaberg SI 22 93 1281 Múlaberg SI 22 73 1345 Blængur NK 125 107

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 179

Skr.nr. Skip Eink.st. Einkanr. Id. höfn 1345 Blængur NK 125 135 1351 Snæfell EA 310 107 1351 Snæfell EA 310 101 1351 Snæfell EA 310 27 1351 Snæfell EA 310 99 1351 Snæfell EA 310 163 1360 Kleifaberg RE 70 107 1360 Kleifaberg RE 70 137 1360 Kleifaberg RE 70 27 1360 Kleifaberg RE 70 163 1360 Kleifaberg RE 70 33 1360 Kleifaberg RE 70 93 1360 Kleifaberg RE 70 73 1395 Sólbakur EA 301 107 1395 Sólbakur EA 301 101 1395 Sólbakur EA 301 137 1395 Sólbakur EA 301 27 1395 Sólbakur EA 301 135 1395 Sólbakur EA 301 163 1395 Sólbakur EA 301 11 1433 Dala Rafn VE 5 1 1451 Stefnir ÍS 28 65 1451 Stefnir ÍS 28 45 1451 Stefnir ÍS 28 33 1451 Stefnir ÍS 28 67 1451 Stefnir ÍS 28 73 1472 Klakkur SK 5 89 1476 Björgúlfur EA 312 107 1476 Björgúlfur EA 312 101 1476 Björgúlfur EA 312 137 1476 Björgúlfur EA 312 45 1509 Ásbjörn RE 50 33 1509 Ásbjörn RE 50 73 1530 Sigurbjörg ÓF 1 163 1530 Sigurbjörg ÓF 1 33 1530 Sigurbjörg ÓF 1 93 1530 Sigurbjörg ÓF 1 11 1574 Dröfn RE 35 101 1574 Dröfn RE 35 33 1574 Dröfn RE 35 1 1578 Ottó N Þorláksson RE 203 33 1578 Ottó N Þorláksson RE 203 73 1579 Gnúpur GK 11 13 1579 Gnúpur GK 11 27

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 180

Skr.nr. Skip Eink.st. Einkanr. Id. höfn 1579 Gnúpur GK 11 93 1585 Sturlaugur H Böðvarsson AK 10 33 1585 Sturlaugur H Böðvarsson AK 10 73 1595 Frár VE 78 149 1595 Frár VE 78 1 1595 Frár VE 78 11 1611 Eiður ÍS 126 69 1611 Eiður ÍS 126 65 1611 Eiður ÍS 126 75 1629 Farsæll SH 30 45 1636 Finnbjörn ÍS 68 69 1645 Jón á Hofi ÁR 42 11 1661 Gullver NS 12 131 1686 Valbjörn ÍS 307 69 1686 Valbjörn ÍS 307 73 1752 Brynjólfur VE 3 1 1752 Brynjólfur VE 3 73 1833 Málmey SK 1 89 1868 Helga María AK 16 33 1868 Helga María AK 16 73 1902 Höfrungur III AK 250 33 1905 Berglín GK 300 137 1905 Berglín GK 300 45 1905 Berglín GK 300 21 1905 Berglín GK 300 17 1905 Berglín GK 300 93 1905 Berglín GK 300 73 1937 Björgvin EA 311 107 1937 Björgvin EA 311 101 1937 Björgvin EA 311 27 1937 Björgvin EA 311 135 1937 Björgvin EA 311 163 1968 Aldan ÍS 47 65 1972 Hrafn Sveinbjarnarson GK 255 137 1972 Hrafn Sveinbjarnarson GK 255 13 1972 Hrafn Sveinbjarnarson GK 255 27 1976 Barði NK 120 27 1976 Barði NK 120 135 1976 Barði NK 120 131 1977 Júlíus Geirmundsson ÍS 270 73 2017 Helgi SH 135 45 2019 Bjargey ÍS 41 73 2020 Suðurey ÞH 9 123 2020 Suðurey ÞH 9 137

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 181

Skr.nr. Skip Eink.st. Einkanr. Id. höfn 2020 Suðurey ÞH 9 1 2020 Suðurey ÞH 9 73 2020 Suðurey ÞH 9 11 2020 Suðurey ÞH 9 121 2025 Bylgja VE 75 137 2025 Bylgja VE 75 33 2025 Bylgja VE 75 17 2025 Bylgja VE 75 1 2025 Bylgja VE 75 73 2025 Bylgja VE 75 11 2040 Þinganes ÁR 25 149 2040 Þinganes ÁR 25 11 2048 Drangavík VE 80 137 2048 Drangavík VE 80 45 2048 Drangavík VE 80 1 2048 Drangavík VE 80 73 2170 Örfirisey RE 4 33 2182 Baldvin Njálsson GK 400 27 2184 Vigri RE 71 33 2203 Þerney RE 1 33 2262 Sóley Sigurjóns GK 200 137 2262 Sóley Sigurjóns GK 200 45 2262 Sóley Sigurjóns GK 200 21 2262 Sóley Sigurjóns GK 200 17 2262 Sóley Sigurjóns GK 200 93 2262 Sóley Sigurjóns GK 200 73 2265 Arnar HU 1 33 2265 Arnar HU 1 87 2350 Árni Friðriksson RE 200 61 2350 Árni Friðriksson RE 200 137 2350 Árni Friðriksson RE 200 33 2350 Árni Friðriksson RE 200 93 2350 Árni Friðriksson RE 200 1 2350 Árni Friðriksson RE 200 73 2401 Þórunn Sveinsdóttir VE 401 137 2401 Þórunn Sveinsdóttir VE 401 45 2401 Þórunn Sveinsdóttir VE 401 33 2401 Þórunn Sveinsdóttir VE 401 1 2410 Vilhelm Þorsteinsson EA 11 21 2433 Frosti ÞH 229 107 2433 Frosti ÞH 229 101 2433 Frosti ÞH 229 137 2433 Frosti ÞH 229 13 2433 Frosti ÞH 229 45

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 182

Skr.nr. Skip Eink.st. Einkanr. Id. höfn 2433 Frosti ÞH 229 27 2433 Frosti ÞH 229 33 2433 Frosti ÞH 229 131 2433 Frosti ÞH 229 93 2433 Frosti ÞH 229 73 2433 Frosti ÞH 229 11 2444 Vestmannaey VE 444 137 2444 Vestmannaey VE 444 45 2444 Vestmannaey VE 444 131 2444 Vestmannaey VE 444 1 2444 Vestmannaey VE 444 11 2449 Steinunn SF 10 13 2449 Steinunn SF 10 45 2449 Steinunn SF 10 149 2449 Steinunn SF 10 33 2449 Steinunn SF 10 87 2449 Steinunn SF 10 11 2626 Guðmundur í Nesi RE 13 33 2677 Bergur VE 44 13 2677 Bergur VE 44 45 2677 Bergur VE 44 33 2677 Bergur VE 44 1 2677 Bergur VE 44 73 2677 Bergur VE 44 11 2685 Hringur SH 153 45 2731 Þórir SF 77 149 2732 Skinney SF 20 149 2732 Skinney SF 20 33 2740 Vörður EA 748 137 2740 Vörður EA 748 13 2740 Vörður EA 748 45 2740 Vörður EA 748 21 2740 Vörður EA 748 73 2744 Bergey VE 544 137 2744 Bergey VE 544 131 2744 Bergey VE 544 1 2744 Bergey VE 544 11 2747 Gullberg VE 292 141 2747 Gullberg VE 292 33 2747 Gullberg VE 292 1 2747 Gullberg VE 292 73 2749 Áskell EA 749 137 2749 Áskell EA 749 13 2749 Áskell EA 749 45

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 183

Skr.nr. Skip Eink.st. Einkanr. Id. höfn 2749 Áskell EA 749 21 2749 Áskell EA 749 73 2750 Oddeyrin EA 210 107 2750 Oddeyrin EA 210 27 2758 Dala-Rafn VE 508 137 2758 Dala-Rafn VE 508 45 2758 Dala-Rafn VE 508 1 2758 Dala-Rafn VE 508 150 2758 Dala-Rafn VE 508 121 2770 Brimnes RE 27 27 2770 Brimnes RE 27 33 2773 Fróði II ÁR 38 27 2773 Fróði II ÁR 38 11 2870 Anna EA 305 101 2919 Sirrý ÍS 36 69 2919 Sirrý ÍS 36 150

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 184

8 APPENDIX –PEER REVIEW REPORT NO 1

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 185

Marine Stewardship Council

Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments

Version 2.0, 8 October 2014 Copyright notice The Marine Stewardship Council “Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments” and its content is copyright of “Marine Stewardship Council” - © “Marine Stewardship Council” 2014. All rights reserved.

Senior Policy Manager Marine Stewardship Council Marine House 1 Snow Hill London EC1A 2DH United Kingdom

Phone: + 44 (0) 20 7246 8900 Fax: + 44 (0) 20 7246 8901 Email: [email protected]

Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page ii Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Version Control

Amendments Issued

Version Date Description Of Amendment No. 1.0 1 January 2011 Date of first release 2.0 8 October 2014 Updated in line with MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements (FCR) v2.0

This document is to be cited as:

Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments, v2.0

Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page iii Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Using the Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments

This template shall be used by peer reviewers of MSC fisheries’ assessments to ensure that the content of the review is relevant and actionable by Conformity Assessment Bodies (CABs). This template ensures a consistent format to facilitate comparisons between different fishery assessments. It will also inform future developments of the MSC’s scheme requirements.

If you have any queries related to using the template please contact the Peer Review College.

NB1 The peer reviewer information should be removed by the Peer Review College prior to sending the peer reviewer comments to the CAB, as the peer reviews will be unattributed in the Public Comment Draft Report (PCDR) and subsequent reports.

NB2 The CAB shall remove the instructions and information provided on pages i-iv when inserting peer review comments in the PCDR and subsequent reports.

Peer Reviewer Information

Contact Name FIRS MILO LAST ADKISON T

Fishery Assessment Details

Fishery ICELAND NORTH EAST ATLANTIC BLUE WHITING

Peer Review College [email protected] contact details

Peer Review Due Date 5/5/2017

Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page iv Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

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: Yes. This is a well-monitored and well-regulated Received with thanks. The team agrees fishery that recently suffered overharvest because of a that the fishery is very well monitored breakdown in international cooperation. Scores reflect both a and regulated with a strong enforcement strong management system and the poor recent system. implementation of the system, as well as signs that these issues may have been resolved.

In arriving at this conclusion, I reviewed the preliminary report as well as the ICES reports 2016b and 2016c listed in the references.

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: The conditions are driven by two main issues. Received with thanks. It is expected that conditions 1,2,and 4 Three of the conditions are driven by the fact that harvests (related to the lack of cooperation have been much larger than the scientific advice for the last among Coastal States) will be closed in three years (and also apparently in the late 2000s) due to lack a timeframe of one or two years, but as of cooperation among the coastal states. Although a new mentioned below, main actors for management strategy has been agreed to, there is not yet a closing the condition are fisheries track record of cooperation among coastal states to ensure managers of the different Coastal that the TACs arising from this strategy are not exceeded. States.

It is fortunate that these excessive harvests occurred during a As regards condition 3, on benthic period of strong recruitment. Had recruitment been weaker, impact of bottom trawlers, this condition the consequences of this management failure could have been is harmonized with other MSC certified severe. As recruitment in this stock is highly variable, it is bottom trawl fisheries in the area. imperative that effective mechanisms for limiting harvest be implemented soon, as management will undoubtedly need to respond to a period of poorer stock status at some point, possibly in the near future. The new, rigorously evaluated management strategy would accomplish this if adopted.

Condition 3 is driven by evidence that the bottom trawl fishery (UoC2) may be damaging some vulnerable marine ecosystems, and that measures to monitor and minimize this damage are not in place.

If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient Yes CAB Response to close the conditions raised? [Reference FCR 7.11.2-7.11.3 and sub-clauses] Justification: The plans and timelines are reasonable, but as Is the client responsibility to put the client points out, the ability to implement the plans rests pressure on its managers to seek an with the coastal states. agreement with other Coastal States. As the condition is harmonized with other blue whiting fisheries in the area, it is Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page 1 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 expected that the different fisheries will press their respective representatives in order to solve this issue.

Performance Indicator Review Please complete the appropriate table(s) in relation to the CAB’s Peer Review Draft Report:

x For reports using one of the default assessment trees (general, salmon or enhanced bivalves), please enter the details on the assessment outcome using Table 1.

x For reports using the Risk-Based Framework please enter the details on the assessment outcome at

Document: Peer Reviewer Template, v2.0

Date of issue: 1 October 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc

x For reports assessing enhanced fisheries please enter the further details required at Table 3.

Document: Peer Reviewer Template, v2.0

Date of issue: 1 October 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc

Table 1 For reports using one of the default assessment trees:

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

EXAMPLE:1.1.2 NO NO NA THE CERTIFIER GAVE A SCORE OF 80 FOR THIS PI. THE 80 SCORING GUIDEPOST ASKS THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT REBUILDING STRATEGIES ARE REBUILDING STOCKS, OR IT IS HIGHLY LIKELY BASED ON SIMULATION MODELLING OR PREVIOUS PERFORMANCE THAT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO REBUILD THE STOCK WITHIN THE TIMELINE SPECIFIED. HOWEVER, NO TIMELINE HAS BEEN SPECIFIED BASED ON PREVIOUS PERFORMANCE, OR SIMULATION MODELS.

1.1.1 Y Y NA STOCK ABUNDANCE HIGH

1.1.2 NA NA NA

Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page 4 of 16 Date of issue: 19 January, 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

1.2.1 Y Y Y SCORING ACCOUNTS FOR CURRENT STRATEGY, REVISED STRATEGY, AND RECENT FAILURE TO FOLLOW STRATEGY. THE CONDITION IS ESSENTIALLY THAT THE AGREED-UPON REVISED MANAGEMENT STRATEGY BE FOLLOWED, SPECIFICALLY THAT F IS REDUCED AND SSB MAINTAINED AT ACCEPTABLE LEVELS; IF FOLLOWED, THE CONDITION WILL BE REMOVED.

1.2.2 Y Y Y AGREE THAT RULES THAT ARE NOT FOLLOWED CANNOT BE VIEWED AS “IN PLACE”. THE CONDITION IS ESSENTIALLY THAT THE AGREED-UPON REVISED MANAGEMENT STRATEGY BE FOLLOWED, SPECIFICALLY THAT THE TOTAL TAC IS THAT OF THE STRATEGY; IF FOLLOWED, THE CONDITION WILL BE REMOVED.

1.2.3 Y Y NA

1.2.4 Y Y NA STRONG ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING

Document: Peer Reviewer Template, v2.0 Page 5 of 16 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

2.1.1 Y Y NA

2.1.2 Y Y NA

2.1.3 Y Y NA

2.2.1 Y Y NA

2.2.2 Y Y NA

2.2.3 Y Y NA

2.3.1 Y Y NA

2.3.2 Y Y NA

Document: Peer Reviewer Template, v2.0 Page 6 of 16 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

2.3.3 Y Y NA ARE THERE OTHER FISHERIES USING THERE IS NO INFORMATION ON SIMILAR TRAWL GEAR WHERE HALIBUT ICELANDIC HALIBUT SURVIVAL AFTER SURVIVAL HAS BEEN ESTIMATED? RELEASEMENT. THE STOCK OF HALIBUT IS HOWEVER INCREASING SINCE ITS MINIMUM SSB IN 2012. THE BELGIUM ILVO RESEARCH CENTER IS AT PRESENT CONDUCTING A STUDY ON FLATFISH SURVIVAL AFTER DISCARDING. UPDATED INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND ON ITS FACEBOOK WEBSITE BUT THERE ARE NO SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS YET.

2.4.1 Y Y Y THE CONDITION REQUIREMENTS AND SO IT IS EXPECTED. BESIDES, THE TIMELINE ADDRESS THE ISSUE AND THE CONDITION IS ALREADY IN PLACE BY CLIENT ACTION PLAN INDICATES THAT SOME OF THE VESSELS DUE TO THIS CONDITION SHOULD BE CONDITIONS OF OTHER MSC RESOLVABLE. CERTIFICATES.

2.4.2 Y Y NA

Document: Peer Reviewer Template, v2.0 Page 7 of 16 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

2.4.3 Y Y NA THE MFRI BENTHIC MAPPING SEEMS THE PUBLICATION OF THE RESULTS OF CRITICAL TO THE ABILITY TO RESOLVE THE 2016 BENTHIC MAPPING IS CONDITION 3. EXPECTED TO BE SOON. HOWEVER THIS WILL ONLY REFLECT RESULTS FOR THE AREA MAPPED IN 2016. IT IS EXPECTED THAT THE COLLECTION OF BENTHIC INFORMATION BY THE MFRI WILL CONTINUE ALONG WITH THE MAPPING WITH THE MULTI-BEAM ECHOSOUNDER.

2.5.1 Y Y NA

2.5.2 Y Y NA

2.5.3 Y Y NA BENTHIC BYCATCH STUDY SEEMS BENTHIC BYCATCH STUDY IS ALREADY IMPORTANT TO RESOLVING CONDITION TAKING PLACE BY MFRI. SOME CLIENTS’ 3. VESSELS ARE ALREADY COLLECTING INFORMATION ON BYCATCH DUE TO CONDITIONS ON OTHER MSC CERTIFICATES.

Document: Peer Reviewer Template, v2.0 Page 8 of 16 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

3.1.1 Y Y Y THE CONDITION IS THAT A DISPUTE RESOLUTION BE PUT INTO PLACE TO ENSURE THAT THE AGREED-UPON REVISED MANAGEMENT STRATEGY BE FOLLOWED, SPECIFICALLY THAT THE TOTAL TAC IS NOT EXCEEDED. GIVEN THE HISTORICAL FLUCTUATIONS IN THIS STOCK, A BINDING DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURE THAT WILL CONSTRAIN CATCHES WHEN THE RECOMMENDED TAC IS LOW IS VITAL.

3.1.2 Y Y NA THE ASSERTION THAT BOTH INTERNATIONAL AND LOCAL NGOS DON’T SHOW AN INTEREST IN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT IN ICELAND IS CURIOUS.

3.1.3 Y Y NA

3.2.1 Y Y NA

3.2.2 Y Y NA

3.2.3 Y Y NA

Document: Peer Reviewer Template, v2.0 Page 9 of 16 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

3.2.4 Y Y NA

Document: Peer Reviewer Template, v2.0 Page 10 of 16 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Table 2 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 specific how the referenced? scoring issues and any relevant documentation where process(es) Yes/No possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. applied to determine risk using the RBF has led to the Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’. stated outcome? Yes/No 1.1.1

2.1.1

2.2.1

2.3.1

2.4.1

2.5.1

Document: Peer Reviewer Template, v2.0 Page 11 of 16 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Table 3 For reports assessing enhanced fisheries:

Does the report clearly evaluate any additional impacts that might arise Yes/No CAB Response: from enhancement activities?

Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

Justification:

Optional: General Comments on the Peer Review Draft Report (including comments on the adequacy of the background information if necessary) can be added below and on additional pages

Document: Peer Reviewer Template, v2.0 Page 12 of 16 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

9 APPENDIX – PEER REVIEW REPORT NO 2

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 186

Marine Stewardship Council

Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments

Senior Policy Manager Marine Stewardship Council Marine House 1 Snow Hill London EC1A 2DH United Kingdom

Phone: + 44 (0) 20 7246 8900 Fax: + 44 (0) 20 7246 8901 Email: [email protected]

Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page ii Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Version Control

Amendments Issued Version Date Description Of Amendment No. 1.0 1 January 2011 Date of first release 2.0 8 October 2014 Updated in line with MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements (FCR) v2.0

This document is to be cited as:

Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments, v2.0

Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page iii Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Using the Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments

If you have any queries related to using the template please contact the Peer Review College.

NB2 The CAB shall remove the instructions and information provided on pages i-iv when inserting peer review comments in the PCDR and subsequent reports.

Peer Reviewer Information

Contact Name First Don Last Bowen

Fishery Assessment Details

Fishery Iceland North East Atlantic Blue Whiting fishery

Peer Review College contact details

Peer Review Due Date May 5, 2017

Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page iv Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Summary of Peer Reviewer Opinion

Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes/No CAB Response appropriate conclusion based on the evidence Yes presented in the assessment report? Justification: No comments.

Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes/No CAB Response appropriately written to achieve the SG80 Yes outcome within the specified timeframe? [Reference: FCR 7.11.1 and sub-clauses] Justification: Received with thanks. Condition 1: Given that annual catches have exceeded the It is expected that conditions 1,2, and 4 advice and that current level of fishing mortality is above F (related to the lack of cooperation MSY, the harvest strategy, the condition that there must be among Coastal States) will be closed in evidence that the 2016 revised long-term management a timeframe of one or two years, but as strategy is being implemented and is effective in reducing the mentioned below, main actors for fishing mortality is appropriate and would result in PI 1.2.1 closing the condition are fisheries being scored at the 80 level. managers of the different Coastal Condition 2: The long-term management plan has been set States. As regards condition 3, on aside and although a revised management strategy has been benthic impact of bottom trawlers, this agreed by all parties to the Coastal States agreement it has condition is harmonized with other MSC not yet been used as the basis for ICES advice on the certified bottom trawl fisheries in the management of the fishery. Therefore, the conditions on SI a area. and c when implemented would result in a score of 80 for PI 1.2.2. Condition 3: VME such as soft corals, large sponge aggregations or sea pens are at present not protected. Therefore, the condition is that by the 4th surveillance audit necessary conservation and management measures for all vulnerable marine habitats should be in place and implemented, such that the trawl fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, on a regional or bioregional basis, and function. Meeting this condition would result in a score of 80 for PI 2.4.1. Condition 4: Currently international co-operation does not extend to an ‘agreement and delivery of management actions consistent with … sustainable management advice’. It is also the case that the management system does not have a mechanism to address disputes that is ‘effective in dealing with most issues’. Meeting the conditions with respect to PI 3.1.1 SI a and b would result in a score of 80 for this PI.

If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient Yes/No CAB Response to close the conditions raised? C1 – yes [Reference FCR 7.11.2-7.11.3 and sub-clauses] C2 – yes C3 – yes C4 – partial

Justification: Received with thanks. Condition 1: Given that Coastal States have recently agreed to Is the client responsibility to put and signed a management plan concerning capelin, there pressure on its managers to seek an Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page 1 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 seems to be an opportunity for an agreement on a long-term agreement with other Coastal States. As management plan for this fishery. The client’s action plan is a the condition is harmonized with other reasonable approach to meeting this condition. blue whiting fisheries in the area, it is Condition 2: The action plan here is essentially the same as expected that the different fisheries will for Condition 1. Negotiations with Coastal States and support press their respective representatives in from the ICES assessment team should provide the basis for order to solve this issue. meeting this condition. Condition 3: The client action plan is to compile existing data, identify gaps, and carry out new research on the nature and distribution of cold water corals, sponges, and sea pens. Although this is somewhat ambitious over a 4-yr timeframe, the results of this new research should meet the condition and result in a score of 80 for this PI. Condition 4: Agreement by Coastal States on a long-term management plan (conditions 1 and 2) will go some way toward meeting condition 4, but there needs to be explicit reference to the dispute resolution mechanism which is current lacking in the client action plan.

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 Table 1.

 For reports using the Risk-Based Framework please enter the details on the assessment outcome at

Document: Peer Reviewer Template, v2.0 Page 2 of 18 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc

 For reports assessing enhanced fisheries please enter the further details required at Table 3.

Document: Peer Reviewer Template, v2.0 Page 3 of 18 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc

Table 1 For reports using one of the default assessment trees:

Example:1.1.2 No No NA The certifier gave a score of 80 for this PI. The 80 scoring guidepost asks that there is evidence that rebuilding strategies are rebuilding stocks, or it is highly likely based on simulation modelling or previous performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within the timeline specified. However, no timeline has been specified based on previous performance, or simulation models.

1.1.1 Yes Yes NA

1.1.2 NA NA NA

1.2.1 Yes Yes Yes

1.2.2 Yes Yes Yes

Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v2.0 Page 4 of 18 Date of issue: 19 January, 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

1.2.3 Yes No NA A score of 100 was given to SI 1.2.3a. It is generally accepted practice that the However, there does not appear to be a same information is not used to affect the comprehensive understanding of the stock scores of different scoring issues within a struture of the target species to warrant this Performance Indicator. In this case the team score, although in other respects I concur felt that the stock identity issue was most with the CAB assessment. The uncertainty in appropriately addressed where its potential stock structure is reflected in the scoring of had the most significant impact, namely in 1.2.3b. relation to the stock assessment process and the related harvest control rules, at scoring issue (b) Scoring issue (a) addresses the broader issues around stock identify, explaining what information is available and how conclusions about stock identity have been arrived at. The team considered this raft of information about stock identity, detailing the research and investigations, to be comprehensive. Scoring of SI1.2.3.a remains at 100.

1.2.4 Yes Yes NA

Document: Peer Reviewer Template, v2.0 Page 5 of 18 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

2.1.1 Yes Yes NA Although the current scoring appears justified The reviewer is right in pointing out that there is no based on reported catches from logbooks, observer program in Iceland. However, as indicated in PI 3.2.3, there is a comprehensive inspection program by additional information on the indepentent the Directorate of Fisheries in colaboration with the auditing of log book data would increase Icelandic Coast Guard. The Faroese Coast Guard also confidence in the scoring. It is not entirely enforces fishing regulation in Faroese waters. Icelandic clear from the text, but there does not appear Coast Guard reported good relations and colaborative framework among both Faroese and Icelandic to be an observer program to independently institutions. verify the composition of the catch. Rather, The Icelandic Coast Guard has three offshore patrol Inspectors from the Directorate of Fisheries vessels, as well as a number of smaller boats, may accompany fishing vessels on trips or helicopters and a surveillance aircraft. At-sea inspections include control of the logbook, catch and operate from Coast Guard vessels. But, what gear. The Icelandic Coast Guard verifies the position of fraction of trips are checked and how are all Icelandic vessels at every moment and is in charge of these distributed by gear type and fishing the inspection program which resulted in no srea? This also applies to secondary and infringements in the bue whiting fishery in the past years, with the last infringement being reported in 2014 ETP species. and related to a single vessel that once an again failed to give landing notification before entering the harbour, until the skipper learnt how to use this reporting system. The catch is always verified when landed by accredited civil servants which measure the catch on calibrated weights. Besides,in pelagic vessels, the crew has no option to get in touch with the catch, as this is directly pumped into the fishing tanks (an on-site visit to the vessel made it clear to the assessment team of the difficulties and dangers to get in or out the fishing tanks), giving confidence to the statement that the crew has no access to the catch.

Document: Peer Reviewer Template, v2.0 Page 6 of 18 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

2.1.2 Yes Yes NA I note that in the justification for 2.1.2c it is Noted with thanks. stated that the catch is pumped into holding tanks without being sorted on board. This increases confidence in the veracity of the catch composition. This is an important point and perhaps should be highlighted in the section on compliance.

2.1.3 Yes Yes NA In 2.1.3a, there is reference to “two annual These are annual MFRI research surveys demersal surveys in order to sample catch conducted by researches on research composition (size and age) of commercial vessels. These trips take place annualy in catches.” Perhaps more detail could be Spring and Autumn. The team did asked for provided here. Are these surveys conducted information during the site visit (specifically by observers aborad commercial vessels or for benthich species information), but is this an IMR-based research survey? unfortunately collected information had not been sorted out at the time and therefore was not facilitated.

2.2.1 Yes Yes NA

2.2.2 Yes Yes NA

Document: Peer Reviewer Template, v2.0 Page 7 of 18 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

2.2.3 Yes No NA A score of 100 is given to 2.2.3b. However, PI 2.2.3 b requires the existence of SOME the team acknowledges that “stock status of quantitative information adequate to estimate minor secondary species is not always the impact of the UoA with respect to status. known” and therefore it seems problematic to Information related to removals of species by assume the impact of catches in the UoCs this fishery is comprehensive and reliable can be reasonably known. I would have (more than is requested). Besides, there is thought that the SG100 level was not met in MFRI advice on some of these species. this case.This view is supported by the teams scoring of 2.2.3c. For UoC 1 (pelagic gears), minor secondary species are mackerel (being 18% of the catch, with MRFI advice showing historical records both on F and SSB for 2015) and other 13 species which all together comprise 0.15% of the catch. For UoC 2 (bottom trawl), minor secondary species are 10 different species which comprise 0,70% of the catch. Scientific advice for some of the secondary species can be found at MFRI webpage.

The team considers that the lack of information on stock status of some minor species, which comprise 0,15% of the global catch for UoC 1 and 0.70% of the global catch for UoC 2 is already penalised in 2.2.3.c. Scoring of PI 2.2.3.b remains at 100.

Document: Peer Reviewer Template, v2.0 Page 8 of 18 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

2.3.1 Yes Yes NA Seabirds are not mentioned in the report. Are Both Iceland and the Faroe Islands are there seabird species that should be important stops for birds migrating between considered as ETP? As they are not breeding grounds in Greenland and Canada mentioned, I presume this means that and wintering grounds in Europe. seabirds are not taken in these fisheries. When asked, both fishermen and researches Nevertheless, it would be useful to be explicit from MFRI reported that bird interactions with in this regard. Seabirds also should be be the fishery do not occur and are not addressed under 2.3.2 and 2.3.3 as expected. necessary. The team has included a list of endangered bird species present in the area in the ETP section (only two bird species: Atlantic puffins and Leach’s storm petrels), and has reviewed the wording in PI 2.3.1, PI 2.3.2 and PI 2.3.3.

2.3.2 Yes Yes NA See above. See above.

2.3.3 Yes Yes NA See above. See above.

Document: Peer Reviewer Template, v2.0 Page 9 of 18 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

2.4.1 Yes No Yes A score of 100 was given to 2.4.1a for the Noted with thanks. The wording of PI 2.4.1.a PG fleet. The SG requires that there is for UoC 1 (pelagic fleet) has been revised evidence of that the UoA is highly unlikely to accordingly. reduce structure and function of the Scoring remains at 100, as interactions of commonly encountered habitats. Although the pelagic fishery with the seafloor are evidence based on the design of the gear is highly unlikely. relevant, it does not atually provide evidence that the trawl as operated in the fishery does not impact the bottom. If there is evidence from the fishery, this could be used to support the score of 100.

2.4.1b - Closures to gear with repsect to VME described here could be used to support the 100 score in 2.4.1a. 2.3.1c - Control of depth of fishing with respect to the bottom could be used to provide evidence for the 100 score in 2.4.1a.

2.4.2 Yes Yes NA

2.4.3 Yes Yes NA

Document: Peer Reviewer Template, v2.0 Page 10 of 18 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

2.5.1 Yes No NA A score of 80 is given to 2.5.1a implying that The wording of PI 2.5.1.a has been reviewed the fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key accordindly to better justify the SG80. elements underlying ecosystem structure Information has been added to clarify the and function to a point where there would be throphic role of the different species in the a serious or irreversible harm. However, the ecosystem. exisiting justification seems to fall short of supporting this score by noting only that blue whiting is not a low trophic level species and that removals are low relative to stock size. Neither of these seems sufficient to warrant a score of 80. The ecosystem models referenced may well provide stronger support for the score, but the text should be enhance to justifiy the score awarded.

2.5.2 Yes Yes NA

2.5.3 Yes Yes NA

3.1.1 Yes Yes Yes

3.1.2 Yes Yes NA

3.1.3 Yes Yes NA

Document: Peer Reviewer Template, v2.0 Page 11 of 18 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant relevant and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

3.2.1 Yes Yes NA

3.2.2 Yes Yes NA

3.2.3 Yes Yes NA

3.2.4 Yes Yes NA

Document: Peer Reviewer Template, v2.0 Page 12 of 18 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Table 2 For reports using the Risk-Based Framework:

2.1.1

2.2.1

2.3.1

2.4.1

2.5.1

Document: Peer Reviewer Template, v2.0 Page 13 of 18 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Table 3 For reports assessing enhanced fisheries:

Does the report clearly evaluate any additional impacts that might arise Yes/No CAB Response: from enhancement activities?

Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

Justification:

Optional: General Comments on the Peer Review Draft Report (including comments on the adequacy of the background information if necessary) can be added below and on additional pages

Document: Peer Reviewer Template, v2.0 Page 14 of 18 Date of issue: 1 October 2014 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v2.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

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

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-005, Rev. 00 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 187